Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-9lb97 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-04T13:42:55.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SOMETIMES LESS IS MORE

THE EFFECTS OF PHONETICALLY VARIABLE INPUT ON AUDITORY PROCESSING INSTRUCTION FOR L2 FRENCH

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 December 2021

Kiwako Ito Open the ORCID record for Kiwako Ito [Opens in a new window]  and
Wynne Wong
Kiwako Ito*
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle, Australia
Wynne Wong
Affiliation:
Ohio State University, USA
*
*Corresponding author: E-mail: kiwako.ito@newcastle.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Effects of phonetically variable input (PVI) for processing instruction (PI) training and the number of training items were tested with a picture-selection eye-tracking task. Intermediate second language (L2) learners of French (n = 174) were tested before and after they received either a short (24 items), medium (48), or long (96) training on the causative structure with either single- or multivoice input. PI improved picture-selection accuracy from about 10% to above 50% regardless of the training size. Eye-tracking data showed a reduction in looks to the incorrect picture only after the short and medium training: it surfaced regardless of voice variability after the short training, whereas multivoice training led to a greater reduction after the medium training. Long training did not yield a reliable reduction of incorrect looks regardless of voice variability. Taken together, PVI does not hinder L2 syntactic learning. Learners may benefit more from a relatively shorter training with PVI.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , September 2022 , pp. 1045 - 1070
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

We thank Jackie Dunn, Cory Bargemann, Jim Brennan, Laurene Glimois, and four native speakers of French for their assistance with stimuli construction, data collection, and analyses.

References

Barcroft, J., & Sommers, M. S. (2005). Effects of acoustic variability on second language vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 387–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barcroft, J., & Sommers, M. (2014). Effects of variability in fundamental frequency on L2 vocabulary learning: A comparison between learners who do and do not speak a tone language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 423–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barriuso, T. A., & Hayes-Harb, R. (2018). High variability phonetic training as a bridge from research to practice. The CATESOL Journal, 30, 177–194.Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2016). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.19, http://www.praat.org/ Google Scholar
Bradlow, A., Akahane-Yamada, R., Pisoni, D., & Tohkura, Y. (1999). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/and /l/: Long-term retention of learning in perception and production. Perception & Psychophysics, 52, 977–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradlow, A., & Bent, T. (2008). Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech. Cognition, 106, 707–729.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradlow, A., Pisoni, D., Akahane-Yamada, R. & Tohkura, Y. (1997). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: IV. Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 2299–2310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christianson, K., Williams, C. C., Zacks, R. T., & Ferreira, F. (2006). Younger and older adults “good-enough” interpretations of garden-path sentences. Discourse Processes, 42, 205–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernandez, C. (2008). Reexamining the role of explicit information in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 277–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F. (2002). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habit and rules. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 52–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Patson, D. (2007). The “good enough” approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldinger, S. D. (1997). Words and voices: Perception and production in an episodic lexicon. In Johnson, Keith and Mullennix, John W. (eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 33–66). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldinger, S. D., Pisoni, D. B., & Logan, J. S. (1991). On the nature of talker variability effects on recall of spoken word lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 152–162.Google ScholarPubMed
Hardison, D. (2003). Acquisition of second-language speech: Effects of visual cues, context, and talker variability. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 495–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardison, D. (2005). Second-language spoken word identification: Effects of perceptual training, visual cues, and phonetic environment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 579–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, K., & Wong, W. (2019). Processing instruction and the effects of input modality and voice familiarity on the acquisition of the French causative construction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 443–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K., & Mullennix, J. W. (1996). Talker variability in speech processing. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W., Pisoni, D. B, Mullennix, J. (1992). Some consequences of stimulus variability on speech processing by 2-month-old infants. Cognition, 43, 253–291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, J. F., & Doherty, S. (2019). Native and nonnative processing of active and passive sentences: The effects of processing instruction on the allocation of visual attention. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 853–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lim, S.-J., Qu, A., Tin, J. A. A., & Perrachoine, T. K. (2019). Attentional reorientation explains processing costs associated with talker variability. 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), Melbourne, August.Google Scholar
Linck, J. A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 21, 861–883.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lively, S. Logan, J., & Pisoni, D. (1993). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/. II: The role of phonetic environment and talker variability in learning new perceptual categories. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94, 1242–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, J., Lively, S., & Pisoni, D. (1991). Training Japanese Listeners to Identify English /r/ and /l/: A First Report. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 874–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, C. S., Mullennix, J. W., Pisoni, D. B., & Summers, W. V. (1989). Effects of talker variability on recall of spoken word lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 676–684.Google ScholarPubMed
Mora-Plaza, I., Ortega, M., & Mora, J. C. (in press). High-variability phonetic training under different conditions: Individual differences in auditory attention control. In V. Sardegna & A. Jarosz (eds.), Theoretical and practical developments in English speech assessment, research, and training. Springer.Google Scholar
Mullennix, J., Pisoni, D., & Martin, C. (1989). Some effects of talker variability on spoken word recognition. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85, 365078.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perrachione, T. K., Lee, J., Ha, L., & Wong, P. (2011). Learning a novel phonological contrast depends on interactions between individual differences and training paradigm design. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130, 461–472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pierrehumbert, J. (2001) Why phonological constraints are so coarse-grained. In McQueen, J. and Cutler, A. (eds). SWAP special issue, Language and Cognitive Processes , 16, 691–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadakata, M., & McQueen, J. (2014). Individual aptitude in Mandarin lexical tone perception predicts effectiveness of high-variability training. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sommers, M., & Barcroft, J. (2007). An integrated account of the effects of acoustic variability in first language and second language: Evidence from amplitude, fundamental frequency, and speaking rate variability. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommers, M., & Barcroft, J. (2011). Indexical information, encoding difficulty, and second language vocabulary learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 417–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, R. I. (2012). Improving L2 listeners’ perception of English vowels: A computer‐mediated approach. Language Learning, 62, 1231–1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorn, A. S. C., & Gathercole, S. E. (1999). Language-specific knowledge and short-term memory in bilingual and non-bilingual children. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 52A, 303–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorn, A. S. C., & Gathercole, S. E. (2001). Language differences in verbal short-term memory do not exclusively originate in the process of subvocal rehearsal. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 357–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorn, A., S. C., Gathercole, S. E., & Frankish, C. R. (2002). Language familiarity effects in short-term memory: The role of output delay and long-term knowledge. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 1363–1384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uddin, S., Reis, K. S., Heald, S. L., Van Hedger, S. C., & Nusbaum, H. C. (2020). Cortical mechanisms of talker normalization in fluent sentences. Brain and Language, 201, 104722.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Ablex.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2017). Processing instruction. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M., (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 166–180). Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2020). Input processing in adult L2 acquisition. In VanPatten, B., Keating, G. & Wulff, S. (Eds.). Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 105–127). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15, 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., Collopy, E., & Price, J. E. (2013). Explicit information, grammatical sensitivity, and the first-noun principle: A cross-linguistic study in processing instruction, The Modern Language Journal, 97, 506–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation vs. structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction and the French causative: Another replication. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 97–118). Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y., Jongman, A., & Sereno, J. (2003). Acoustic and perceptual evaluation of Mandarin tone productions before and after perceptual training. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113, 1033–1043.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, Y., Spence, Jongman, A., & Sereno, J. (1999). Training American listeners to perceive Mandarin tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 3649–3658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, J. P. (2015). Primary and secondary effects of processing instruction on Spanish clitic pronouns. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53, 151–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, J. P., & DeMil, A. J. (2013). Primary and secondary effects of PI. International Journal of Language Studies, 7, 59–88.Google Scholar
Wiener, S., Chan, M. K. M., & Ito, K. (2020). Do explicit instruction and high variability phonetic training improve nonnative speakers’ Mandarin tone productions? The Modern Language Journal, 104, 152–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiener, S., Ito, K., & Speer, S. R. (2021). Effects of multi-talker input and instructional method on the dimension-based statistical learning of syllable-tone combinations: An eye-tracking study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43, 155–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiener, S., Ito, K., & Speer, S. (2018). Early L2 spoken word recognition combines input-based and knowledge-based processing. Language and Speech, 61, 632–656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, W., & Ito, K. (2018). The effects of processing instruction and traditional instruction on L2 online processing of the causative construction in French: An eye-tracking study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 241–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, P. C. M., Nusbaum, H. C., & Small, S. L. (2004). Neural bases of talker normalization. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1173–1184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed