Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Articles

Vol. 28 No. 3 (2025): Second language pronunciation: Current issues and developments

Introducing text-to-speech in L2 comprehensibility research: A pilot study isolating non-phonological features

DOI
https://doi.org/10.37213/cjal.2025.35677
Submitted
August 24, 2025
Published
2025-12-15

Abstract

The modality of speech sample presentation constitutes a methodological challenge for researchers who seek to understand the impact of non-phonological variables on (second language) L2 speech comprehensibility. This pilot-study aims to address this challenge. It uses a mixed-method approach to explore the possibility offered by text-to-speech software to present speech samples in an oral modality while also controlling for phonological variables. We generated audio files based on verbatim transcription (i.e., including run-on sentences, filler words, self-repetitions, colloquialisms) of two extemporaneous speech samples produced in Quebec French, with the help of a commercial text-to-speech software. In addition to the original transcripts, we created two versions of each sample containing decreasingly fewer features typical of spontaneous speech, since it is unclear to what extent such features distract listeners’ attention away from non-phonological features in French. Seven participants then rated the comprehensibility of the audio files on a scale from 1 to 9. They also shared their thought process through the think-aloud method and responded to a retrospective interview question formulated to elicit listener attitudes to artificial speech. The main findings were that speech samples read by an artificial voice were perceived as relatively easy to understand when the transcripts had been cleaned from filled pauses, repetitions and reformulations, and that listeners generally held relatively positive attitudes to AI-generated speech. These findings suggest that text-to-speech could be a useful method for presenting speech samples in L2 comprehensibility research, ultimately contributing to a deeper understanding of the interplay between linguistic factors and comprehensibility in second language acquisition.

References

  1. Ammari, T., Kaye, J., Tsai, J. Y., & Bentley, F. (2019). Music, search, and IoT: How people (really) use voice assistants. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 26(3), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311956
  2. Baird, A., Parada-Cabaleiro, E., Hantke, S., Burkhardt, F., Cummins, N., & Schuller, B. (2018). The perception and analysis of the likeability and human likeness of synthesized speech. Interspeech, 2863–2867. https://doi.org/10.21437/interspeech.2018-1093
  3. Bejarano, J. (2022). Compréhensibilité de séquences lexicales déviantes, produites à l'oral en français par des locuteurs hispanophones: le cas des expressions conventionnelles et des collocations verbe-nom. [Doctoral dissertation. Université Laval]. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11794/107344
  4. Bentley, F., Luvogt, C., Silverman, M., Wirasinghe, R., & White, B. (2018). Understanding the long-term use of smart speaker assistants. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 2(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3264901
  5. Bergeron, A., & Trofimovich, P. (2017). Linguistic dimensions of accentedness and comprehensibility: Exploring task and listener effects in second language French. Foreign Language Annals, 50(3), 547–566. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12285
  6. Borgia, K. (2023). La compréhensibilité en français Lx : effort et contribution des locuteurs L1. La Revue de l’AQEFLS, 36(1). https://doi.org/10.7202/1108562ar
  7. Bosker, H. R., Quené, H., Sanders, T., & de Jong, N. H. (2014). Native ‘um’s elicit prediction of low-frequency referents, but non-native ‘um’s do not. Journal of Memory and Language, 75, 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.05.004
  8. Chernova, D., Novozhilov, A., & Slioussar, N. (2022). The role of presentation modality in sentence processing. In A. Botinis (Ed.), ExLing 2022 Paris: Proceedings of 13th International Conference of Experimental Linguistics. ExLing. https://doi.org/10.36505/ExLing-2022/13/0010/000552
  9. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.
  10. Christodoulides, G., & Avanzi, M. (2014, July 25-27). Phonetic and prosodic characteristics of disfluencies in French spontaneous speech. [Poster presentation] LabPhon 14 - The14th Conference on Laboratory Phonology, Tokyo, Japan.
  11. Cohn, M., Segedin, B. F., & Zellou, G. (2022). Acoustic-phonetic properties of Siri-and human-directed speech. Journal of Phonetics, 90, 101123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2021.101123
  12. Cossavella, F., & Cevasco, J. (2021). The importance of studying the role of filled pauses in the construction of a coherent representation of spontaneous spoken discourse. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 33(2), 172-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2021.1893325
  13. Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.
  14. de Mareüil, P. B., Habert, B., Bénard, F., Adda-Decker, M., Barras, C., Adda, G., & Paroubek, P. (2005, September). A quantitative study of disfluencies in French broadcast interviews. In Proceedings of DiSS’05, Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech Workshop. 10–12 September 2005, Aix-en-Provence, France. (pp. 27-32).
  15. Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (1997). Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility: Evidence from four L1s. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001010
  16. Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2015). Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based perspectives for L2 teaching and research. John Benjamins.
  17. Derwing, T. M. & Munro, M. J. (2009). Putting accent in its place: Rethinking obstacles to communication. Language Teaching, 42(4), 476–490. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480800551X
  18. El Shazly, R. (2021). Effects of artificial intelligence on English speaking anxiety and speaking performance: A case study. Expert Systems, 38(3), e12667. https://doi.org/10.1111/exsy.12667
  19. Ferreira, F. (2000). Syntax in language production: An approach using tree-adjoining grammars. In L. Wheeldon (Ed.), Studies in cognition series. Aspects of language production (pp. 291–330). Psychology Press.
  20. Fox Tree, J. E. (2001). Listeners' uses of um and uh in speech comprehension. Memory & cognition, 29, 320-326. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194926
  21. Gabler, P., Geiger, B. C., Schuppler, B., & Kern, R. (2023). Reconsidering read and spontaneous speech: Causal perspectives on the generation of training data for automatic speech recognition. Information, 14(2), 137. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14020137
  22. Herrmann, B. (2023). The perception of artificial-intelligence (AI) based synthesized speech in younger and older adults. International Journal of Speech Technology, 26(2), 395–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10772-023-10027-y
  23. Isaacs, T. & Trofimovich, P. (2012). Deconstructing comprehensibility: Identifying the linguistic influences on listeners’ L2 comprehensibility ratings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 475–505. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000150
  24. Isaacs, T., & Thomson, R. I. (2013). Rater experience, rating scale length, and judgments of L2 pronunciation: Revisiting research conventions. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(2), 135-159. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2013.769545
  25. Jun, H. G., & Li, J. (2010). Factors in raters’ perceptions of comprehensibility and accentedness. In J. Levis, & K. LeVelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st pronunciation in second language learning and teaching conference (pp. 53–66). Iowa State University.
  26. Kennedy, S., & Trofimovich, P. (2008). Intelligibility, comprehensibility, and accentedness of L2 speech: The role of listener experience and semantic context. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(3), 459-489. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.64.3.459
  27. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.
  28. Levis, J. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 369–377. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588485
  29. Levis, J. (2020). Revisiting the intelligibility and nativeness principles. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 6(3), 310–328. https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.20050.lev
  30. Martin, J. G., & Strange, W. (1968). The perception of hesitation in spontaneous speech. Perception and Psychophysics, 3, 427–438.
  31. Munro, M. J. & Derwing, T., M. (1995). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 45(1), 73–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00963.x
  32. Narakeet (2021, May 5). Text to speech: 5 tips for video narration. https://www.narakeet.com/blog/text-to-speech-videos.html
  33. Pearson (n.d.). PTE Scoring. https://www.pearsonpte.com/scoring
  34. Qader, R., Lecorvé, G., Lolive, D., et Sébillot, P. (2017). Ajout automatique de disfluences pour la synthèse de la parole spontanée : formalisation et preuve de concept. Dans Actes des 24ème Conférence sur le Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles (Vol. 1, p.1–15). ATALA.
  35. Richter, F. (2020). Smart speaker adoption continues to rise. Statista. https://www.statista.com/chart/16597/smart-speaker-ownership-in-the-united-states/
  36. Saito, K. (2020). Multi‐or single‐word units? The role of collocation use in comprehensible and contextually appropriate second language speech. Language Learning, 70(2), 548–588. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12387
  37. Saito, K., & Liu, Y. (2022). Roles of collocation in L2 oral proficiency revisited: Different tasks, L1 vs. L2 raters, and cross-sectional vs. longitudinal analyses. Second Language Research, 38(3), 531–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658320988055
  38. Saito, K., Webb, S., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2016). Lexical correlates of comprehensibility versus accentedness in second language speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(3), 597–609. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000255
  39. Shriberg, E. (2001). To ‘errrr’is human: Ecology and acoustics of speech disfluencies. Journal of the international phonetic association, 31(1), 153-169.
  40. Suzuki, S., & Kormos, J. (2020). Linguistic dimensions of comprehensibility and perceived fluency: An investigation of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language argumentative speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(1), 143-167.
  41. Thomson, R. (2017). Measurement of accentedness, intelligibility, and comprehensibility. In O. Kang, & A. Ginther (Eds.), Assessment in second language pronunciation (pp. 11-29). Routledge.
  42. Trofimovich, P. & Isaacs, T. (2012). Disentangling accent from comprehensibility. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(4), 905–916. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000168
  43. Yan, Y., Tan, X., Li, B., Zhang, G., Qin, T., Zhao, S., Shen, Y., Zhang, W.-Q., & Liu, T.-Y. (2021). Adaspeech 3: Adaptive text to speech for spontaneous style. INTERSPEECH. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.02530