In many English language teaching contexts, listening activities resemble listening comprehension tests. Scholars have argued that this product-oriented approach is not particularly effective in helping learners improve their listening skills and have advocated for the inclusion of instruction that targets specific features of spoken language. The current study tested these claims in the context of an English-for-academic-purposes (EAP) listening and speaking course. Sixty-four post-secondary learners of English were randomly assigned to one of two groups. In addition to their regularly scheduled listening activities, one group received 100 minutes of instruction for two prosodic features (paratone and prosodic phrasing), while the other group received an equal amount of product-oriented listening instruction. After the instructional treatment, learners in the prosody group outperformed those in the product-oriented group on comprehension of the target prosodic features, and on general listening proficiency tests. It is argued that short periods of instruction targeting prosodic features can improve the effectiveness of traditional product-oriented EAP listening instruction.
AlevenV.SewallJ.McLarenB.M.KoedingerK.R. (2006). Rapid authoring of intelligent tutors for real-world and experimental use. In KinshukP.KommerA.M.KoperR.KirschnerP.A.SampsonD.DidderenW. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2006), (pp. 847–851). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
2.
AndersonJ.R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369–406.
3.
AndersonC.CarlsonK. (2010). Syntactic structure guides prosody in temporarily ambiguous sentences. Language and Speech, 53, 472–493.
4.
BögelsS.SchriefersH.VonkW.ChwillaD.J.KerkhofsR. (2013). Processing consequences of superfluous and missing prosodic breaks in auditory sentence comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 51, 2715–2728.
5.
BolingerD.L. (1961). Contrastive accent and contrastive stress. Language, 37, 83–96.
6.
BonesteelL. (2017). 21st century communication 3: Listening, speaking and critical thinking. Brighton: Global ELT.
7.
BrownG.YuleG. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
CaspersJ. (2003). Local speech melody as a limiting factor in the turn-taking system in Dutch. Journal of Phonetics, 31, 251–276.
9.
CauldwellR. (2002). Streaming speech. Birmingham: Speech in Action.
10.
CauldwellR. (2013). Phonology for listening. Birmingham: Speech in Action.
11.
Celce-MurciaM.BrintonD.M.GoodwinJ.M. (2010). Teaching pronunciation: A course book and reference guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
ChafeW. (1988). Punctuation and the prosody of written language. Written Communication, 5, 395–426.
ChouF.-C.TsengC.-Y.LeeL.-S. (1996). Automatic generation of prosodic structure for high quality Mandarin speech synthesis. In BunnellH.T.IdsardiW. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 1624–1627). New Castle, DE: Citation Delaware.
CliftonC.CarlsonK.FrazierL. (2002). Informative prosodic boundaries. Language and Speech, 45, 87–114.
17.
CooperW.E.Paccia-CooperJ. (1980). Syntax and speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18.
Cruz-FerreiraM. (1987). Non-native interpretive strategies for intonational meaning: An experimental study. In JamesA.LeatherJ. (Eds.), Sound patterns in second language acquisition (pp. 103–120). Berlin: De Gruyter.
19.
CutlerA. (1976). Phoneme-monitoring reaction time as a function of preceding intonation contour. Perception & Psychophysics, 20, 55–60.
20.
CutlerA. (1982). Prosody and sentence perception in English. In MehlerJ.WalkerE.C.T.GarrettM. (Eds.), Perspectives on mental representation (pp. 201–216). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21.
CutlerA. (2012). Native listening. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
CutlerA.DahanD.Van DonselaarW. (1997). Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech, 40, 141–201.
23.
CutlerA.PearsonM. (1986). On the analysis of prosodic turn-taking cues. In Johns-LewisC. (Ed.), Intonation in discourse (pp. 139–155). London: Croom Helm.
24.
DahanD. (2015). Prosody and language comprehension. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 6, 441–452.
25.
DeKeyserR.M. (1997). Beyond explicitrulelearning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195–221.
26.
DeKeyserR.M. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 94–112). New York: Routledge.
27.
De MoraesJ.A.RilliardA.De Oliveira MotaB.AShochiT. (2010). Multimodal perception and production of attitudinal meaning in Brazilian Portuguese. Speech Prosody 2010, 100340, 1–4.
28.
DerwingT.M.MunroM.J.WiebeG. (1998). Evidence in favor of a broad framework for pronunciation instruction. Language learning, 48, 393–410.
29.
FerreiraF. (1988). Planning and timing in sentence production: The syntax-to-phonology conversion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA.
30.
FieldJ. (1998). Skills and strategies: Towards a new methodology for listening. ELT Journal, 52, 110–118.
31.
FieldJ. (2009). Listening in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
FittsP.PosnerM. (1967). Human performance. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
33.
FrazierL.LeemingS. (2013). Lecture ready 3: Strategies for academic listening and speaking. 2nd edition.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34.
GilbertJ.B. (1984; 2012). Clear speech: Pronunciation and listening comprehension in North American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
GluharevaD.PrietoP. (2017). Training with rhythmic beat gestures benefits L2 pronunciation in discourse-demanding situations. Language Teaching Research, 21, 609–631.
36.
GohC. (2010). Listening as process: Learning activities for self-appraisal and self-regulation. In HarwoodN. (Ed.), English language teaching materials: Theory and practice (pp. 179–206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
Gokgoz KurtB.MedlinJ.TessaroloA. (2014). The perception of prosodically ambiguous intonation patterns by L2 English learners and the effects of instruction. Concordia Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 5, 353–372.
38.
GrahamS. (2017). Research into practice: Listening strategies in an instructed classroom setting. Language Teaching, 50, 107–119.
39.
GrahamS.SantosD.Francis-BrophyE. (2014). Teacher beliefs about listening in a foreign language. Teaching and Teacher Education, 40, 44–60.
40.
GroszB.HirschbergJ. (1992). Some intonational characteristics of discourse structure. In MarcusM. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 429–432). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Jaufmann.
41.
HardisonD.M. (2004). Generalization of computer assisted prosody training: Quantitative and qualitative findings. Language Learning & Technology, 8, 34–52.
42.
HeX.van HeuvenV.J.GussenhovenC. (2012). The selection of intonation contours by Chinese L2 speakers of Dutch: Orthographic closure vs. prosodic knowledge. Second Language Research, 28, 283–318.
43.
HermanR. (2000). Phonetic markers of global discourse structures in English. Journal of Phonetics, 28, 466–493.
44.
HirschbergJ.NakataniC.H. (1996). A prosodic analysis of discourse segments in direction-giving monologues. In JoshiA.PalmerM. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 286–293). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
45.
Holzgrefe-LangJ.WellmannC.HöhleB.WartenburgerI. (2018). Infants’ processing of prosodic cues: Electrophysiological evidence for boundary perception beyond pause detection. Language and Speech, 61, 153–169.
46.
HwangH.SchaferA.J. (2006). Prosodic effects in parsing early vs. late closure sentences by second language learners and native speakers. In HoffmannR.MixdorffH. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Speech Prosody (pp. 585–588). Dresden, Germany: Technische Universität Dresden.
47.
JongmanA.WangY.MooreC.SerenoJ.A. (2006). Perception and production of Mandarin tone. In BatesE.TanL.TzengO. (Eds.), Handbook of East Asian psycholinguistics (pp. 209–217). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48.
KaiserE. (2011). Salience and contrast effects in reference resolution: The interpretation of Dutch pronouns and demonstratives. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 1587–1624.
49.
KjelgaardM.M.SpeerS.R. (1999). Prosodic facilitation and interference in the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 153–194.
50.
LeeC. (2017). 21st century communication 4: Listening, speaking and critical thinking. Brighton: Global ELT.
51.
LeeO.J. (2005). The prosody of questions in Beijing Mandarin. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
52.
LevisJ.M.Muller LevisG. (2018). Teaching high-value pronunciation features: Contrastive stress for intermediate learners. The CATESOL Journal, 30, 139–160.
53.
LiW.YangY. (2009). Perception of prosodic hierarchical boundaries in Mandarin Chinese sentences. Neuroscience, 158, 1416–1425.
54.
LiuD. (2020). Prosody transfer failure despite cross-language similarities: Evidence in favor of a complex dynamic system approach in pronunciation teaching. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation. Epub ahead of print 6 August 2020. DOI: 10.1075/jslp.18047.liu.
55.
McAndrewsM. (2019). Short periods of instruction improve learners’ phonological categories for L2 prosodic features. System, 82, 151–160.
56.
McAndrewsM. (2020). Prosody instruction for ESL listening comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA.
57.
MendelsohnD.J. (1994). Learning to listen: A strategy-based approach for the second-language learner. San Diego, CA: Dominie.
58.
MendelsohnD.J. (2006). Learning how to listen using learning strategies. In JordanP. (Ed.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills (pp. 85–89). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
59.
MennenI. (2015). Beyond segments: Towards a L2 intonation learning theory. In Delais-RoussarieE.AvanziM.HermentS. (Eds.), Prosody and language in contact: L2 acquisition, attrition and languages in multilingual situations (pp. 171–188). Berlin: Springer.
60.
Muller LevisG.LevisJ. (2012). Learning to produce contrastive focus: A study of advanced learners of English. In LevisJ.LeVelleK. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference (pp. 124–133). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.
61.
NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
62.
NygaardL.C.QueenJ.S. (2008). Communicating emotion: Linking affective prosody and word meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1017–1030.
63.
O’GradyG. (2017). Intonation and systemic functional linguistics. In BartlettT.O’GradyG. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of systemic functional linguistics (pp. 146–162). New York, NY: Routledge.
64.
PassonneauR.J.LitmanD.J. (1997). Discourse segmentation by human and automated means. Computational Linguistics, 23, 103–139.
65.
PickeringL. (2004). The structure and function of intonational paragraphs in native and nonnative speaker instructional discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 19–43.
66.
RasierL.HiligsmannP. (2007). Prosodic transfer from L1 to L2: Theoretical and methodological issues. Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Francaise, 28, 41–66.
67.
SaitoK.WuX. (2014). Communicative focus on form and second language suprasegmental learning: Teaching Cantonese learners to perceive Mandarin tones. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 647–680.
68.
SchaferA.J. (1997). Prosodic parsing: The role of prosody in sentence comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA.
69.
SchaferA.J.CampA.RohdeH.GrüterT. (2019). Contrastive prosody and the subsequent mention of alternatives during discourse processing. In CarlsonK.Clifton Jr., C.FodorJ. (Eds.), Grammatical approaches to language processing: Essays in honor of Lyn Frazier (pp. 29–44). New York: Springer.
70.
SchaferA.J.CarlsonK.CliftonH.Jr.FrazierL. (2000). Focus and the interpretation of pitch accent: Disambiguating embedded questions. Language and Speech, 43, 75–105.
71.
SelkirkE.O. (1984). Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
72.
SelkirkE.O. (2011). The syntax–phonology interface. In GoldsmithJ.A.RiggleJ.AlanC.L. (Eds.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp. 435–483). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
73.
SennS. (2006). Change from baseline and analysis of covariance revisited. Statistics in Medicine, 25, 4334–4344.
74.
SerenoJ.A.WangY. (2007). Behavioral and cortical effects of learning a second language: The acquisition of tone. In BohnO.-S.MunroM.J. (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning (pp. 239–258). Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
75.
SheerinS. (1987). Listening comprehension: Teaching or testing?ELT Journal, 41, 126–131.
76.
SiegelJ. (2014). Problematising L2 listening pedagogy: The potential of process-based listening strategy instruction in the L2 classroom. ELT Journal, 68, 22–30.
77.
SilvermanK.BeckmanM.E.PitrelliJ., et al. (1992). ToBI: A standard for labeling English prosody. In OhalaJ.J.NearyT.M.DerwingB.L.HodgeM.M.WiebeG.E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1992 International Conference of Spoken Language Processing (pp. 867–870). Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta.
StaplesS.EgbertJ.BiberD.ConradS. (2015). Register variation: A corpus approach. In TannenD.HamiltonH.E.SchiffrinD. (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 505–525). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
80.
SteinhauerK. (2003). Electrophysiological correlates of prosody and punctuation. Brain and Language, 86, 142–164.
81.
TaroneE.MeyersC. (2018). The mirroring project: Improving suprasegmentals and intelligibility in ESL presentations. In AlonsoR.A. (Ed.), Speaking in a second language (pp. 197–223). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
82.
TruckenbrodtH. (1999). On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 219–255.
83.
Van BreukelenG.J. (2006). ANCOVA versus change from baseline had more power in randomized studies and more bias in nonrandomized studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59, 920–925.
84.
VandergriftL.GohC. (2009). Teaching and testing listening comprehension. In LongM.DoughtyC. (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 395–411). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
85.
VandergriftL.GohC. (2012) Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action. New York: Routledge.
86.
VassièreJ. (2005). Perception of intonation. In PisoniD.B.RemezR.E. (Eds.), Handbook of speech perception (pp. 236–263). Oxford: Blackwell.
87.
WagnerM.WatsonD.G. (2010). Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 905–945.
88.
WennerstromA. (1994). Intonational meaning in English discourse: A study of non-native speakers. Applied Linguistics, 15, 399–420.
89.
YoshidaM.T. (2016). Beyond repeat after me: Teaching pronunciation to English learners. Alexandria, VA: TESOL International Association.
90.
YuleG. (1980). Speakers’ topics and major paratones. Lingua, 52, 33–47.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
