Perception Training of L2 Spanish Intervocalic Rhotics in L1 Canadian English and Canadian French Learners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spanish intervocalic rhotics contrast phonologically and orthographically, while English and French do not. Perception task (identification, discrimination) and linguistic and learner variables (e.g., rhotic, phonological environment, proficiency, age, input), influence rhotic perception and production/ ultimate attainment, respectively. L2 phonology models, neuroscience studies, theoretical approaches to perception and production, and phonetic training studies show that these modalities are linked and training is effective for same- and opposite-modality improvements, generalization to new stimuli and new speakers, and long-term retention.For this study, it was hypothesized that in L1 Canadian English and L1 Canadian French/ L2 Spanish learners, perception training of intervocalic rhotics would result in same- and opposite-modality improvements, and generalize to new stimuli and new speakers. At pre- and post-test (20 minutes each), 32 beginner L2 participants (16 per L1), and 8 L1 controls (pre-test only), completed, online, a reading task (40 stimuli), and an identification task, similar to training (40 stimuli, half identical to and half different from training, two trained and two untrained speakers). 16 participants (8 per L1) completed six 30-minute identification training sessions, over two weeks (40 stimuli per session, half by each trained speaker). Three native speakers evaluated production stimuli. L1 Canadian English and L1 Canadian French trainees, but not controls, significantly and substantially improved on perception and all production parameters (native speaker judgments, manner, duration, voicing), for both rhotics. Both training groups progressed from L2 control levels (all parameters) to L1 control levels (all parameters except manner, where both training groups remained considerably below L1 controls). For both rhotics, on all parameters, similar, substantial improvements were found for trained and new stimuli (perception and production) and trained and new speakers (perception). Regarding non-target responses, trainees, controls, and judges identified a target tap or trill more often as Other (due to potential influence of L1 transfer). For manner and duration, other Spanish rhotics were more common non-target responses (due to potential influence of L2 developmental errors). Future research may expand these results, on the parameters of tasks (training, testing, and native speaker judges), stimuli, participants, and target L2s, as well as on pronunciation instruction.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".