Applied Linguistics Advance Access published December 8, 2014

Applied Linguistics 2014: 1–20 ß Oxford University Press 2014

doi:10.1093/applin/amu076

The Effectiveness of L2 Pronunciation

Instruction: A Narrative Review

*RON I. THOMSON and TRACEY M. DERWING

*,1Department of Applied Linguistics, Brock University and 2Department of Educational
Psychology, University of Alberta and Department of Linguistics, Simon Fraser
University
*E-mail: Ron.thomson@brocku.ca

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 6, 2016

Research on the efficacy of second language (L2) pronunciation instruction has
produced mixed results, despite reports of significant improvement in many
studies. Possible explanations for divergent outcomes include learner individual
differences, goals and foci of instruction, type and duration of instructional
input, and assessment procedures. After identifying key concepts, we survey
75 L2 pronunciation studies, particularly their methods and results. Despite a
move towards emphasizing speech intelligibility and comprehensibility, most
research surveyed promoted native-like pronunciation as the target. Although
most studies entailed classroom instruction, many featured Computer Assisted
Pronunciation Teaching (CAPT). Segmentals were studied more often than
suprasegmentals. The amount of instruction required to effect change was
related to researchers’ goals; interventions focusing on a single feature were
generally shorter than those addressing more issues. Reading-aloud tasks were
the most common form of assessment; very few studies measured spontaneous
speech. The attribution of improvement as a result of instruction was compro-
mised in some instances by lack of a control group. We summarize our findings,
highlight limitations of current research, and offer suggestions for future
directions.

INTRODUCTION
Although L2 pronunciation has been a concern of learners and teachers for
centuries, empirical research was scant until the 1960s, when contrastive ana-
lysis became a popular source for language curriculum design (Munro and
Derwing 2011). By the turn of the 21st century, however, Derwing and
Munro (2005), among others, noted the limited amount of recent pronunci-
ation research. They argued that pronunciation instruction had become a cas-
ualty of Communicative Language Teaching, in which a focus on meaning was
prioritized over form-focused instruction, under the assumption that pronun-
ciation would improve through exposure.
Since 2005, the tide has shifted. Many more L2 pronunciation studies have
appeared in peer-reviewed venues, conference proceedings, and graduate
theses, laying the foundation for increasingly rigorous research. Further ce-
menting L2 pronunciation as an area worthy of investigation is the emergence
2 L2 PRONUNCIATION INSTRUCTION NARRATIVE REVIEW

of annual conferences (e.g. Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and

Teaching) and the new Journal of Second Language Pronunciation. Given these
recent developments, it is an opportune time to review the literature.
The authors of the complementary pronunciation research meta-analysis in
this special issue selected most of the studies surveyed in our review, including
peer-reviewed and unpublished manuscripts. We were asked to base our
review on the list provided to us, and thus cannot comment on criteria for
inclusion or exclusion of particular studies (Lee et al. 2014).

WHAT CONSTITUTES A GOOD PRONUNCIATION TRAINING

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 6, 2016

STUDY?
As Norris and Ortega (2006) state, a traditional narrative analysis is subject to
the biases of its authors; therefore, we clarify here our conception of an ideal
pronunciation instruction study (noting that we have yet to conduct any ideal
studies ourselves).
We believe that pronunciation research and instruction should be primarily
concerned with helping learners become more understandable. This aligns with
Levis’ (2005) definition of the Intelligibility Principle, in opposition to the
Nativeness Principle, which Levis defines as the notion that ‘it is both possible
and desirable [for adults] to achieve native-like pronunciation in a foreign
language’ (p. 370). These two principles are reflected in Munro and
Derwing’s (1995) tripartite distinction among accent (how different an L2
speaker’s productions are from a local variety), intelligibility (how understand-
able L2 speech is), and comprehensibility (how easy L2 speech is for a listener
to understand).
An ideal quantitative study should: (i) provide enough detail about partici-
pants and procedures to allow replication; (ii) have large enough samples to
conduct statistical analyses, including effect sizes; and (iii) employ a control
group to verify that improvement is a result of instruction. The latter is espe-
cially critical in cases when instruction occurs while learners are newly
immersed in their L2 environment—when naturalistic improvement is most
likely to happen (Flege 1988). Moreover, an ideal study would not limit as-
sessment stimuli measuring learners’ pronunciation ability to reading aloud;
extemporaneous or spontaneous speech that better reflects natural communi-
cation is important. Assessment should also include a delayed post-test to
determine whether the intervention had a lasting effect.
To address concerns regarding ecological validity, the ideal study should be
conducted in a classroom—although laboratory research can be extremely in-
formative. If strong evidence of improved intelligibility and comprehensibility
is found in language classrooms as a result of pronunciation instruction, more
language instructors may be willing to teach pronunciation in systematic and
principled ways (Foote et al. 2011).
 R. I. THOMSON AND T. M. DERWING 3

Finally, complementary qualitative analyses should be conducted to provide

insights into individual differences in learning, such as motivation, the nature
of interactions in the L2, and other social influences. Such analyses can reveal
evidence that quantitative research cannot access.

STRUCTURE OF THE REVIEW

Our aim, following Norris and Ortega’s (2006) recommendation, is ‘to authori-
tatively answer particular research questions, and to identify gaps in research
methodologies’ (p. 4). We read and summarized 75 studies (asterisked in the
references), tabulating information from each regarding participant demo-

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 6, 2016

graphics; theoretical paradigm; scope of training (e.g. suprasegmentals or seg-
mentals); training input [classroom or Computer Assisted Pronunciation
Teaching (CAPT)]; duration of instruction; nature of assessment (e.g. how
L2 samples were obtained, scored, and whether control or comparison
groups were included); and finally, whether a significant improvement was
found. We should note that while proficiency level of learners may influence
results, it was impossible to compare learners’ language proficiencies across
studies, because no standard measure was employed. Because this narrative
account will be compared with a meta-analysis of many of the same docu-
ments, we did not conduct statistical analyses, but simply observed trends in
the data.

RESULTS OF THE REVIEW

Participant demographics
Languages being learned/language background of learners
Most of the studies we surveyed (74 per cent) examined ESL or EFL learners,
while 13 per cent investigated Spanish learners, 7 per cent French learners,
and the remaining 6 per cent, L2 learners of Arabic, Dutch, Japanese, or
Mandarin. Given the global status of English, this bias is not surprising; more-
over, all the studies chosen for analysis were written in English.
English-focused studies were conducted primarily in countries where
English is the majority language. Thus, learners had the option of interacting
in English outside the classroom (although living in the L2 environment does
not guarantee increased contact with speakers of the L2, Ranta and
Meckelborg 2013). One study of Dutch (Neri et al. 2008) and one of Spanish
(George 2013) were conducted in contexts where those languages were pre-
dominant; the remainder were conducted in foreign language contexts.
Most of the studies included participants from diverse L1 backgrounds.
Although this reflects the reality of ESL classrooms, the lack of L1-specific
instruction makes it difficult to determine what is important for learners of a
particular L1 (Derwing et al. 2012).
4 L2 PRONUNCIATION INSTRUCTION NARRATIVE REVIEW

Age of learners
Although age of learning is an important predictor of ultimate L2 pronunci-
ation attainment (Flege et al. 1995), it is rarely a variable of interest in L2
pronunciation research. Of the studies surveyed, 78 per cent reported the ef-
ficacy of pronunciation instruction for adult learners, while 12 per cent exam-
ined younger individuals. Only 56 per cent involving adults provided the
participants’ ages. The remainder largely indicated that learners were under-
graduate or graduate students, or company employees. A few studies reported
older (50+) participants, but generally did not address age-related differences
(e.g. Couper 2006; Henderson 2008; Saito 2013b). Most research with non-
adults (e.g. Kennedy 2003; Cardoso 2010; Lima 2010; Tsiartsioni 2010; Chen

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 6, 2016

and Goswami 2011) involved teenagers, although Trofimovich et al.’s (2009)
participants were 7–8 years old at the outset of their longitudinal study.

Theoretical paradigm
Few studies had an explicit theoretical stance; consequently, we used method
of assessment to determine theoretical alignment: if the speech was assessed
relative to a native-like target [e.g. Voice Onset Time (VOT), pitch contours,
accent ratings, or error counts—meaning a segment is perceived as an unin-
tended sound] we categorized them as Nativeness studies, while research invol-
ving measures of comprehensibility (ratings) or intelligibility (e.g.
transcriptions) were classified as following the Intelligibility Principle. Most stu-
dies implicitly aligned with the Nativeness Principle (63 per cent) (e.g. Chang
2006; Ingels 2011), with fewer following the Intelligibility Principle (24 per cent)
(e.g. Parlak 2010; Saito 2011); 13 per cent had elements of both (e.g. Yates
2003; Trofimovich et al. 2009).

Scope of training
When we examined researchers’ choices of focus of instruction, we found
segmentals were investigated in 53 per cent of the studies (e.g. Elliot 1995;
Warsi 2002; Garcia 2005; Huthaily 2008; Gonzales-Bueno and Quintana-Lara
2011; Liu and Fu 2011), while 23 per cent focused on suprasegmentals (Harris
2002; Yanli 2008; Gomez Lacabex and Garcia Lecumberri 2010; Muller Levis
and Levis 2012) and 24 per cent dealt with both, usually in combined lessons
but occasionally as separate comparison groups (e.g. Derwing et al. 1998;
Derwing and Rossiter 2003; Akita 2005; Gordon et al. 2013). Several papers
r
centred on a single segmental (e.g. / /in English, intervocalic/d/in Spanish),
whereas others involved several segments (e.g. Lengeris 2009 reported on 14
vowels). There was no consistent pattern in choice of segmentals.
Suprasegmentals varied similarly; for instance, Chun et al. (2013) studied
only Mandarin tone, whereas the students in Derwing et al. (1998) were
taught numerous suprasegmentals. How the effects of instruction were mea-
sured typically correlated with whether the focus was an isolated aspect of
 R. I. THOMSON AND T. M. DERWING 5

pronunciation, in which case learners’ progress was measured by examining

that particular feature. When several segments and/or suprasegmentals were
involved, researchers tended to employ global ratings.

Training input
Classroom instruction versus CAPT
The studies surveyed comprise a mix of traditional classroom instruction
(61 per cent), and CAPT (39 per cent). Interestingly, 69 per cent of the
CAPT studies appeared in peer-reviewed venues, while only 43 per cent of
the classroom-based studies did.

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 6, 2016

Of the classroom-based studies, 52 per cent focused on segmentals, 18 per
cent on suprasegmentals, and 30 per cent included both. Unfortunately, the
precise nature of instruction was often under-defined, making interpretation
of results and replication difficult. In such cases, we assumed that the
Presentation, Practice, Production (PPP) model was adopted. Some studies
(Alves and Magro 2011; Gordon et al. 2013) explicitly identified Celce-
Murcia et al.’s (2010) variation of PPP, moving from controlled practice to
communicative use of target pronunciation features, or similar approaches to
form-focused instruction (Saito 2007, 2013b; Abe 2010). Other studies empha-
sized awareness-raising or strategy training (e.g. Couper 2011; Ingels 2011;
Nagamine 2011; Sardegna 2011); developing perceptual skills (e.g.
Champagne-Muzar et al. 1993; White 2006); and the impact of recasts (Saito
and Lyster 2012a; Saito 2013a).
Of the CAPT research, 59 per cent focused on segmentals, 28 per cent on
suprasegmentals, and 13 per cent on both. Although studies using technology
were largely conducted in formal lab settings, some allowed students to access
training at home. Unlike much classroom-based research, most CAPT studies
described training in detail. Several segmental studies employed High
Variability Phonetic Training (HVPT) (e.g. Bradlow et al. 1997; Wang 2002;
Thomson 2011). In this approach (Thomson 2012), learners’ perception is
enhanced by listening to L2 segmental contrasts in multiple phonetic contexts,
produced by multiple talkers. While HVPT is well-attested in the perceptual
learning literature, only a few studies have demonstrated its potential to trans-
fer to production (e.g. Bradlow et al. 1997 for consonants; Thomson 2011 for
vowels). Other CAPT studies have manipulated natural speech recordings to
emphasize segmental cues to enhance sound identification (Wang 2002; Lee
2009). In these instances, vowel duration was altered to render it unreliable as
a cue to English tense/lax distinctions to focus students’ attention on vowel
quality. Still other CAPT studies provided learners with native-speaker seg-
mental input to imitate (Gonzales-Bueno 1997; Guilloteau 1997; Weinberg
and Knoerr 2003, Lord 2005; Pearson et al. 2011; Kissling 2013). Recorded
imitations allow learners to compare models with their own productions.
Speech imitation has also been used to teach suprasegmentals, especially
6 L2 PRONUNCIATION INSTRUCTION NARRATIVE REVIEW

pitch and intonation (de Bot and Mailfert 1982; de Bot 1983; Hardison 2004,
2005; Hirata and Kelly 2004; Chun et al. 2013), and global speech character-
istics (Hincks and Edlund 2009; Tanner and Landon 2009). In a more explora-
tory fashion, Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) provided learners with
feedback on the intelligibility of their productions (Hincks 2003; Burleson
2007; Neri et al. 2008). In ASR, the computer identifies which words or seg-
ments are mispronounced. The extent to which ASR reflects human listener
responses is a topic of debate (Thomson 2011). Only two studies used
the Internet for pronunciation training: podcasts elicited peer-feedback in
one (Lord 2008), while Computer Mediated Communication (Bueno
Alastuey 2010) facilitated practice speaking with native speakers and other

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 6, 2016

L2 learners.

Duration of instruction
Generally, the focus of instruction determined time devoted to training; dur-
ation ranged dramatically across studies. Classroom-based interventions lasted
between 30 min (George 2013) and 70 h (Parlak 2010). Furthermore, the
timeframe varied from one lesson on a single day (George 2013) to many
sessions over one year (Nagamine 2011). In CAPT studies, training was usually
much shorter, lasting 20 min (Guilloteau 1997) to 22 h (Stenson et al. 1992). In
one case, training occurred during a 45-min session (de Bot 1983), but lasted
12 sessions over 12 weeks in another (Ferrier et al. 1999). Length of training
was related to the number of features targeted. Most training occurred within
general language teaching programs, suggesting that some gains in L2 pronun-
ciation might be attributable to input from language classes; it was difficult to
know whether pronunciation training or classroom interactions led to pronun-
ciation improvement when there was no control group.

Nature of assessment
L2 speaking tasks
Reading-aloud tasks were by far the most common assessment of pronunci-
ation, employed in 73 per cent of studies. Although reading tasks were accom-
panied by other forms of assessment in some cases, 56 per cent used them
exclusively: a wordlist in 24 per cent of cases, a sentence or paragraph task in
another 25 per cent, and a combination of wordlist and sentence/paragraph
reading in 7 per cent.
Elicited imitation tasks were used in 12 per cent of studies, and were the
only form of assessment in 8 per cent. For example, to assess L2 English vowel
learning, learners listened to single syllables presented in a carrier phrase (e.g.
‘The next word is ___.’) which they then imitated in a new carrier phrase (e.g.
‘Now I say ___’) (Thomson 2011). To assess both suprasegmental and segmen-
tal features, Trofimovich et al. (2009) had learners imitate complete sentences.
 R. I. THOMSON AND T. M. DERWING 7

Picture tasks were used in 9 per cent of the studies to elicit extemporaneous
productions, but were used exclusively in 4 per cent. This included picture-
naming of words in isolation (e.g. White 2006), and in sentences (e.g. Saito
and Lyster 2012a). To elicit longer stretches of extemporaneous speech, 7 per
cent of the studies required learners to produce a narrative describing a
sequence of pictures (e.g. Derwing et al. 1998).
Spontaneous speaking tasks (e.g. conversation) were used in 20 per cent of
the studies; 13 per cent used this task exclusively (e.g. Underwood and Wallace
2012). Some assessments allowed planning time. For example, Perlmutter’s
(1989) learners engaged in a one-minute discussion of a passage they had
just read; Henderson’s (2008) learners prepared speeches relating a short an-

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 6, 2016

ecdote from their daily lives. The most spontaneous productions were from
Bueno Alastuey’s (2010) learners, who were recorded during Skype
interactions.

Pronunciation measures
In 79 per cent of manuscripts, human listeners assessed L2 productions, while
in the remaining 21 per cent, acoustic measures were made. Of the studies
using human ratings, 75 per cent assessed discrete pronunciation features; 18
per cent used global evaluation, and 7 per cent used both. In acoustic studies
researchers measured discrete features of the speech signal, such as VOT
for stops (e.g. Suarez 2008), formants for vowel diphthongization (e.g.
Counselman 2010), and pitch (e.g. Hincks and Edlund 2009).

Use of control and comparison groups

Sixty per cent of studies included a control group. Of these, 40 per cent also
had a comparison group. Comparison groups typically entailed two or more
sets of learners who received different pronunciation training. Of those studies
lacking a control group, 47 per cent had at least one comparison group.
Twenty-one per cent of all studies had neither a control nor a comparison
group. In several studies (Stenson et al. 1992; Hincks 2003; Hincks and
Edlund 2009; Abe 2010), researchers referred to comparison groups (who
received different training) as control groups.

Pronunciation instruction and significant improvement

On the surface, it appears that pronunciation instruction is effective in improv-
ing the target form(s). Eighty-two per cent of the studies reported significant
improvement. Given the heavy focus on discrete pronunciation features, how-
ever, it is unclear to what extent these interventions led to more comprehen-
sible L2 speech. In contrast, only 15 per cent (11 studies) reported human
listeners’ global perceptions of improvement. Removing the four studies
from this group that fell within the Nativeness paradigm, only seven studies
showing significant improvement met the gold standard of enhanced
8 L2 PRONUNCIATION INSTRUCTION NARRATIVE REVIEW

comprehensibility and intelligibility, representing only 9 per cent of all the

studies surveyed.
When we consider assessment protocols, the most controlled task, reading-
aloud, accounts for nearly half the positive results for global improvement
(Derwing et al. 1997; Hardison 2004; Lord 2008; Ruellot 2011; Saito 2011).
The slightly less-controlled sentence imitation task was also used in several
studies (Champagne-Muzar et al.1993; Trofimovich et al. 2009; Gordon et al.
2013). Picture narrative tasks eliciting extemporaneous speech were employed
in two successful studies (Derwing et al. 1998; Parlak 2010) and spontaneous
speech production improved in two studies (Perlmutter 1989; Hardison 2005).
However, Perlmutter’s study occurred during the first six months the learners

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 6, 2016

were in an English environment, and did not include a control group; thus we
cannot be sure that the intervention caused the improvement. Increased inter-
action may have led to the learners’ enhanced comprehensibility. In
Hardison’s study, improvement was measured using an accent scale rather
than comprehensibility. We conclude that although many pronunciation
teaching studies reported significant improvement after brief and long-term
training, current research is limited because indications of improvement are
almost entirely based on discrete pronunciation features. These features’ ef-
fects on comprehensibility and intelligibility in contextualized spontaneous
speech are unknown. That is, many of the studies lack ecological validity.
No obvious patterns emerged to explain the lack of significant pronunciation
improvement in the remaining 18 per cent of studies. This group represented a
broad mix of classroom instruction and CAPT. They were equally balanced in
terms of segmental versus suprasegmental focus, with a few including both.
Neither did training duration account for the lack of significant findings.

DISCUSSION
Participant demographics
Languages being learned/language background of learners
Individual differences across learners in L2 pronunciation studies do not fea-
ture prominently in the literature, although they are sometimes mentioned
(Bajuniemi 2013). Munro et al. (forthcoming, in press) argue that individual
differences are important because the mean learning trajectories for a given
sample may not represent even a single learner from within that sample.
However, understanding how individual differences affect learning trajectories
will allow results to be more readily generalizable to new learners.
More research examining L2 pronunciation instruction for languages other
than English is needed. Not only would such research benefit learners of those
languages, it may also reveal cross-linguistic developmental patterns vis-a-vis
language-specific issues. Correspondingly, more research controlling for the
learners’ L1 is needed. While some learning trajectories may be similar
 R. I. THOMSON AND T. M. DERWING 9

regardless of the learners’ L1, difficulties may result from an interaction be-
tween the L1 and the L2. Furthermore, individual variation within an L1
group is generally high (Munro et al. in press). A better understanding of
what should constitute a common pronunciation curriculum for mixed L1
groups, which needs are L1-specific, and which are subject to individual vari-
ation would inform pedagogical practice by identifying pronunciation features
that develop naturalistically, those features that may benefit a majority of
learners, and elements to be addressed on a learner-by-learner basis.
Because it is a global lingua franca, English as an L2 has been researched
more extensively than other languages. One consequence is the development
of a selection criterion for English segmental instruction based on the notion of

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 6, 2016

functional load. Catford (1987) proposed that functional load, the number of
minimal pairs that two phonemic contrasts distinguish, should guide the
choice of segments to be taught. High functional load contrasts are more im-
portant for comprehensibility than low functional load contrasts, and should
thus be prioritized, as demonstrated in Munro and Derwing (2006). A deter-
mination of functional load for other languages would be helpful to in-
structors. There is no parallel guiding rubric for suprasegmentals, although
research suggests the importance of nuclear stress (Hahn 2004) word stress
(Field 2005), tone (Chun et al. 2013), and listeners’ expectations (Zielinski
2008).

Age of learners
Most studies target young adults and/or immigrant learners. More research
should investigate explicit pronunciation instruction with learners of different
ages. While the relationship between age and foreign accent is undeniable, it is
also clear that among learners of a similar age, the degree of exposure/experi-
ence with the L2 predicts strength of accent (Flege et al. 1995). How instruction
can positively affect the pronunciation of older learners should be investigated
(Derwing et al. 2014).

Theoretical paradigm
Almost all the studies we examined lacked an overt theoretical stance.
Although L2 speech science is usually situated in Flege’s Speech Learning
Model (1995) or Best’s Perceptual Assimilation Model (1995), classroom-
based studies are largely atheoretical. During the Audiolingual period, pronun-
ciation instruction was guided by contrastive analysis, but in the 1970s,
pronunciation fell out of vogue. Most practitioners who continued to teach
pronunciation relied on intuition and experience, but most researchers
ignored L2 pronunciation altogether. Now, with a revival of interest, few re-
searchers have adopted a theory [but note that Couper 2011 invokes cognitive
phonology, and Derwing et al. (2014) draw upon MacIntyre’s (2007)
Willingness to Communicate framework). Researchers tend to ask what the
10 L2 PRONUNCIATION INSTRUCTION NARRATIVE REVIEW

consequences of instruction are, but not why. Moreover, we see a confounding

of accent with intelligibility and comprehensibility, even though these are
partially independent speech dimensions. The distinctions are important be-
cause they should determine which features of L2 pronunciation are priori-
tized for instruction. In particular, we observed segmental studies that
concentrated on subphonemic differences or consonants that carry a low func-
tional load. Such research can show an effect for instruction, but from our
standpoint, the speech of students in such studies may have had other char-
acteristics with a stronger impact on comprehensibility. At the very least,
studies should be guided by the Intelligibility Principle, but we agree with
Larsen-Freeman (2008: 292) who argues, ‘a significant role of theory is to

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 6, 2016

make the unconscious conscious. A theory helps us learn to look’.
Given the evidence that it is difficult for most adult L2 speakers to acquire
native-like speech (e.g. Flege et al. 1995), we take the view that native-like
pronunciation is an unrealistic goal, but that improved intelligibility and com-
prehensibility are achievable, and that L2 pronunciation research focusing on
these speech dimensions is of more practical value than studies of accentedness
alone. Thus the first step of any L2 pronunciation study should be to establish
whether the form under consideration is problematic for intelligibility/com-
prehensibility. If not, the goal of improved accuracy amounts to accent reduc-
tion (see Thomson 2014). Unless L2 speakers are already clear, and no aspects
of their speech interfere with understanding, accent reduction alone is a
misuse of learners’ and teachers’ time.

Scope of training
When we examined scope of training, we found studies that dealt with one or
two individual aspects of speech, while others covered several segmentals and/
or suprasegmentals. There are benefits to both approaches, but ultimately,
learners must use connected speech to communicate. Whether a single seg-
mental mispronunciation is deleterious to intelligibility is unclear; in contex-
tualized language, one mispronounced segment (in the absence of other
differences) will not usually cause difficulties for the listener. However, most
L2 speakers who have communication problems pronounce several segmentals
and suprasegmentals in ways that interfere with understanding.
Suprasegmental research is under-represented here; future studies should ad-
dress suprasegmental phenomena to a greater extent.

Training input
Classroom instruction versus CAPT
The studies contained a mix of classroom instruction and CAPT. Descriptions of
methodology in classroom research were often inadequate, making replication
difficult. Insufficient details limit language teachers’ ability to apply the
 R. I. THOMSON AND T. M. DERWING 11

information in their own classes. Thus, we encourage researchers to provide

more specifics for the benefit of other researchers and teachers.
Research investigating CAPT typically provides more detail, and spans a
wide variety of approaches. While some CAPT studies make use of technology
in novel ways, others report techniques that mimic traditional classroom for-
mats. A strong appeal of CAPT is its ability to provide learners with more
practice than they can normally access in a traditional program. Computer-
based approaches may promote greater learner autonomy and, most import-
antly, afford the possibility of individualized instruction. It is surprising that so
few studies investigated web-based CAPT. While this medium is not particu-
larly popular with language teachers, it is very popular with services labelled

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 6, 2016

accent reduction or accent modification (Thomson 2014).
Whatever format is used, since pronunciation difficulties vary across stu-
dents, individualized practice is crucial. Given competing demands on learners’
time, instructors have a vital role to play in ensuring they get sufficient
practice. For example, Ferrier et al. (1999) found that one group of learners,
because they were actively monitored by the instructor, significantly outper-
formed a group that was not.

Duration of instruction
It is notoriously difficult to accurately measure the language input L2 learners
receive. Nevertheless, based on the information provided, we conclude that
the amount of pronunciation-specific input learners access is related to scope
of instruction. This suggests that global improvement in comprehensibility/
intelligibility requires weeks or even months of instruction, not hours or days.
It may also be the case that pronunciation will continue to improve after
explicit training, especially in instances where instruction raises learners’
awareness of pronunciation features. Delayed post-tests are necessary to meas-
ure whether instruction results in ongoing improvement relative to control
groups. For example, Couper’s (2006) delayed post-test, a semester after train-
ing was complete, showed that learners were still significantly better at elim-
inating epenthesis from their speech than before training. Conversely, Ruellot
(2011) found significant improvement in the production of L2 French vowels
after two 50-min training sessions, but learners returned to pre-training per-
formance in a delayed post-test just one week later.

Nature of assessment
L2 speaking tasks
The heavy reliance on reading-aloud tasks ensures that the pronunciation
feature of interest is assessed, but these tasks are not necessarily representative
of learners’ productions when they must retrieve vocabulary and grammar, in
addition to pronouncing more comprehensibly. Productions in a word list or
sentences may not generalize to spontaneous speech. Tests involving
12 L2 PRONUNCIATION INSTRUCTION NARRATIVE REVIEW

contextualized use of language, such as picture narratives, monologues, or

conversations, contribute more information not only about the pronunciation
phenomena in question, but also whether changes to intelligibility/compre-
hensibility can be identified in global speech patterns.

Pronunciation measures
How researchers measured improvement was unclear in some instances.
Designations such as ‘correct versus incorrect’ were not defined—was the in-
tention ‘close enough to be recognized as a particular phoneme’ or was it
‘native-like versus non-nativelike’?
A dilemma for many researchers was the issue of pre-test, post-test con-

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 6, 2016

tent—should it be the same, risking a learning effect, or different (e.g.
Henderson 2008), risking the possibility that the pronunciation features of
interest will not emerge? In one study (Barb 2005), the learners practiced
test items throughout the term, and outperformed the control group; however,
it is preferable to avoid using test items during instruction to determine
whether learners can generalize on the test. Another limitation of some studies
was the failure to report inter-rater reliability when multiple raters participated
in listening tasks.
Acoustic analyses can be informative, but cannot serve as a replacement for
listener judgments. For instance, Saito and Lyster (2012b) measured changes
in vowels acoustically, but this analysis assumes that vowels are in a steady
state, which they are not. More to the point, measurable changes are not
always noticeable to listeners; in the final analysis, it is what listeners perceive
that matters.
Furthermore, although a change in error rates (correct or incorrect) may be
indicative of a change in accent, error rates may not adequately represent what
listeners attend to or what interferes with comprehension of L2 speech. That is,
accent can be altered with no accompanying change to comprehensibility/in-
telligibility; moreover, instruction can enhance comprehensibility without
reducing accentedness (Munro and Derwing 2014). Ratings offer a clearer in-
dication of improved comprehensibility while orthographic transcriptions of
speech samples demonstrate the degree to which listeners have understood the
intended message (intelligibility).
Finally, it is important to note that research on pronunciation instruction
rarely measures learners’ perceptions of L2 sound patterns (but see
Saalfeld 2011 and Thomson 2012). Perception and production are closely
related (Flege 1995) and both should be assessed to determine the efficacy
of instruction.

Use of control and comparison groups

While not optimal, there are practical reasons for not including a control group
in a pronunciation study. In the context of intact language classrooms, all
 R. I. THOMSON AND T. M. DERWING 13

learners may want to receive instruction (Thomson 2011); some may perceive
inequality if assigned to a control group, thus posing an ethical dilemma. In
such cases, the use of comparison groups may provide some insight beyond
what a single experimental group can reveal. The absence of a control group
is most deleterious in contexts where the training is lengthy and entails
general language learning in addition to pronunciation interventions. For
example, Stenson et al.’s (1992) study included 75 hours of practice with L2
speaking, 22 of which comprised pronunciation-specific training. In this con-
text, one cannot conclude that significant improvement occurred as a direct
result of pronunciation instruction. The learners may have improved without
training, given the other L2 input and practice they received. Conversely, we

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 6, 2016

can more safely assume that the experimental groups in Thomson (2011) im-
proved as a result of training since it lasted only two hours over three weeks. In
that study, the participants were adults who had attended full-time ESL classes
for over a year. Prior research had indicated that a similar group was unlikely
to experience significant improvement in a short period without an interven-
tion (Munro and Derwing 2008). We conclude that when learners are begin-
ners or early on in their exposure to the language, a control group is essential,
since considerable improvement can occur through initial experience
(Flege 1988).

Pronunciation instruction and significant improvement

Based on the studies surveyed, pronunciation instruction is quite effective
and usually leads to significant improvement. However, these encouraging
results are tempered by the fact that most studies examined only a very
limited subset of pronunciation features. It is not surprising that large gains
r
are possible when a single sound is targeted (e.g. / / in L2 English or inter-
vocalic /d/ in L2 Spanish). Since a given speaker may need instruction in
numerous segmental and suprasegmental features, the accumulative dur-
ation of instruction required to become ‘comfortably intelligible’
(Abercrombie 1956: 37) is presumably longer than that suggested by brief
training on a single sound. Furthermore, in the case of the studies framed
within the Nativeness paradigm, it is unclear to what extent any observed
significant improvement actually resulted in more intelligible/comprehen-
sible speech.
The lack of ecological validity in some forms of assessment, particularly
reading aloud, may lend itself to findings of improvement that do not translate
into meaningful pronunciation gains in the real world. We are not suggesting
that these forms of assessment are useless. In fact, significant improvement,
even in controlled contexts, may still lead to long-term gains in intelligibility.
However, these concerns do demand that greater care be taken in how
studies investigating the efficacy of pronunciation interventions are con-
ducted. Not only should the focus of instruction be aligned with the goal
of more-intelligible, as opposed to less-accented speech, it should include a
14 L2 PRONUNCIATION INSTRUCTION NARRATIVE REVIEW

variety of assessment tasks. Delayed post-tests should be conducted to deter-

mine whether there is long-term retention related to a specific intervention.
Finally, it is important to understand naturalistic development of L2 pro-
nunciation in the absence of instruction. Research suggests that most natural-
istic phonological learning occurs during the first year in an L2 environment
(Flege 1988) and that L2 comprehensibility can decline in the absence of
meaningful exposure or explicit instruction (Derwing and Munro 2013).
Measuring naturalistic change requires testing intervals measured in years,
not months or weeks.

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 6, 2016

CONCLUSION
Pronunciation instruction is no longer a neglected domain of second language
teaching and research. The number of studies surveyed indicates that the field
is growing rapidly. However, there is considerable variability in reporting
standards that limits replicability. We note very modest scaffolding using exist-
ing research. What we can confidently conclude is that explicit instruction of
phonological forms can have a significant impact, likely because it orients
learners’ attention to phonetic information, which promotes learning in a
way that naturalistic input does not.
L2 pronunciation differs from other aspects of second language acquisition
in that it is not tied to proficiency—a beginner can have excellent productions
and an individual with a superb grasp of L2 syntax and vocabulary can be
difficult to understand. In general language classrooms, unevenness in stu-
dents’ pronunciation puts the instructor in a difficult situation. From the
standpoint of the Intelligibility Principle, easy-to-understand individuals may
not need any instruction whereas those with communication challenges re-
sulting from their L2 pronunciation require support. Teachers should individu-
alize instruction, assigning work to students who need it, while others focus on
different tasks. However, this scenario requires skilled instructors who can
determine the pronunciation needs of a given learner, guided by intelligibil-
ity/comprehensibility rather than salient accent features.
In the final analysis, learners with intelligibility/comprehensibility issues
would benefit from informed instruction, which may lead not only to im-
proved productions, but also to greater willingness on their part and the part
of their interlocutors to communicate. In immigrant situations, native speakers
of the L2 can be helped to become better listeners as well (Derwing et al. 2002;
Kang and Rubin 2012). When L2 speakers are difficult to understand, they are
unlikely to have many extended interactions and may lose any pronunciation
gains made in general language classes (Derwing and Munro 2013).
Communication is a two-way street, thus L2 speakers’ interlocutors sometimes
need support in building confidence that they have the skills to interact with
L2 accented individuals.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank Jenna Cheeseman for assistance with gathering literature for this
review. They also acknowledge the editors of this special issue for helpful feedback. We thank
two anonymous reviewers and Rod Ellis for comments on an earlier version. We acknowledge
Murray Munro and John Levis for their ongoing influence. Finally, we thank the participants in
our own research and SSHRCC for financial support.
REFERENCES
*Asterisked studies were included in the narrative
analysis.
*Abe, H. 2010. ‘Form-focused instruction in L2
pronunciation pedagogy: The effect of negoti-
ation of form in a Japanese classroom’
in K. Dziubalska-Kołaczy, M. Wrembel, and
M. Kul (eds): Proceedings of the Sixth
International Symposium on the Acquisition of
Second Language Speech New Sounds. Adam
Mickiewicz University, pp. 1–6.
Abercrombie, D. 1956. Problems and Principles
Studies in the Teaching of English as a Second
Language. Longmans Green.
*Akita, M. 2005. ‘The effectiveness of a prosody-
oriented approach in L2 perception and pro-
nunciation training,’ Academic Studies, English
Language and Literature 53: 1–22.
*Alves, U. and V. Magro. 2011. ‘Raising aware-
ness of L2 phonology: Explicit instruction and
the acquisition of aspirated /p/ by Brazilian
Portuguese speakers,’ Letras de Hoje 46/3: 71–80.
*Bajuniemi, A. 2013. ‘Teaching intervention on
the pronunciation of Spanish intervocalic /d/’
in C. Howe, S. E. Blackwell, and
M. L. Quesada (eds): Selected Proceedings of the
15th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Cascadilla
Proceedings Project, pp. 39–50.
*Barb, C. 2005. ‘Suprasegmentals and compre-
hensibility: A comparative study in accent
modification,’ Unpublished Ph.D. thesis,
University of Kansas.
Best, C. T. 1995. ‘A direct realist view
of cross-language speech perception’
in W. Strange (ed.): Speech Perception and
Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-language
Research. York Press, pp. 171–204.
*Bradlow, A. R., D. B. Pisoni, R. Akahane-
Yamada, and Y. Tokhura. 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 101/4: 2299–310.
R. I. THOMSON AND T. M. DERWING 15
*Bueno Alastuey, M. C. 2010. ‘Synchronous-
Voice Computer-Mediated Communication:
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 6, 2016
Effects on Pronunciation,’ CALICO Journal
28/1: 1–20.
*Burleson, D. 2007. ‘Training segmental produc-
tions for second language intelligibility,’
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Indiana University.
*Cardoso, W. 2010. ‘Teaching foreign sC onset
clusters: Comparing the effects of three types
of instruction’ in K. Dziubalska-Kołaczy,
M. Wrembel, and M. Kul (eds): Proceedings
of the Sixth International Symposium on the
Acquisition of Second Language Speech New
Sounds. Adam Mickiewicz University,
pp. 61–66.
Catford, J. C. 1987. ‘Phonetics and the teaching
of pronunciation: A systemic description of
English phonology’ in J. Morley (ed.): Current
Perspectives on Pronunciation: Practices Anchored in
Theory. TESOL, pp. 87–100.
Celce-Murcia, M., D. M. Brinton, J.
M. Goodwin with, and B. Griner. 2010.
Teaching Pronunciation: A Course Book and
Reference Guide, 2nd edn. Cambridge
University Press.
*Champagne-Muzar, C., E. I. Schneiderman,
and J. S. Bourdages. 1993. ‘Second language
accent: The role of the pedagogical environ-
ment,’ IRAL 31/2: 143–60.
*Chang, M. G. 2006. ‘Pronunciation instruction,
learner awareness and development,’
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto.
*Chen, H. and J. S. Goswami. 2011.
‘Structuring cooperative learning in teaching
English pronunciation,’ English Language
Teaching 4/3: 26–32.
*Chun, D. M., Y. Jiang, and N. Ávila. 2013.
‘Visualization of tone for learning Mandarin
Chinese’ in J. Levis and K. LeVelle (eds):
Proceedings of the 4th Pronunciation in Second
Language Learning and Teaching Conference.
Iowa State University, pp. 77–89.
16 L2 PRONUNCIATION INSTRUCTION NARRATIVE REVIEW
*Counselman, D. 2010. ‘Improving pronunci-
ation instruction in the second language class-
room,’ Unpublished PhD. thesis, Pennsylvania
State University.
*Couper, G. 2006. ‘The short and long-term
effects of pronunciation instruction,’ Prospect
21/1: 46–66.
Couper, G. 2011. ‘What makes pronunciation
teaching work? Testing for the effect of two
variables: socially constructed metalanguage
and critical listening,’ Language Awareness
20/3: 159–82.
*de Bot, K. 1983. ‘Visual feedback of intonation:
Effectiveness and induced practice behavior,’
Language and Speech 26/4: 331–50.
*de Bot, K. and K. Mailfert. 1982. ‘The teach-
ing of intonation: Fundamental research and
classroom applications,’ TESOL Quarterly 16/1:
71–7.
Derwing, T. M. and M. J. Munro. 2005.
‘Second language accent and pronunciation
teaching: A research-based approach,’ TESOL
Quarterly 39/3: 379–97.
Derwing, T. M. and M. J. Munro. 2013. ‘The
development of L2 oral language skills in two
L1 groups: A 7-year study,’ Language Learning
63/2: 163–85.
*Derwing, T. M. and M. Rossiter. 2003. ‘The
effects of pronunciation instruction on the ac-
curacy, fluency and complexity of L2 ac-
cented speech,’ Applied Language Learning
13/1: 1–17.
Derwing, T. M., M. J. Munro, J. A. Foote,
E. Waugh, and J. Fleming. 2014. ‘Opening
the window on comprehensible pronunciation
after 19 years: A workplace training study,’
Language Learning 64/3: 526–48.
*Derwing, T. M., M. J. Munro, and G. Wiebe.
1997. ‘Pronunciation instruction for fossilized
learners: Can it help?,’ Applied Language
Learning 8/2: 217–35
*Derwing, T. M., M. J. Munro, and G. Wiebe.
1998. ‘Evidence in favor of a broad framework
for pronunciation instruction,’ Language
Learning 48/3: 393–410.
Derwing, T. M., M. J. Rossiter, and M.
J. Munro. 2002. ‘Teaching native speakers to
listen to foreign-accented speech,’ Journal of
Multicultural and Multilingual Development 23/4:
245–59.
Derwing, T. M., R. I. Thomson, J. A. Foote,
and M. J. Munro. 2012. ‘A longitudinal study
of listening perception in adult learners of
English: Implications for teachers,’ Canadian
Modern Language Review 68/3: 247–66.
*Elliot, A. R. 1995. ‘Foreign language phon-
ology: Field independence, attitude, and the
success of formal instruction in Spanish pro-
nunciation,’ The Modern Language Journal 79/
4: 530–42.
*Ferrier, L. J., L. N. Reid, and K. Chenausky.
1999. ‘Computer-assisted accent modification:
A report on practice effects,’ Topics in
Language Disorders 19/4: 35–48.
Field, J. 2005. ‘Intelligibility and the listener:
The role of lexical stress,’ TESOL Quarterly 39/
3: 399–423.
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 6, 2016
Flege, J. E. 1988. ‘Factors affecting degree of
perceived foreign accent in English sentences,’
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 84/1:
70–9.
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. York Press, pp. 233–77.
Flege, J. E., M. J. Munro, and I. R.
A. MacKay. 1995. ‘Factors affecting strength
of perceived foreign accent in a second lan-
guage,’ Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America 97/5: 3125–34.
Foote, J. A., A. K. Holtby, and T.
M. Derwing. 2011. ‘Survey of the teaching
of pronunciation in adult ESL programs in
Canada, 2010,’ TESL Canada Journal 29/1:
1–22.
*Garcia, N. M. 2005. ‘The impact of explicit in-
struction on phonological acquisition,’
Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of
Pittsburgh.
*George, A. 2013. ‘The development of //, a
variable geographic phonetic feature, during a
semester abroad: The role of explicit instruc-
tion’ in J. Levis and K. LeVelle (eds):
Proceedings of the 4th Pronunciation in Second
Language Learning and Teaching Conference.
Iowa State University, pp. 120–8.
*Gomez Lacabex, E. and M. L. Garcia
Lecumberri. 2010. ‘Investigating training ef-
fects in the production of English weak forms
by Spanish learners’ in K. Dziubalska-
Kołaczyk, M. Wrembel, and M. Kul (eds):
Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium
on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech
New Sounds. Adam Mickiewicz University,
pp. 137–43.

*Gonzales-Bueno, M. 1997. ‘The effects of
formal instruction on the acquisition of
Spanish stop consonants,’ Contemporary
Perspectives on the Acquisition of Spanish 2:
57–75.
*Gonzales-Bueno, M. and M. Quintana-
Lara. 2011. ‘The teaching of second lan-
guage pronunciation through processing in-
struction,’ Applied Language Learning 21/1–2:
53–78.
*Gordon, J., I. Darcy, and D. Ewert. 2013.
‘Pronunciation teaching and learning: Effects
of explicit phonetic instruction in the L2 class-
room’ in J. Levis and K. LeVelle (eds):
Proceedings of the 4th Pronunciation in Second
Language Learning and Teaching Conference.
Iowa State University, pp. 194–206.
*Guilloteau, N. C. 1997. ‘Modification of phon-
etic categories in French as a second language:
Experimental studies with conventional and
computer-based intervention methods,’
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas
at Austin.
Hahn, L. 2004. ‘Primary stress and
intelligibility: Research to motivate the teach-
ing of suprasegmentals,’ TESOL Quarterly 38/2:
201–23.
*Hardison, D. M. 2004. ‘Generalization of com-
puter-assisted prosody training: quantitative
and qualitative findings,’ Language Learning
and Technology 8/1: 34–52.
*Hardison, D. M. 2005. ‘Contextualized com-
puter-based L2 prosody training: Evaluating
the effects of discourse context and video
input,’ CALICO Journal 22/2: 175–90.
*Harris, D. F. 2002. ‘The effects of training on
the pronunciation of Mandarin Chinese speak-
ers,’ Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of
Cincinnati.
*Henderson, A. 2008. ‘Towards intelligibility:
Designing short pronunciation courses for
advanced field experts,’ ASP 53–54: 89–110
*Hincks, R. 2003. ‘Speech technologies for pro-
nunciation feedback and evaluation,’ ReCALL
15/1: 3–20.
*Hincks, R. and J. Edlund. 2009. ‘Promoting
increased pitch variation in oral presentations
with transient visual feedback,’ Language
Learning and Technology 13/3: 32–50.
*Hirata, Y. and S. D. Kelly. 2004. ‘Computer
assisted pronunciation training for native
English speakers learning Japanese pitch
and durational contrasts,’ Journal of Speech,
R. I. THOMSON AND T. M. DERWING 17
Language, and Hearing Research 53/3–4:
298–310.
*Huthaily, K. Y. 2008. ‘Second language in-
struction with phonological knowledge: teach-
ing Arabic to speakers of English,’ Unpublished
Ph.D. thesis, University of Montana.
*Ingels, S. A. 2011. ‘The effects of self-
monitoring strategy use on the pronunciation
of learners of English,’ Unpublished Ph.D.
thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign.
Kang, O. and D. Rubin. 2012. ‘Inter-group
contact exercises as a tool for mitigating
undergraduates’ attitudes toward ITAs,’
Journal of Excellence in College Teaching 23/3:
159–66.
*Kennedy, S. 2003. ‘Oral peer corrective feed-
back in an ESL classroom: Training Quebec
francophone learners in the pronunciation of
th-,’ Unpublished Master’s thesis, Concordia
University.
*Kissling, E. M. 2013. ‘Teaching pronunciation:
Is explicit phonetics instruction beneficial for
FL learners?,’ Modern Language Journal 97/3:
720–44
Larsen-Freeman, D. 2008. ‘Does TESOL share
theories with other disciplines?,’ TESOL
Quarterly 42/2: 291–4
*Lee, J. 2009. ‘The effects of pronunciation in-
struction using duration manipulation on the
acquisition of English vowel sounds by pre-ser-
vice Korean EFL teachers,’ Unpublished Ph.D.
thesis, University of Kansas.
*Lee, J., J. Jang, and L. Plonsky. 2014. ‘The
effectiveness of second language pronunciation
instruction: A meta-analysis,’ Applied
Linguistics. 10.1093/applin/amu040.
*Lengeris, A. 2009. ‘Individual differences in
second-language vowel learning,’
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 6, 2016
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University College
London.
Levis, J. M. 2005. ‘Changing contexts and shift-
ing paradigms in pronunciation teaching,’
TESOL Quarterly 39/3: 369–77.
*Lima, R. M. 2010. ‘Pronunciation for commu-
nication: an Investigation of the effects of ex-
plicit and selected teaching of pronunciation in
the Brazilian EFL classroom’ in K. Dziubalska-
Kołaczy, M. Wrembel, and M. Kul (eds):
Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium
on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech
New Sounds. Adam Mickiewicz University,
pp. 299–304.
18 L2 PRONUNCIATION INSTRUCTION NARRATIVE REVIEW
*Liu, Q. and Z. Fu. 2011. ‘The combined effect
of instruction and monitor in improving pro-
nunciation of potential English teachers,’
English Language Teaching 4/3: 164–70.
*Lord, G. 2005. ‘(How) Can we teach foreign
language pronunciation? On the effects of a
Spanish Phonetics Course,’ Hispania 88/3:
557–67.
*Lord, G. 2008. ‘Podcasting communities and
second language pronunciation,’ Foreign
Language Annals 41/2: 374–89.
MacIntyre, P. D. 2007. ‘Willingness to commu-
nicate in the second language: Understanding
the decision to speak as a volitional process,’
The Modern Language Journal 91/4: 564–576.
*Muller Levis, G. and J. Levis. 2012. ‘Learning
to produce contrastive focus: A study of
advanced learners of English’ in J. Levis and
K. LeVelle (eds): Proceedings of the 3rd
Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and
Teaching Conference. Iowa State University,
pp. 124–33.
Munro, M. J. and T. M. Derwing. 1995.
‘Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelli-
gibility in the speech of second language lear-
ners,’ Language Learning 45/1: 73–97.
Munro, M. J. and T. M. Derwing. 2006. ‘The
functional load principle in ESL pronunciation
instruction: An exploratory study,’ System 34/4:
520–31.
Munro, M. J. and T. M. Derwing. 2008.
‘Segmental acquisition in adult ESL learners:
A longitudinal study of vowel production,’
Language Learning 58/3: 479–502.
Munro, M. J. and T. M. Derwing. 2011. ‘The
foundations of accent and intelligibility in pro-
nunciation research,’ Language Teaching 44/3:
316–27.
Munro, M. J. and T. M. Derwing. in press.
‘Intelligibility in research and practice:
Teaching priorities’ in M. Reed and J. Levis
(eds): The Handbook of English Pronunciation.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Munro, M. J., T. M. Derwing, and K. Saito.
Forthcoming. ‘Aspiring to aspirate: A longitu-
dinal study of English voiceless stop
acquisition’.
Munro, M. J., T. M. Derwing, and R.
I. Thomson. In press. ‘Setting segmental prio-
rities for English learners: Evidence from a lon-
gitudinal study,’ IRAL.
*Nagamine, T. 2011. ‘Effects of hyper pronunci-
ation training method on Japanese University
Students’ pronunciation,’ Asian EFL Journal
Teaching Articles 53: 35–50.
*Neri, A., C. Cucchiarini, and H. Strik. 2008.
‘The effectiveness of computer-based speech
corrective feedback for improving segmental
quality in L2 Dutch,’ ReCALL 20/2: 225–43.
Norris, J. M. and L. Ortega. 2006. ‘The value
and practice of research synthesis for language
learning and teaching’ in J. M. Norris and
L. Ortega (eds): Synthesizing Research on
Language Learning and Teaching. John
Benjamins, pp. 3–50.
*Parlak, Ö. 2010. ‘Does Pronunciation
Instruction Promote Intelligibility and
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 6, 2016
Comprehensibility?,’ SPLIS News 7/2: 1–5
*Pearson, P., L. Pickering, and R. D. Silva.
2011. ‘The impact of computer assisted pro-
nunciation training on the improvement of
Vietnamese learner production of English syl-
lable margins’ in J. Levis and K. LeVelle (eds):
Proceedings of the 2nd Pronunciation in Second
Language Learning and Teaching Conference.
Iowa State University, pp. 169–80.
*Perlmutter, M. 1989. ‘Intelligibility rating of L2
speech pre and post intervention,’ Perceptual
and Motor Skills 68/2: 515–521.
Ranta, L. and A. Meckelborg. 2013. ‘How
much exposure to English do international
graduate students really get? Measuring lan-
guage use in a naturalistic setting,’ Canadian
Modern Language Review 69/1: 1–33.
*Ruellot, V. 2011. ‘Computer-assisted pronunci-
ation learning of French /u/ and /y/ at the
intermediate level’ in J. Levis and K. LeVelle
(eds): Proceedings of the 2nd Pronunciation in
Second Language Learning and Teaching
Conference. Iowa State University, pp. 199–213.
*Saalfeld, A. 2011. ‘Acquisition of L2 phonology
in advanced learners: does instruction make a
difference?’ in J. Levis and K. LeVelle (eds):
Proceedings of the 2nd Pronunciation in Second
Language Learning and Teaching Conference
Iowa State University, pp. 144–52.
*Saito, K. 2007. ‘The influence of explicit phon-
etic instruction on pronunciation in EFL set-
tings: The case of English vowels and
Japanese learners of English,’ The Linguistics
Journal 3/3: 16–40.
*Saito, K. 2011. ‘Examining the role of explicit
phonetic instruction in native-like and com-
prehensible pronunciation development: an in-
structed SLA approach to phonology,’ Language
Awareness 20/1: 45–59.

*Saito, K. 2013a. ‘Recasts in instructed L2
speech learning: Teaching the perception and
production of English /r/ to adult Japanese
learners,’ Language Learning 63: 499–529.
*Saito, K. 2013b. ‘Reexamining effects of
form-focused instruction on L2 pronunciation
development: The role of explicit phonetic
information,’ Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 35/1: 1–29.
*Saito, K. and R. Lyster. 2012a. ‘Effects of
form-focused instruction and corrective feed-
back on L2 pronunciation development of /r/
by Japanese learners of English,’ Language
Learning 62/2: 595–633.
*Saito, K. and R. Lyster. 2012b. ‘Investigating the
pedagogical potential of recasts for L2 vowel ac-
quisition,’ TESOL Quarterly 46/2: 387–98.
*Sardegna, V. G. 2011. ‘Pronunciation learning
strategies that improve ESL learners’ linking’
in J. Levis and K. LeVelle (eds): Proceedings of
the 2nd Pronunciation in Second Language
Learning and Teaching Conference. Iowa State
University, pp. 105–21.
*Stenson, N., B. Downing, J. Smith, and
K. Smith. 1992. ‘The effectiveness of com-
puter-assisted pronunciation training,’ CALICO
Journal 9/4: 5–19.
*Suarez, P. 2008. ‘The pronunciation of the aspi-
rated consonants p, t, and k in English by
native speakers of Spanish and French’
in M. S. Plakhotnik and S. M. Nielsen (eds):
Proceedings of the Seventh Annual College of
Education Research Conference. Florida
International University, pp. 144–50.
*Tanner, M. W. and M. M. Landon. 2009. ‘The
effects of computer-assisted pronunciation on
ESL learners’ use of pausing, stress, intonation,
and overall comprehensibility,’ Language
Learning and Technology 13/3: 51–65.
*Thomson, R. I. 2011. ‘Computer assisted pro-
nunciation Training: Targeting second lan-
guage vowels: Perception improves
pronunciation,’ CALICO Journal 28/3: 744–65.
Thomson, R. I. 2012. ‘Improving L2 listeners’
perception of English vowels: A computer-
mediated approach,’ Language Learning 62/4:
1231–58.
Thomson, R. I. 2014. ‘Myth 6: Accent reduction
and pronunciation instruction are the same
R. I. THOMSON AND T. M. DERWING 19
thing’ in L. Grant (ed.): Pronunciation Myths:
Applying Second Language Research to Classroom
Teaching. University of Michigan Press,
pp. 160–87.
*Trofimovich, P., P. M. Lightbown, R.
H. Halter, and H. Song. 2009.
‘Comprehension-based practice: The
Development of L2 Pronunciation in a
Listening and Reading Program,’ Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 31: 609–39.
*Tsiartsioni, E. 2010. ‘The effectiveness of pro-
nunciation teaching to Greek state school stu-
dents,’ Proceedings of the 14th International
Conference of the Greek Society for Applied
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 6, 2016
Linguistics: Advances in Research on Language
Learning and Teaching: Selected Articles. Greek
Applied Linguistics Association, pp. 429–46.
*Underwood, P. R. and M. Wallace. 2012. ‘The
effects of instruction in reduced forms of
English speech on low-proficiency EFL univer-
sity students,’ Asian EFL Journal 14/1: 1–24.
*Wang, X. 2002. ‘Training Mandarin and
Cantonese speakers to identify English vowel
contrasts: long term retention and effects on
production,’ Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Simon
Fraser University.
*Warsi, J. S. 2002. ‘Effects of visual instruc-
tion on second language productive phon-
ology,’ Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Boston
University.
*Weinberg, A. and H. Knoerr. 2003. ‘Learning
French pronunciation: Audiocassettes or multi-
media?,’ CALICO Journal 20/2: 315–36
*White, K. 2006. ‘Listen, sing and learn: The ef-
fects of musical activities on phonemic aware-
ness in the foreign language classroom,’
Unpublished Master’s thesis, Louisiana State
University.
*Yanli, L. 2008. ‘The Effectiveness of Interactive
Instruction on the Intonation Learning of
Chinese College Learners,’ Cross-Cultural
Communication 4/1: 90–103.
*Yates, K. Y. 2003. ‘Teaching linguistic mimicry
to improve second language pronunciation,’
Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of
North Texas.
Zielinski, B. 2008. ‘The listener: No longer the
silent partner in reduced intelligibility,’ System
36/1: 69–84.
20 L2 PRONUNCIATION INSTRUCTION NARRATIVE REVIEW

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
Ron Thomson is an associate professor of Applied Linguistics at Brock University. His
research interests include second language (L2) speech perception and production, L2
oral fluency, and Computer Assisted Pronunciation Teaching. He also has an interest in
ethical practice in the burgeoning accent reduction industry. Address for correspondence:
Ron Thomson, Department of Applied Linguistics, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON,
Canada. <Ron.thomson@brocku.ca>

Tracey Derwing is a professor emeritus in the TESL program at the University of Alberta,
and an adjunct professor of Linguistics at Simon Fraser University. She has conducted
numerous studies examining pronunciation and oral fluency development in second

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 6, 2016

language learners and their relationship to intelligibility, comprehensibility, and accent.
She has also researched pragmatics instruction, settlement policies, and citizenship.
Address for correspondence: Tracey Derwing, Department of Educational Psychology,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada and Department of Linguistics, Simon
Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada. <tderwing@ualberta.ca>