Explicit pronunciation instruction in the second language classroom
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The present study uses an acoustic analysis to examine the effects of implicit and explicit pronunciation instruction on the acquisition of German final devoicing in the L2 classroom. Twenty-nine English-speaking L2 learners of German at a North American university were assigned to an implicit or explicit condition. Learner speech samples were recorded, following a pre/post/delayed-post-test design. Four acoustic correlates of final and medial obstruent voicing were analyzed to establish the degree to which underlyingly voiced word-final stops were phonetically devoiced. Results indicate that learners in the explicit condition significantly outperformed learners in the implicit condition, with all four acoustic measures signaling significantly greater word-final devoicing by the post-test in the explicit condition. Orthography, declarative knowledge, and level of awareness are hypothesized as factors that influenced the acquisition process. The study calls for additional acoustic work on the effects of different instructional practices on German L2 pronunciation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it