PronunciationMatters
DE EN
Login

Capturing the Pronunciation of Learners of Spanish: Data Collection Design for the Spanish Corpus of Pronunciation Matters

Author: Felix Tacke

Institution: Philipps-Universität Marburg

Year of publication: Last updated:

Abstract

This article presents the data collection design of the Spanish learner corpus of Pronunciation Matters. Building on established corpus-phonological protocols and on experience from the predecessor project MAR.ELE, it explains the development of a phonologically motivated wordlist, a controlled sentence list and a supplementary interview component. The focus is on the systematic elicitation of selected pronunciation phenomena, the comparability of realisations in isolated words and in sentence contexts, and the adaptation of the tasks to the needs and proficiency levels of learners of Spanish. The article justifies the central selection decisions and discusses the scope and limitations of the protocol.

Keywords

Spanish as a foreign language · learner phonetics · corpus phonology · pronunciation · data collection design

Research context and aims

The Spanish corpus of Pronunciation Matters is situated at the intersection of two developments: on the one hand, corpus-phonological elicitation designs that aim to document pronunciation in a controlled and comparable way; on the other, the teaching of Spanish as a foreign language (español como lengua extranjera, ELE) and university-level phonetics and phonology, where pronunciation as an object of learning and learner pronunciation as an object of research are increasingly taken into account explicitly.1 Empirical data on learner pronunciation do not arise in a vacuum: they are shaped by task formats, which determine which linguistic units are read or spoken, under what conditions, and how comparable the resulting recordings are.

The aim is therefore a task protocol that systematically elicits central phenomena in the pronunciation of learners of Spanish without overburdening the elicitation with unnecessarily difficult vocabulary, complex reading passages or an implicit orientation towards native-speaker target norms.

That pronunciation as an object of learning and learner pronunciation as an object of research are now being integrated more firmly into Spanish phonetics and phonology is also evident from relevant introductions in German-language Hispanic studies: Pustka (2021) devotes a separate chapter to “pronunciation in foreign language teaching” right at the start of her corpus-linguistic introduction; Gabriel/Meisenburg/Selig (2025), in the second, revised edition, include for the first time a chapter of its own on “Spanish as a foreign language in the German-speaking context”, with sections on segmental aspects and prosody.

Pronunciation Matters builds on this development and complements it with a platform that makes controlled learner data available for empirical research, research-oriented university teaching and didactic follow-up questions.

The didactic perspective also draws on foundational work on teaching pronunciation in ELE, in particular Gil Fernández (2007), and on practice-oriented contributions on dealing with foreign accent in the classroom, such as Benet/Pešková (2017). More recent work in ELE didactics likewise defines pronunciation not primarily as approximation to native-speaker norms, but in terms of intelligibility, comprehensibility and communicative function (cf. Santamaría Busto 2024; Bárkányi/Galindo Merino/Pérez-Bernabeu 2024).

This twofold positioning leads to the central design decision of the Spanish task protocol: existing models offer important groundwork, but can only partly be adopted directly for the targeted study of learner pronunciation. This concerns above all lexical difficulty, the content-related distractions caused by reading passages, and the question of which phonetic phenomena have to be elicited repeatedly and under controlled conditions.

The guiding principles are therefore intelligibility, controlled elicitation, empirical comparability and learner-appropriate materials.

Previous work and empirical starting point

An important intermediate step was the earlier project MAR.ELE – Corpus sobre la pronunciación del español por aprendientes de ELE en Marburg. In this smaller preliminary project, 22 recordings were made with students at the University of Marburg. MAR.ELE served to make the pronunciation of learners of Spanish accessible as corpus material and amenable to empirical analysis.

In practical work with this corpus, however, the limitations of a largely borrowed design also became apparent. These experiences were decisive for the further revision undertaken in the present project, and they are closely linked to the overall development of the project, which is described here.

For MAR.ELE, the wordlist of the (I)FEC project was adopted in full in order to ensure compatibility with an established corpus-phonological design for Spanish. This made methodological sense, but working with learners also revealed clear limitations: some items proved to be unnecessary lexical stumbling blocks, which showed in repeated reading attempts, slips of the tongue (such as sound and syllable transpositions), sound substitutions, spontaneous reactions such as laughing or smiling, and occasional abandoned readings. In such cases it was not always possible to determine whether unexpected realisations reflected systematic pronunciation patterns or difficulties in recognising the written word form. At the same time, some phenomena that are particularly revealing for learner pronunciation were represented insufficiently or unevenly in the material.

The text used in MAR.ELE was also useful as a comparison text, but proved too demanding for the target group. The revision of the elicitation protocol is therefore based essentially on practical experience with the earlier materials and on the methodological difficulties that became apparent in the process.

Methodological starting point

A central aim of corpus-phonological projects is to collect speech data in a way that is comparable across projects. This logic also underlies established protocols such as PFC/IPFC for French and the Spanish project (I)FEC that follows on from them. The starting point is Labov’s distinction between different degrees of self-monitoring, or attention paid to one’s own speech: controlled reading tasks, wordlists, texts and more open conversational formats yield different types of data which together allow a more differentiated picture of phonetic variation (cf. Labov 1972; Detey/Durand/Laks/Lyche 2016; Racine/Zay/Detey/Kawaguchi 2012; Pustka et al. 2018).

This standardisation provides the basis for comparing the pronunciation of different speakers and learner groups. The additional collection of language-biographical information makes it possible to interpret the elicited realisations in the context of each speaker’s language learning. For Pronunciation Matters, however, the principle of standardisation had to be adapted to a specific research interest: the aim is not a general reference corpus of the Spanish sound system, but a learner corpus that provides data with as little interference as possible for investigating pronunciation patterns and didactically relevant contrasts.

Design of the wordlist

The (I)FEC wordlist is designed for a broad corpus-phonological research programme. It is meant to cover numerous phenomena of the Spanish sound system, regional variation and potential contrasts. For a learner corpus, this breadth is only partly useful.

Some items are phonologically interesting but proved to be unnecessary stumbling blocks for learners or had virtually no analytical value: morphologically complex forms such as estudiéis, rare diphthongs or triphthongs in items such as bou, miau and guau, loanwords such as kétchup and iceberg, or lexically marginal words such as ñandú, yunque and ciempiés.2 Such words risk shifting the task away from pronunciation: what is elicited then is vocabulary knowledge or reading confidence, and uncertainty with unfamiliar forms distracts from the actual focus.

The new wordlist therefore deliberately departs from the ideal of adopting the protocol in full. It remains, however, closely tied to (I)FEC: 58 distinct word forms from (I)FEC were retained.3 The sequence of a randomised main part with individual lexemes followed by a final block of contrast groups was also kept. At the same time, 31 word forms were newly added in order to adapt the list better to learners and to the planned analyses.4 These include items that improve the coverage of certain consonant phenomena, for example final /d/ in ciudad, usted and verdad. Since word-final /d/ is not systematically covered in (I)FEC, it was deliberately given greater weight in the design of the wordlist for Pronunciation Matters.

The wordlist was thus not invented anew but revised in a targeted way. What matters are intelligibility, systematic realisations and relevant contrasts. The list comprises 92 task items: 86 individual words and a final block of six contrast groups. These include phonological contrasts such as caro – carro and pero – perro, orthographic contrasts such as ola – hola and bienes – vienes, and the stress triplet número – numero – numeró. The items are selected on phonological grounds but filtered to suit learners.

Preference is given to high-frequency words that match early learning levels and are as orthographically transparent as possible. Relevant phenomena should be represented repeatedly, as a rule by three to five items, so that individual observations are not over-interpreted.

In compiling the wordlist, phonetic-phonological and didactic considerations were combined. Central areas of description in Spanish phonetics and phonology were taken into account, including segmental contrasts, syllable structure, word stress, grapheme–phoneme relations and prosodic embedding. Important reference points here are Pustka (2021) and Gabriel/Meisenburg/Selig (2025). From a didactic perspective, too, grapheme–phoneme relations are of particular importance in Spanish, since the comparatively high transparency of spelling–sound correspondences does not mean that pronunciation is unproblematic (cf. Díez Plaza 2024). In addition, the design draws on work that understands phonetic form as a component of lexical knowledge and closely links pronunciation, phonological awareness and vocabulary work (cf. Hidalgo Gallardo/Pérez Serrano 2024).

The following examples illustrate how these selection criteria are reflected in the composition of the stimuli:

Phenomenon area Words and contrasts (selection) Perspective of investigation
Allophony of /b/ and graphemes ⟨b⟩/⟨v⟩ labio, vino, lavar, vida Plosive and approximant realisations in different phonetic contexts; possible influence of spelling on the pronunciation of ⟨v⟩
Rhotic contrasts caro – carro; pero – perro; reloj Taps and trills and the positions in which they occur
Diphthongs viuda, deuda, tierra, baile Realisation of different vowel sequences within the syllable
Hiatus caída, oído, oír, reír Realisation of heterosyllabic vowel sequences
Word-final consonants ciudad, usted, verdad Retention, weakening or deletion of final /d/
Lexical stress número – numero – numeró Distinguishing meaning-relevant stress positions

The targeted combination of stimuli makes it possible to examine individual pronunciation phenomena in different phonetic contexts and, where appropriate, to compare their realisation in isolated words with that in sentence contexts.5

Wordlist

The Spanish wordlist comprises 92 task items: 86 individual words and six final contrast groups.

  1. 1 mesa
  2. 2 reloj
  3. 3 viuda
  4. 4 tabúes
  5. 5 neutro
  6. 6 querría
  7. 7 caída
  8. 8 ciudad
  9. 9 lavar
  10. 10 avión
  11. 11 jamón
  12. 12 numeró
  13. 13 toros
  14. 14 gente
  15. 15 regla
  16. 16 flor
  17. 17 ríe
  18. 18 hoy
  19. 19 juzgar
  20. 20 signo
  21. 21 labio
  22. 22 deuda
  23. 23 queja
  24. 24 euforia
  25. 25 oír
  26. 26 ladrón
  27. 27 club
  28. 28 vainilla
  29. 29 número
  30. 30 usted
  31. 31 ángel
  32. 32 giro
  33. 33 cuidado
  34. 34 caza
  35. 35 logro
  36. 36 solo
  37. 37 mismo
  38. 38 vino
  39. 39 admirar
  40. 40 sueño
  41. 41 vacío
  42. 42 traer
  43. 43 jefe
  44. 44 álbum
  45. 45 vida
  46. 46 ustedes
  47. 47 chico
  48. 48 algo
  49. 49 ahí
  50. 50 enfermo
  51. 51 diablo
  52. 52 nadie
  53. 53 causa
  54. 54 tirar
  55. 55 llave
  56. 56 perro
  57. 57 carro
  58. 58 cuidar
  59. 59 tierra
  60. 60 baile
  61. 61 drama
  62. 62 vienes
  63. 63 gracias
  64. 64 oído
  65. 65 casa
  66. 66 ración
  67. 67 tampoco
  68. 68 muchacho
  69. 69 salud
  70. 70 quería
  71. 71 paz
  72. 72 champán
  73. 73 hambre
  74. 74 obtiene
  75. 75 oye
  76. 76 reír
  77. 77 suave
  78. 78 lleno
  79. 79 barrio
  80. 80 Europa
  81. 81 allí
  82. 82 numero
  83. 83 otros
  84. 84 verdad
  85. 85 caro
  86. 86 bienes
  87. 87 número – numero – numeró
  88. 88 caro – carro
  89. 89 ahí – allí
  90. 90 pero – perro
  91. 91 ola – hola
  92. 92 bienes – vienes

Limitations of traditional reading passages

For the second task area, too, the question arose whether an existing reading passage should be adopted. In the phonetic tradition, El viento norte y el sol is an established comparison text that has long been used in the context of the International Phonetic Association (cf. International Phonetic Association 1999). The advantage is obvious: if many projects use the same text, data become easier to compare. At the same time, the text tradition itself is not unproblematic.

Coloma (2015) shows why even the standard text of the Spanish version was not optimally balanced and proposes a modified version that contains additional phonemes, has fewer repeated words and is phonetically better balanced. The debate about alternative versions of such comparison texts shows, moreover, that even established standard texts are always phonologically and didactically selective (cf. Deterding 2006; Coloma 2015).

(I)FEC, too, does not simply use the IPA standard text but its own reading passage. This text is appropriate for a general corpus-phonological protocol but only of limited suitability for a learner corpus. It comprises 381 words and is therefore very long for many learners; reading it aloud can accordingly be tiring.

In addition, there are numerous lexically, syntactically or semantically demanding passages, for example se agrava, perrera, lugar de los hechos, inspeccionar, suntuosa or sentences such as Tan suntuosa por fuera, y por dentro parece un zoológico obtenido por la caza nocturna en selvas y pantanos. Comparable problems also arose with the MAR.ELE text, the selection of which was modelled on Andrea Pešková’s Archivo de los acentos en el ELE. The modified excerpt from El Principito used there, with a view to partly quite different phenomena, contains, among others, forms such as sinnúmero, lúgubre, inquirió, compadecido and vergüenza.

Such texts are not intended to test vocabulary, text comprehension, literary reading experience, attention or fatigue. For learners reading aloud, however, these factors de facto become part of the task. They can overlay the pronunciation data and make interpretation more difficult: it is not always possible to tell whether an unexpected realisation reflects a pronunciation pattern, uncertainty in reading, unfamiliar vocabulary or being overwhelmed by the text.

A structural problem is added: connected texts rarely represent relevant phenomena evenly. Some phenomena occur several times, others not at all or only by chance. Pronunciation problems typical of learners, in particular, are not represented systematically enough. A reading passage is therefore of interest for overall pronunciation in reading aloud, for rhythm and for prosodic observations, but it is not ideal when particular learner phenomena are to be elicited repeatedly and under controlled conditions.

The sentence list as a controlled alternative

For Pronunciation Matters, a sentence list was therefore developed instead of a traditional reading passage. It does not replace the wordlist but complements it functionally. The sentence list tests whether pronunciation patterns observed in isolated words also remain stable under simple prosodic conditions at sentence level. Each sentence was constructed around two specifically selected items from the wordlist. These items generally appear in the same word form; inflection is permitted only where it is phonologically neutral and does not introduce a new target phenomenon. Occasionally, further word forms from the wordlist occur without being intended as additional target items. The sentence list thus introduces no new primary target phenomena, but embedding the items in utterances opens up additional phonetic and prosodic contexts, in particular at word boundaries.

The sentence list thus follows a progression from controlled production to more complex sentence contexts, and it treats intelligibility and comprehensibility as central points of reference (cf. Marrero 2024; Santamaría Busto 2024). The combination of phonological awareness and oral production in communicative tasks also links it to Fullana/Pujolà (2024).

The list comprises 50 sentences: 30 declarative sentences, 10 yes/no questions and 10 wh-questions. The sentences are mostly 8–14 words long, syntactically simple and geared to levels A1–B1. Nested sentences, chains of subordinate clauses, idiomatic expressions, stylistically marked wording and strongly distracting content are avoided.

This does not create a substitute for free speech data. Freer speech is often collected in addition in corpus-phonological traditions, but for beginners and many learner groups it is not always the most suitable setting for systematically examining particular segmental phenomena.

The sentence list is rather a controlled alternative to the traditional reading passage: less complex than a connected narrative text, but more informative than isolated words, because sentence rhythm, sentence stress and intonation come into play and can, at least to some extent, be analysed. The three sentence types allow first comparisons of intonational realisations. Since the utterances are not embedded in specific pragmatic contexts, however, the material does not permit a systematic investigation of intonation patterns differentiated by discourse-pragmatic function.

Sentence list

The Spanish sentence list comprises 50 sentences: 30 declarative sentences, 10 yes/no questions and 10 wh-questions. Each sentence was designed around two primary target items from the wordlist; occasionally, further wordlist forms occur.

  1. D1 Hoy miro el reloj con calma antes de salir.
  2. D2 La viuda vive en una casa tranquila cerca del centro.
  3. D3 Los tabúes influyen mucho en la gente joven.
  4. D4 Nadie se quedó en la ciudad después.
  5. D5 Cuidar un perro exige tiempo y atención diaria.
  6. D6 El médico pudo salvar la vida al enfermo.
  7. D7 Es difícil juzgar solo por lo que se oye.
  8. D8 El champán acompañó el baile elegante del evento.
  9. D9 Algo tan caro no siempre vale la pena.
  10. D10 El avión bajó hacia tierra sin problemas graves.
  11. D11 El jamón quedó sobre la mesa después de cenar.
  12. D12 La vainilla dejó un aroma suave en la cocina.
  13. D13 Él quería llevar a su hijo a ver los toros.
  14. D14 Por la mañana siento dolor en el labio y el oído.
  15. D15 Mi tío se compró un carro y su deuda aumentó.
  16. D16 La queja llegó finalmente al jefe responsable.
  17. D17 La euforia le hizo traer más bebidas de lo necesario.
  18. D18 Puedo oír bien cuando ella se ríe bajito.
  19. D19 El ladrón buscó la llave correcta sin éxito.
  20. D20 Un giro rápido lo llevó a una caída muy dolorosa.
  21. D21 Con mucho cuidado se puso a lavar la ropa.
  22. D22 Su logro es un motivo para admirar su esfuerzo.
  23. D23 Al despertar, tenía sueño y un vacío extraño.
  24. D24 Con su familia es un ángel y con sus amigos un diablo.
  25. D25 La flor del jardín tiene un color neutro y bonito.
  26. D26 El muchacho habla sobre la caza con su abuelo.
  27. D27 Cuando el chico tiene hambre, pierde el control.
  28. D28 El álbum familiar les hizo reír toda la tarde.
  29. D29 Ahí termina la calle y allí comienza otra.
  30. D30 El profesor explicó la regla y numeró ejemplos.
  31. QY1 ¿El vaso está lleno de vino ahora?
  32. QY2 ¿Vienes mañana a ver la casa?
  33. QY3 ¿La salud importa más que la paz?
  34. QY4 ¿Ustedes dicen “hola” al entrar al aula?
  35. QY5 ¿Tampoco los otros quieren venir?
  36. QY6 ¿Querría otra ración de tortilla?
  37. QY7 ¿El drama continúa dentro del club?
  38. QY8 ¿En Europa la verdad importa?
  39. QY9 ¿Usted espera respuesta ahí?
  40. QY10 ¿Viajó solo con el mismo plan de siempre?
  41. QW1 ¿Por qué dices gracias pero no respondes?
  42. QW2 ¿Cuándo vienen los otros hoy?
  43. QW3 ¿Dónde sirve el vino el jefe?
  44. QW4 ¿Por qué esa causa genera tanto drama?
  45. QW5 ¿Cómo se obtiene la llave correcta?
  46. QW6 ¿Cómo de lleno está el barrio?
  47. QW7 ¿Por qué cuidas los bienes y no la salud?
  48. QW8 ¿Cómo numero los puntos que obtiene cada equipo?
  49. QW9 ¿Cuál es el signo de la paz?
  50. QW10 ¿Por qué quieres tirar ese número de teléfono?

Interview

The project-wide interview complements the controlled reading tasks with the learners’ perspective on their own pronunciation. It is not conducted in the target language but serves metalinguistic reflection: besides general assessments of their own pronunciation and perceived difficulties, specific noticeable features from the preceding reading tasks can be taken up and discussed together. Unlike the fixed wordlist and sentence list, the course of the conversation therefore depends in part on observations made during the individual data collection.

In this way, the documented pronunciation data are complemented by subjective perceptions and assessments that give additional insight into learners’ awareness of their pronunciation. The interview component thus builds on work that regards phonological awareness and metacognitive reflection as important elements of pronunciation work (cf. Blanco Canales 2024).

Conclusion: Potential and limitations of the data collection design

The data collection design presented here combines the systematic elicitation of selected pronunciation phenomena with materials geared to the needs and proficiency levels of learners of Spanish. The focus is on the comparability of the elicited productions and on the coverage of central phonetic-phonological phenomena, particularly consonantal phenomena. The Spanish corpus of Pronunciation Matters thus offers an empirical basis for a range of questions in learner phonetics and pronunciation teaching.

As a more broadly conceived elicitation protocol, however, it cannot and is not meant to replace investigations tailored to individual phenomena. For in-depth analyses, more specific tasks and additional data will remain necessary, depending on the research interest. The corpus made available for research does, however, make it possible to approach many questions first on the basis of authentic learner data, to test initial hypotheses and to prepare further studies.

The design is thus the result of a deliberate balancing of phonological coverage, comparability, learner orientation and practical feasibility. It is precisely this combination that is meant to allow the broadest possible scholarly use of the elicited speech data.

Footnotes

  1. For the project as a whole, its genesis, platform logic, methodological infrastructure and the collaboration involved, see the project pages What this project is about, Project structure, Data & methods and Team & contributors. ↩
  2. Examples of (I)FEC items that were not retained or proved problematic: estudiéis, cambiáis, bou, miau, guau, kétchup, iceberg, ñandú, yunque, ciempiés, rosbif, coñac, chalet, suntuoso, diurético. ↩
  3. Word forms retained from (I)FEC: reloj, viuda, tabúes, querría, caída, numeró, toros, flor, ríe, hoy, juzgar, signo, labio, deuda, queja, ladrón, club, vainilla, número, ángel, caza, logro, mismo, vino, admirar, sueño, álbum, chico, algo, ahí, enfermo, diablo, nadie, causa, llave, perro, cuidar, baile, drama, vienes, gracias, oído, casa, ración, muchacho, salud, quería, paz, champán, obtiene, oye, reír, lleno, Europa, allí, numero, otros, pero. ↩
  4. Newly added word forms (31): mesa, neutro, ciudad, lavar, avión, jamón, gente, regla, euforia, oír, usted, giro, cuidado, solo, vacío, traer, jefe, vida, ustedes, tirar, carro, tierra, tampoco, hambre, suave, barrio, verdad, caro, ola, hola, bienes. ↩
  5. For such analyses, the research area of Pronunciation Matters offers curated phenomenon sets that bring together selected word and sentence items. Researchers can also combine the items individually for specific research questions. ↩

References

  • Bárkányi, Zsuzsanna / Galindo Merino, M. Mar / Pérez-Bernabeu, Aarón (eds.) (2024): La integración de la pronunciación en el aula de ELE. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ivitra.42
  • Benet, Ariadna / Pešková, Andrea (2017): „Cómo reducir el ‚acento extranjero‘ en el ELE“. Der fremdsprachliche Unterricht Spanisch 58, 16–20.
  • Blanco Canales, Ana (2024): „La enseñanza de la pronunciación basada en el desarrollo de la conciencia fonológica y la metacognición“. In: Bárkányi, Zsuzsanna / Galindo Merino, M. Mar / Pérez-Bernabeu, Aarón (eds.): La integración de la pronunciación en el aula de ELE. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 175–189.
  • Coloma, Germán (2015): „Una versión alternativa de ‚El viento norte y el sol‘ en español“. Revista de Investigación Lingüística 18, 191–212.
  • Deterding, David (2006): „The North Wind versus a Wolf: Short Texts for the Description and Measurement of English Pronunciation“. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 36(2), 187–196.
  • Detey, Sylvain / Durand, Jacques / Laks, Bernard / Lyche, Chantal (2016): „The PFC programme and its methodological framework“. In: Detey, Sylvain / Durand, Jacques / Laks, Bernard / Lyche, Chantal (eds.): Varieties of Spoken French. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 13–23.
  • Díez Plaza, César L. (2024): „La ortografía en la enseñanza de ELE: De la grafía a la pronunciación“. In: Bárkányi, Zsuzsanna / Galindo Merino, M. Mar / Pérez-Bernabeu, Aarón (eds.): La integración de la pronunciación en el aula de ELE. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 40–54.
  • Fullana, Natalia / Pujolà, Joan-Tomàs (2024): „L2 pronunciation in the spotlight: From phonological awareness to oral production in communicative tasks“. In: Bárkányi, Zsuzsanna / Galindo Merino, M. Mar / Pérez-Bernabeu, Aarón (eds.): La integración de la pronunciación en el aula de ELE. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 88–101.
  • Gabriel, Christoph / Meisenburg, Trudel / Selig, Maria (2025): Spanisch: Phonetik und Phonologie. Eine Einführung. 2nd rev. ed. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24053/9783381100125
  • Gil Fernández, Juana (2007): Fonética para profesores de español: de la teoría a la práctica. Madrid: Arco Libros.
  • Hidalgo Gallardo, Matías / Pérez Serrano, Mercedes (2024): „Léxico y pronunciación: Un camino de ida y vuelta“. In: Bárkányi, Zsuzsanna / Galindo Merino, M. Mar / Pérez-Bernabeu, Aarón (eds.): La integración de la pronunciación en el aula de ELE. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 12–24.
  • International Phonetic Association (1999): Handbook of the International Phonetic Association. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Labov, William (1972): Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  • Marrero, Victoria (2024): „De la comprensión auditiva a la pronunciación“. In: Bárkányi, Zsuzsanna / Galindo Merino, M. Mar / Pérez-Bernabeu, Aarón (eds.): La integración de la pronunciación en el aula de ELE. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 72–87.
  • Pešková, Andrea (n.d.): Archivo de los acentos en el ELE. Online: https://andrea-peskova.com/archivo-de-los-acentos-l2/
  • Pustka, Elissa (2021): Phonetik und Phonologie des Spanischen. Eine korpuslinguistische Einführung. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.
  • Pustka, Elissa / Gabriel, Christoph / Meisenburg, Trudel / Burkard, Monja / Dziallas, Kristina (2018): „(Inter-)Fonología del Español Contemporáneo (I)FEC: Metodología de un programa de investigación para la fonología de corpus“. Loquens 5(1), e046.
  • Racine, Isabelle / Zay, Françoise / Detey, Sylvain / Kawaguchi, Yuji (2012): „Des atouts d’un corpus multitâches pour l’étude de la phonologie en L2: l’exemple du projet ‚Interphonologie du français contemporain‘ (IPFC)“. In: Kamiyama, Takeki / Kawaguchi, Yuji / Minegishi, Makoto (eds.): Corpus-based Analysis and Diachronic Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–19.
  • Santamaría Busto, Enrique (2024): „Hacia una evaluación comunicativa y eficaz de la pronunciación del español“. In: Bárkányi, Zsuzsanna / Galindo Merino, M. Mar / Pérez-Bernabeu, Aarón (eds.): La integración de la pronunciación en el aula de ELE. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 190–206.
  • Tacke, Felix (2023–2024): MAR.ELE – Corpus sobre la pronunciación del español por aprendientes de ELE en Marburg. Marburg: Philipps-Universität Marburg. Online: https://hispanistica.com/projects/marele/