1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation
  4. Volume 11, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 11, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2215-1931
  • E-ISSN: 2215-194X
PDF
EPUB

Abstract

The current study explored the effects of recasts on the production and perception of primary stress in a classroom context. Following a pretest-posttest-delayed posttest design, 28 L1 Arabic speakers were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups. Participants received four hours of instruction over a period of four days, and the lessons were recorded for stimulated recall. Teaching materials focused on argumentation, and were embedded with the target vocabulary to facilitate incidental mispronunciation. When the intervention group produced target words with misplaced primary stress, they received a recast. The control group did not receive corrective feedback. The results of linear mixed-effects analyses showed that recasts facilitated primary stress development through increased vowel duration. Stimulated recall data confirmed that participants noticed the recasts they received. However, there were no changes in participants’ perceptions of stress placement. These findings suggest that incidental pronunciation errors can be addressed through implicit feedback.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jslp.24050.par
2025-02-24
2026-07-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jslp.24050.par
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jslp.24050.par.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/jslp.24050.par&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Almbark, R., Bouchhioua, N., & Hellmuth, S.
    (2014) Acquiring the phonetics and phonology of English word stress: Comparing learners from different L1 backgrounds. Concordia Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 51, 19–35.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ammar, A., & Spada, N.
    (2006) One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543–574. 10.1017/S0272263106060268
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060268 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
    (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  4. Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D.
    (2007) Nonnative and second-language speech perception. InO. S. Bohn, & M. J. Munro (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege (pp.13–24). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.17.07bes
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.17.07bes [Google Scholar]
  5. Boersma, P. & Weenink, D.
    (2023) Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.3.10. Available atwww.praat.org/
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, D.
    (2016) The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436–458. 10.1177/1362168814563200
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814563200 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bryfonski, L., & Ma, X.
    (2020) Effects of implicit versus explicit corrective feedback on Mandarin tone acquisition in a SCMC learning environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 421, 61–88. 10.1017/S0272263119000317
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000317 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brysbaert, M., & Stevens, M.
    (2018) Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. Journal of Cognition, 1(1). 10.5334/joc.10
     https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.10 [Google Scholar]
  9. Carpenter, H., Jeon, K. S., MacGregor, D., & Mackey, A.
    (2006) Learners’ interpretations of recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 281, 209–236. 10.1017/S0272263106060104
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060104 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cooper, N., Cutler, A., & Wales, R.
    (2002) Constraints of lexical stress on lexical access in English: Evidence from native and non-native listeners. Language and Speech, 45(3), 207–228. 10.1177/00238309020450030101
     https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309020450030101 [Google Scholar]
  11. Couper, G.
    (2019) Teachers’ cognitions of corrective feedback on pronunciation: Their beliefs, perceptions and practices. System, 841, 41–52. 10.1016/j.system.2019.04.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  12. Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., Isaacs, T., & Saito, K.
    (2015) Does a speaking task affect second language comprehensibility?The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 80–95. 10.1111/modl.12185
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12185 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cutler, A.
    (2005) Lexical stress. InD. B. Pisoni, & R. E. Remez (Eds.), The handbook of speech perception (pp.264–289). Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470757024.ch11
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757024.ch11 [Google Scholar]
  14. Cutler, A., & Clifton Jr, C.
    (1984) The use of prosodic information in word recognition. InH. Bouma, & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and performance X: Control of language processes (pp.183–196). Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Davies, M.
    (2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Available online athttps://www.english-corpora.org/coca/
     [Google Scholar]
  16. de Jong, K., & Zawaydeh, B. A.
    (1999) Stress, duration, and intonation in Arabic word-level prosody. Journal of Phonetics, 27(1), 3–22. 10.1006/jpho.1998.0088
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1998.0088 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2002) Comparing stress, lexical focus, and segmental focus: Patterns of variation in Arabic vowel duration. Journal of Phonetics, 301, 53–75. 10.1006/jpho.2001.0151
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.2001.0151 [Google Scholar]
  18. de Leeuw, E., Stockall, L., Lazaridou-Chatzigoga, D., & Gorba Masip, C.
    (2021) Illusory vowels in Spanish–English sequential bilinguals: Evidence that accurate L2 perception is neither necessary nor sufficient for accurate L2 production. Second Language Research, 37(4), 587–618. 10.1177/0267658319886623
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658319886623 [Google Scholar]
  19. Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J.
    (2015) Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based perspectives for L2 teaching and research. John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.42
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.42 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J., & Reinders, H.
    (2009) Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching. Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Ellis, R. & Sheen, Y.
    (2011) Corrective feedback in language teaching. InHinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.593–610). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Field, J.
    (2005) Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 399–423. 10.2307/3588487
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3588487 [Google Scholar]
  23. Flege, J. E.
    (1995) Two procedures for training a novel second language phonetic contrast. Applied Psycholinguistics, 16(4), 425–442. 10.1017/S0142716400066029
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400066029 [Google Scholar]
  24. Foote, J. A., Holtby, A. K., & Derwing, T. M.
    (2011) Survey of the teaching of pronunciation in adult ESL programs in Canada, 2010. TESL Canada Journal, 29(1), 1–22. 10.18806/tesl.v29i1.1086
     https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v29i1.1086 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gass, S. M.
    (1988) Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 198–217. 10.1093/applin/9.2.198
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/9.2.198 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2018) Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A.
    (2016) Stimulated recall methodology in applied linguistics and L2 research. Taylor & Francis. 10.4324/9781315813349
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315813349 [Google Scholar]
  28. Gooch, R., Saito, K., & Lyster, R.
    (2016) Effects of recasts and prompts on L2 pronunciation development: Teaching English /ɹ/ to Korean adult EFL learners. System, 601, 117–127. 10.1016/j.system.2016.06.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.06.007 [Google Scholar]
  29. Gordon, M., & Roettger, T.
    (2017) Acoustic correlates of word stress: A cross-linguistic survey. Linguistics Vanguard, 3(1), 1–21. 10.1515/lingvan‑2017‑0007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2017-0007 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hahn, L. D.
    (2004) Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 201–223. 10.2307/3588378
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3588378 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hellmuth, S.
    (2013) Phonology. InJ. Owens (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Arabic linguistics (pp.45–70). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199764136.013.0003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199764136.013.0003 [Google Scholar]
  32. Huang, X., & Jia, X. O.
    (2016) Corrective feedback on pronunciation: Students’ and teachers’ perceptions. International Journal of English Linguistics, 6(6), 245–254. 10.5539/ijel.v6n6p245
     https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v6n6p245 [Google Scholar]
  33. Isaacs, T., & Trofimovich, P.
    (2012) Deconstructing comprehensibility. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 475–505. 10.1017/S0272263112000150
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000150 [Google Scholar]
  34. Jesse, A., Poellmann, K., & Kong, Y. Y.
    (2017) English listeners use suprasegmental cues to lexical stress early during spoken-word recognition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(1), 190–198. 10.1044/2016_JSLHR‑H‑15‑0340
     https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_JSLHR-H-15-0340 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kang, O.
    (2010) Relative salience of suprasegmental features on judgments of L2 comprehensibility and accentedness. System, 38(2), 301–315. 10.1016/j.system.2010.01.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kang, O., Rubin, D. O. N., & Pickering, L.
    (2010) Suprasegmental measures of accentedness and judgments of language learner proficiency in oral English. The Modern Language Journal, 94(4), 554–566. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2010.01091.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01091.x [Google Scholar]
  37. Ladefoged, P.
    (2006) A course in phonetics. Thomson Wadsworth.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Lee, A. H., & Lyster, R.
    (2016) The effects of corrective feedback on instructed L2 speech perception. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(1), 35–64. 10.1017/S0272263115000194
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000194 [Google Scholar]
  39. Leeman, J.
    (2003) Recasts and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 37–63. 10.1017/S0272263103000020
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263103000020 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lenth, R.
    (2023) emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.8.6. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Long, M. H.
    (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. InW. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp.413–468). Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. (2007) Problems in SLA. Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Luke, S. G.
    (2017) Evaluating significance in linear mixed-effects models in R. Behavior Research Methods, 491, 1494–1502. 10.3758/s13428‑016‑0809‑y
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0809-y [Google Scholar]
  44. Lyster, R.
    (1998) Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48(2), 183–218. 10.1111/1467‑9922.00039
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00039 [Google Scholar]
  45. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L.
    (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 37–66. 10.1017/S0272263197001034
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034 [Google Scholar]
  46. Maas, C. J., & Hox, J. J.
    (2005) Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1(3), 86–92. 10.1027/1614‑2241.1.3.86
     https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86 [Google Scholar]
  47. Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., & Gass, S. M.
    (2012) Interactionist approach. InS. M. Gass, & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp.7–23). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J.
    (2003) Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS–NNS and NNS–NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53(1), 35–66. 10.1111/1467‑9922.00210
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00210 [Google Scholar]
  49. Matuschek, H., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., Baayen, H., & Bates, D.
    (2017) Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 941, 305–315. 10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  50. McAuliffe, M., Socolof, M., Mihuc, S., Wagner, M., & Sonderegger, M.
    (2017, August). Montreal forced aligner: Trainable text-speech alignment using kaldi. InInterspeech (Vol.20171, pp.498–502). 10.21437/Interspeech.2017‑1386
     https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2017-1386 [Google Scholar]
  51. Mustafawi, E.
    (2018) Arabic phonology. InE. Benmamoun, & R. Bassiouney (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Arabic linguistics (pp.11–31). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. O’Grady, W.
    (2015) Processing determinism. Language Learning, 65(1), 6–32. 10.1111/lang.12091
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12091 [Google Scholar]
  53. Oliver, R.
    (2009) How young is too young? Investigating negotiation of meaning and feedback in children aged five to seven years. InA. Mackey, & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp.135–156). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Panova, I., & Lyster, R.
    (2002) Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573–595. 10.2307/3588241
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3588241 [Google Scholar]
  55. Parlak, Ö.
    (2024) The effects of implicit corrective feedback on production of lexical stress in L2 English. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 14(4), 661–686. 10.14746/ssllt.38361
     https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.38361 [Google Scholar]
  56. Parlak, Ö., & Ziegler, N.
    (2017) The impact of recasts on the development of primary stress in a synchronous computer-mediated environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(2), 257–285. 10.1017/S0272263116000310
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263116000310 [Google Scholar]
  57. Peirce, J. W., Gray, J. R., Simpson, S., MacAskill, M. R., Höchenberger, R., Sogo, H., Kastman, E. & Lindeløv, J.
    (2019) PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods. 10.3758/s13428‑018‑01193‑y
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y
  58. Rebuschat, P.
    (2013) Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge in second language research. Language Learning, 63(3), 595–626. 10.1111/lang.12010
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12010 [Google Scholar]
  59. Saito, K.
    (2013) The acquisitional value of recasts in instructed second language speech learning: Teaching the perception and production of English /ɹ/ to adult Japanese learners. Language learning, 63(3), 499–529. 10.1111/lang.12015
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12015 [Google Scholar]
  60. (2021) Corrective feedback and the development of L2 pronunciation. InH. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in language learning and teaching. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108589789.020
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.020 [Google Scholar]
  61. Saito, K., & Plonsky, L.
    (2019) Effects of second language pronunciation teaching revisited: A proposed measurement framework and meta-analysis. Language Learning, 69(3), 652–708. 10.1111/lang.12345
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12345 [Google Scholar]
  62. Saito, K., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T.
    (2016) Second language speech production: Investigating linguistic correlates of comprehensibility and accentedness for learners at different ability levels. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(2), 217–240. 10.1017/S0142716414000502
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716414000502 [Google Scholar]
  63. Schmidt, R. W.
    (2001) Attention. InP. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.1–32). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003 [Google Scholar]
  64. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S.
    (1995) Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied linguistics, 16(3), 371–391. 10.1093/applin/16.3.371
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.371 [Google Scholar]
  65. Toth, P. D., Wagner, E., & Moranski, K.
    (2013) ‘Co-constructing’ explicit L2 knowledge with high school Spanish learners through guided induction. Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 279–303. 10.1093/applin/ams049
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams049 [Google Scholar]
  66. West, B. T., Welch, K. B., & Galecki, A. T.
    (2015) Linear mixed models: A practical guide using statistical software. CRC Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Wiley, R. W., & Rapp, B.
    (2019) Statistical analysis in small-n designs: Using linear mixed-effects modeling for evaluating intervention effectiveness. Aphasiology, 33(1), 1–30. 10.1080/02687038.2018.1454884
     https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2018.1454884 [Google Scholar]
  68. Xu, Y.
    (2010) In defense of lab speech. Journal of Phonetics, 38(3), 329–336. 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.04.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  69. Yan, X., & Ginther, A.
    (2017) Listeners and raters: Similarities and differences in evaluation of accented speech. InO. Kang, & A. Ginther (Eds.), Assessment in Second language pronunciation (pp.67–88). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315170756‑5
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315170756-5 [Google Scholar]
  70. Yang, J.
    (2016) Learners’ oral corrective feedback preferences in relation to their cultural background, proficiency level and types of error. System, 611, 75–86. 10.1016/j.system.2016.08.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  71. Ziegler, N.
    (2016) Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 553–586. 10.1017/S027226311500025X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311500025X [Google Scholar]
  72. Zielinski, B. W.
    (2008) The listener: No longer the silent partner in reduced intelligibility. System, 361, 69–84. 10.1016/j.system.2007.11.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.11.004 [Google Scholar]
  73. Zuraiq, W., & Sereno, J.
    (2021) Production of English lexical stress by Arabic speakers. InR. Wayland (Ed.), Second language speech learning: Theoretical and empirical progress (pp.290–311). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108886901.012
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108886901.012 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jslp.24050.par
Loading
Implicit feedback and lexical stress
Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 11, 76 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.24050.par
/content/journals/10.1075/jslp.24050.par
/content/journals/10.1075/jslp.24050.par
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): corrective feedback; interaction; lexical stress; pronunciation; recast

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error