Scientific background
Findings in the cognitive neurosciences, and in acoustic phonetics.
As has been shown by experiments in the field of developmental cognitive neuroscience, the auditory system is subject to a selectivity process which starts at a very early age. Children move from a language-universal speech perception towards a language-specific speech perception by becoming increasingly focused on the sound system of their native language (Kuhl 2009; Kuhl et al. 2008). They develop a preference for the sounds of their native language within the first year, thus gradually acquiring specific auditory perception mechanisms. These strategies for selective hearing are essential for first language acquisition but at the same time impair the accurate auditory perception of a foreign language (see Kuhl 2010, 2011; Fikkert 2007; Cutler & Otake 2006; Tuinman & Cutler 2011). As a consequence, adult learners in particular tend to be restricted by the dominant sound patterns of their ambient language. Such patterns act as acoustic filters, impeding and slowing down the learning process. Learners are unable to perceive phonetic dissimilarity (Aoyama et al. 2004) between their native language and the target language and, as a consequence, fail to produce non-native speech sounds. This apparent connection between speech perception and production has also been shown in phonetic research (e.g. Liberman & Mattingly 1985) and in the field of cognitive neuroscience (e.g. Tsao et al. 2004).
Conventional pronunciation training often seems to offer only limited help in overcoming this problem. Yet, L2 acquisition studies have shown that in exceptional cases it is still possible to become fully proficient in the pronunciation of an L2 even late in life by means of intensive pronunciation training (e.g. Bongaerts 1999, 2005; Bongaerts et al. 2000). Experiments conducted over the past six years as part of the project FauvoT at Karl-Franzens University Graz have shown (see e.g. Eberl/Pfandl-Buchegger 2008; Pfandl-Buchegger/Insam 2011; Insam/Pfandl-Buchegger/Landsiedler 2012) that working on the perceptual capacity of the learners as a preparatory step to regular pronunciation training can help learners integrate the sound system of a target language more quickly and leads to a noticeable improvement in the learners’ pronunciation (see “Selected Results”). In order to heighten learners’ perception, the language materials used in the pronunciation training were electronically modified to highlight specific acoustic characteristics of the target language (for better learning effects through emphasizing certain characteristics, see also Bissiri/Pfitzinger 2009).
Tomatis and audio-phonology
The usefulness of electronically modified audio input for enhancing the integration of foreign speech sounds, particularly in adult learners, was already suggested by the French ENT specialist Tomatis (1963, 1977, 1991). He proposed a theory of phonological acquisition which partly resembles the current linguistic views described above. Tomatis developed an approach called Audio-psycho-phonology that focuses on the intrinsic connection between speech perception and speech production and the premises of ‘selective hearing’. The concept of ‘selective hearing’ is based on the assumption that from early childhood, our perception becomes increasingly conditioned to the intonation, rhythm, and predominant acoustic patterns of the ambient language. Such ‘selective hearing’, Tomatis suggested, can be overcome by intense listening and speaking training based on electronically modified auditory input provided by a machine called the “Electronic Ear”. It emphasizes the characteristic traits of foreign language speech sounds by means of four components: (1) filtering, (2) gating (the transmission of sound is effected through two separate channels with differing degrees of filtering), (3) lateralisation (a different intensity of output helps to establish right-ear dominance) and (4) bone conduction (a special transmitter is installed in the headset for the direct bone conduction of sound to the skull).
Tomatis’ insights and hypotheses are based mainly on clinical observation but have not yet been convincingly substantiated by empirical studies. Even though some of his theoretical assumptions as, for instance, the fundamental conclusion that “the voice can only reproduce what the ear can hear” (1991: 44) and that from early childhood, our perception becomes increasingly conditioned to the intonation, rhythm, and predominant acoustic patterns of the ambient language are in line with recent findings in the cognitive neurosciences (see above), others have been proved wrong. For instance, his model of auditory processing has met with strong disapproval especially in medical circles. In phonetic circles, strong doubts have been expressed as to his theory of language-specific spectral characteristics (see Harmegnies/Landercy 1985; Landercy et al. 1992). Sereinig’s 2010 acoustic-phonetic study at Graz University of Technology (TUG) did not confirm his concept of language-specific spectral characteristics of individual languages. Sereinig took measures of frequencies (as described by Tomatis) of the speech of six male and female speakers of German, English and French, but could not reproduce his so-called ‘ethnograms‘.
This rejection of some of Tomatis’ theoretical hypotheses by the scientific community is set off against favourable reports from those who use his instruments in their practical work. In the field of language learning, for instance, his tools have proved to be a useful means of accelerating the pace of learning. Kaunzner’s study (2001 and online) which tested the efficiency of Audio-Phonology for language teaching over a four-year period, suggested a significant advantage of the test groups over the control groups: the students were able to increase their phonetic abilities to twice the level of the control groups. Further positive experiences were reported by Guberina et al. (1984), who developed a device (SUVAG) based on the one by Tomatis and used it for language learning and for therapeutic purposes.
In the project FauvoT, we also observed the positive effects of the Tomatis-based pronunciation training on our students. Additionally, we received very positive feedback from our learners and from language teachers. Therefore, our project seeks to critically engage with his ideas and empirically examine particular aspects of Tomatis’ approach regarding their validity for, and applicability in, foreign language teaching and learning.
Bibliography:
Aoyama, K., et al. (2004). “Perceived phonetic dissimilarity and L2 speech learning: the case of Japanese /r/ and English /l/ and /r/.” Journal of Phonetics 32: 233–250.
Bissiri, M. P., and Pfitzinger, H. R. (2009). “Italian speakers learn lexical stress of German morphologically complex words.” Speech Communication 51: 933–947.
Bongaerts, Theo (1999). “Ultimate Attainment in L2 Pronunciation: The Case of Very Advanced Late L2 Learners.” In: David Birdsong, ed. Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 133–159.
—, (2005). “Introduction: Ultimate Attainment and the Critical Period Hypothesis for Second Language Acquisition.” IRAL 43: 259–267.
—, Mennen, S., and van der Slik, F. (2000). “Authenticity of Pronunciation in Naturalistic Second Language Acquisition: The Case of Very Advanced Late Learners of Dutch as a Second Language.” Studia Linguistica 54: 298–308.
Cutler, A., Kim, J., and Otake, T. (2006). “On the limits of L1 influence on non-L1 listening: Evidence from Japanese perception of Korean.” In: P. Warren, and C. I. Watson, eds. Proceedings of the 11th Australian International Conference on Speech Science & Technology. 106–111.
Eberl, Eva, and Pfandl-Buchegger, I. (2008). “Learning to Listen – correct speech perception as a prerequisite for speech production”. In: Werner Delanoy and Laurenz Volkmann, eds. Future Perspectives for English Language Teaching. Heidelberg: Winter. 57–70.
Fikkert, Paula (2007). “Acquiring phonology.” In: P. de Lacy, ed. Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 537–554.
Guberina, Petar (1984). “Bases théoriques de la méthode audio-visuelle structuro-globale (méthode Saint Cloud-Zagreb). Une linguistique de la parole.” In: Aspects d’une politique de diffusion du français langue étrangère depuis 1945; Matériaux pour une histoire. Paris: Hatier.
Harmegnies, B., and Landercy, A. (1985). “Language Features in the Long-Term Average Spectrum.” Revue de Phonétique Appliquée 73–75: 69–79.
Insam, Milena, Pfandl-Buchegger, I., and Landsiedler. I. (2012). “Re-conditioning the Ear – Condensed Listening as a Means to Accelerating Foreign Language Learning.” In: Sabine Coelsch-Foisner, Manfred Markus, and Herbert Schendl, eds. Transfer in English Studies. ASE – Austrian Studies in English 100. 287–301.
Kaunzner, Ulrike (2001). Das Ohr als Schlüssel zur Fremdsprachenkompetenz. Tübingen: Groos.
–, (1997, online). “Audio-Lingua: pronunciation improvement through sound perception training.” http://www. tomatis.lu/download/AudioLinguaE.pdf [15/12/2012]
Kuhl, P. K. (2008). “Linking infant speech perception to language acquisition: Phonetic learning predicts language growth.” In: P. McCardle, J. Colombo, and L. Freund, eds. Infant pathways to language: Methods, models, and research directions. New York, NY: Erlbaum. 213¬–244.
— (2009). “Early language acquisition: Neural substrates and theoretical models.” In: M. S. Gazzaniga, ed. The Cognitive Neurosciences. 4th ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 837–854.
—, Conboy, B. T., Coffey-Corina, S., Padden, D., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., and Nelson, T. (2008). “Phonetic learning as a pathway to language: new data and native language magnet theory expanded (NLM-e).” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363: 979–1000.
— (2010). “Brain Mechanisms in Early Language Acquisition”. Neuron 67: 713–727.
— (2011). “Brain Mechanisms Underlying the Critical Period for Language: Linking Theory and Practice.” In: A. M. Battro, S. Dehaene, and W. J. Singer, eds. Human Neuroplasticity and Education: The Proceedings of the Working Group 27–28 October 2010. Vatican City: The Pontifical Academy of Sciences.Landercy, A. et al. (1992). “Analyse de la variabilité du spectre à long terme: reflexions métho¬do¬logiques et études de cas.” Jannées d’Etudes sur la Parole: 561–566.
Liberman, Alvin M., and Mattingly, I. G. (1985). “The Motor Theory of Speech Perception Revised.” Cognition 21: 1–36.
Pfandl-Buchegger, Ingrid Insam, M., and Landsiedler, I. (2011a). “Hearing the Difference: An Innovative Approach to the Teaching of Pronunciation.” In: Biljana Cubrovic and Tatjana Paunovic, eds. Exploring English Phonetics. Proceedings of the Second Belgrade International Meeting of English Phoneticians (BIMEP 2010). Newcastle on Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 33–48.
Sereinig, A. (2010). Das Hörmodell nach Alfred Tomatis und die Untersuchungen sprachspezifischer Spektral¬eigenschaften von Deutsch, Englisch und Französisch. Master thesis, Graz University of Technology.
Tomatis, A. (1963). L’Oreille et le langage. Paris: Seuil. Engl. Transl. The Ear and Language. Moulin 1997.
— (1977). L'oreille et la vie. Paris: Robert Laffont; Engl. transl. The Conscious Ear: my life of transformation through listening. Station Hill Press 1992.
— (1991). Nous sommes tous nés polyglottes. Paris: Fixot.
Tsao, F.-M., Liu, H.-M., and Kuhl, P. K. (2004). “Speech perception in infancy predicts language development in the second year of life: A longitudinal study.” Child Development 75: 1067–1084.
As has been shown by experiments in the field of developmental cognitive neuroscience, the auditory system is subject to a selectivity process which starts at a very early age. Children move from a language-universal speech perception towards a language-specific speech perception by becoming increasingly focused on the sound system of their native language (Kuhl 2009; Kuhl et al. 2008). They develop a preference for the sounds of their native language within the first year, thus gradually acquiring specific auditory perception mechanisms. These strategies for selective hearing are essential for first language acquisition but at the same time impair the accurate auditory perception of a foreign language (see Kuhl 2010, 2011; Fikkert 2007; Cutler & Otake 2006; Tuinman & Cutler 2011). As a consequence, adult learners in particular tend to be restricted by the dominant sound patterns of their ambient language. Such patterns act as acoustic filters, impeding and slowing down the learning process. Learners are unable to perceive phonetic dissimilarity (Aoyama et al. 2004) between their native language and the target language and, as a consequence, fail to produce non-native speech sounds. This apparent connection between speech perception and production has also been shown in phonetic research (e.g. Liberman & Mattingly 1985) and in the field of cognitive neuroscience (e.g. Tsao et al. 2004).
Conventional pronunciation training often seems to offer only limited help in overcoming this problem. Yet, L2 acquisition studies have shown that in exceptional cases it is still possible to become fully proficient in the pronunciation of an L2 even late in life by means of intensive pronunciation training (e.g. Bongaerts 1999, 2005; Bongaerts et al. 2000). Experiments conducted over the past six years as part of the project FauvoT at Karl-Franzens University Graz have shown (see e.g. Eberl/Pfandl-Buchegger 2008; Pfandl-Buchegger/Insam 2011; Insam/Pfandl-Buchegger/Landsiedler 2012) that working on the perceptual capacity of the learners as a preparatory step to regular pronunciation training can help learners integrate the sound system of a target language more quickly and leads to a noticeable improvement in the learners’ pronunciation (see “Selected Results”). In order to heighten learners’ perception, the language materials used in the pronunciation training were electronically modified to highlight specific acoustic characteristics of the target language (for better learning effects through emphasizing certain characteristics, see also Bissiri/Pfitzinger 2009).
Tomatis and audio-phonology
The usefulness of electronically modified audio input for enhancing the integration of foreign speech sounds, particularly in adult learners, was already suggested by the French ENT specialist Tomatis (1963, 1977, 1991). He proposed a theory of phonological acquisition which partly resembles the current linguistic views described above. Tomatis developed an approach called Audio-psycho-phonology that focuses on the intrinsic connection between speech perception and speech production and the premises of ‘selective hearing’. The concept of ‘selective hearing’ is based on the assumption that from early childhood, our perception becomes increasingly conditioned to the intonation, rhythm, and predominant acoustic patterns of the ambient language. Such ‘selective hearing’, Tomatis suggested, can be overcome by intense listening and speaking training based on electronically modified auditory input provided by a machine called the “Electronic Ear”. It emphasizes the characteristic traits of foreign language speech sounds by means of four components: (1) filtering, (2) gating (the transmission of sound is effected through two separate channels with differing degrees of filtering), (3) lateralisation (a different intensity of output helps to establish right-ear dominance) and (4) bone conduction (a special transmitter is installed in the headset for the direct bone conduction of sound to the skull).
Tomatis’ insights and hypotheses are based mainly on clinical observation but have not yet been convincingly substantiated by empirical studies. Even though some of his theoretical assumptions as, for instance, the fundamental conclusion that “the voice can only reproduce what the ear can hear” (1991: 44) and that from early childhood, our perception becomes increasingly conditioned to the intonation, rhythm, and predominant acoustic patterns of the ambient language are in line with recent findings in the cognitive neurosciences (see above), others have been proved wrong. For instance, his model of auditory processing has met with strong disapproval especially in medical circles. In phonetic circles, strong doubts have been expressed as to his theory of language-specific spectral characteristics (see Harmegnies/Landercy 1985; Landercy et al. 1992). Sereinig’s 2010 acoustic-phonetic study at Graz University of Technology (TUG) did not confirm his concept of language-specific spectral characteristics of individual languages. Sereinig took measures of frequencies (as described by Tomatis) of the speech of six male and female speakers of German, English and French, but could not reproduce his so-called ‘ethnograms‘.
This rejection of some of Tomatis’ theoretical hypotheses by the scientific community is set off against favourable reports from those who use his instruments in their practical work. In the field of language learning, for instance, his tools have proved to be a useful means of accelerating the pace of learning. Kaunzner’s study (2001 and online) which tested the efficiency of Audio-Phonology for language teaching over a four-year period, suggested a significant advantage of the test groups over the control groups: the students were able to increase their phonetic abilities to twice the level of the control groups. Further positive experiences were reported by Guberina et al. (1984), who developed a device (SUVAG) based on the one by Tomatis and used it for language learning and for therapeutic purposes.
In the project FauvoT, we also observed the positive effects of the Tomatis-based pronunciation training on our students. Additionally, we received very positive feedback from our learners and from language teachers. Therefore, our project seeks to critically engage with his ideas and empirically examine particular aspects of Tomatis’ approach regarding their validity for, and applicability in, foreign language teaching and learning.
Bibliography:
Aoyama, K., et al. (2004). “Perceived phonetic dissimilarity and L2 speech learning: the case of Japanese /r/ and English /l/ and /r/.” Journal of Phonetics 32: 233–250.
Bissiri, M. P., and Pfitzinger, H. R. (2009). “Italian speakers learn lexical stress of German morphologically complex words.” Speech Communication 51: 933–947.
Bongaerts, Theo (1999). “Ultimate Attainment in L2 Pronunciation: The Case of Very Advanced Late L2 Learners.” In: David Birdsong, ed. Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 133–159.
—, (2005). “Introduction: Ultimate Attainment and the Critical Period Hypothesis for Second Language Acquisition.” IRAL 43: 259–267.
—, Mennen, S., and van der Slik, F. (2000). “Authenticity of Pronunciation in Naturalistic Second Language Acquisition: The Case of Very Advanced Late Learners of Dutch as a Second Language.” Studia Linguistica 54: 298–308.
Cutler, A., Kim, J., and Otake, T. (2006). “On the limits of L1 influence on non-L1 listening: Evidence from Japanese perception of Korean.” In: P. Warren, and C. I. Watson, eds. Proceedings of the 11th Australian International Conference on Speech Science & Technology. 106–111.
Eberl, Eva, and Pfandl-Buchegger, I. (2008). “Learning to Listen – correct speech perception as a prerequisite for speech production”. In: Werner Delanoy and Laurenz Volkmann, eds. Future Perspectives for English Language Teaching. Heidelberg: Winter. 57–70.
Fikkert, Paula (2007). “Acquiring phonology.” In: P. de Lacy, ed. Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 537–554.
Guberina, Petar (1984). “Bases théoriques de la méthode audio-visuelle structuro-globale (méthode Saint Cloud-Zagreb). Une linguistique de la parole.” In: Aspects d’une politique de diffusion du français langue étrangère depuis 1945; Matériaux pour une histoire. Paris: Hatier.
Harmegnies, B., and Landercy, A. (1985). “Language Features in the Long-Term Average Spectrum.” Revue de Phonétique Appliquée 73–75: 69–79.
Insam, Milena, Pfandl-Buchegger, I., and Landsiedler. I. (2012). “Re-conditioning the Ear – Condensed Listening as a Means to Accelerating Foreign Language Learning.” In: Sabine Coelsch-Foisner, Manfred Markus, and Herbert Schendl, eds. Transfer in English Studies. ASE – Austrian Studies in English 100. 287–301.
Kaunzner, Ulrike (2001). Das Ohr als Schlüssel zur Fremdsprachenkompetenz. Tübingen: Groos.
–, (1997, online). “Audio-Lingua: pronunciation improvement through sound perception training.” http://www. tomatis.lu/download/AudioLinguaE.pdf [15/12/2012]
Kuhl, P. K. (2008). “Linking infant speech perception to language acquisition: Phonetic learning predicts language growth.” In: P. McCardle, J. Colombo, and L. Freund, eds. Infant pathways to language: Methods, models, and research directions. New York, NY: Erlbaum. 213¬–244.
— (2009). “Early language acquisition: Neural substrates and theoretical models.” In: M. S. Gazzaniga, ed. The Cognitive Neurosciences. 4th ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 837–854.
—, Conboy, B. T., Coffey-Corina, S., Padden, D., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., and Nelson, T. (2008). “Phonetic learning as a pathway to language: new data and native language magnet theory expanded (NLM-e).” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363: 979–1000.
— (2010). “Brain Mechanisms in Early Language Acquisition”. Neuron 67: 713–727.
— (2011). “Brain Mechanisms Underlying the Critical Period for Language: Linking Theory and Practice.” In: A. M. Battro, S. Dehaene, and W. J. Singer, eds. Human Neuroplasticity and Education: The Proceedings of the Working Group 27–28 October 2010. Vatican City: The Pontifical Academy of Sciences.Landercy, A. et al. (1992). “Analyse de la variabilité du spectre à long terme: reflexions métho¬do¬logiques et études de cas.” Jannées d’Etudes sur la Parole: 561–566.
Liberman, Alvin M., and Mattingly, I. G. (1985). “The Motor Theory of Speech Perception Revised.” Cognition 21: 1–36.
Pfandl-Buchegger, Ingrid Insam, M., and Landsiedler, I. (2011a). “Hearing the Difference: An Innovative Approach to the Teaching of Pronunciation.” In: Biljana Cubrovic and Tatjana Paunovic, eds. Exploring English Phonetics. Proceedings of the Second Belgrade International Meeting of English Phoneticians (BIMEP 2010). Newcastle on Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 33–48.
Sereinig, A. (2010). Das Hörmodell nach Alfred Tomatis und die Untersuchungen sprachspezifischer Spektral¬eigenschaften von Deutsch, Englisch und Französisch. Master thesis, Graz University of Technology.
Tomatis, A. (1963). L’Oreille et le langage. Paris: Seuil. Engl. Transl. The Ear and Language. Moulin 1997.
— (1977). L'oreille et la vie. Paris: Robert Laffont; Engl. transl. The Conscious Ear: my life of transformation through listening. Station Hill Press 1992.
— (1991). Nous sommes tous nés polyglottes. Paris: Fixot.
Tsao, F.-M., Liu, H.-M., and Kuhl, P. K. (2004). “Speech perception in infancy predicts language development in the second year of life: A longitudinal study.” Child Development 75: 1067–1084.