Effects of Perceptual Training on the Identification and Production of Word-Initial Voiceless Stops by Argentinean Learners of English

In this study, we investigate the effectiveness of perceptual training, administered to Argentinean learners, in the perception and production of word-initial voiceless stops in English. 24 participants were divided into 3 groups: (i) Group 1, which participated in 3 training sessions; (ii) Group 2, which, besides performing the same training tasks, was explicitly informed about the target item; (iii) Group 3 (control). All participants took part in a pre-test, a post-test and a delayed post-test. In all these tests, they participated in a consonant identification task and took part in a read-aloud task. Our results show a significant increase of both experimental groups in identification. As for production, Group 2 exhibited a significant increase in /p/ and /t/ after training. These results are indicative of the effectiveness of perceptual training tasks in helping learners focus on Voice Onset Time.

Keywords:
Perceptual training; Awareness raising; Acoustic cues; Voice Onset Time; English as a Foreign Language.

Authorship

Ubiratã Kickhöfel Alves

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, BrasilUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do SulBrazilPorto Alegre, RS, BrazilUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil

* Full time Professor at the Graduate Program in Linguistics at Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil). Researcher at Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq-Brazil). His e-mail address is ukalves@gmail.com.

Pedro Luis Luchini

Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Buenos Aires, ArgentinaUniversidad Nacional de Mar del PlataArgentinaBuenos Aires, ArgentinaUniversidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina

** Full time Adjunct Professor, English Teacher Training Program, Humanities Division, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata (Argentina). Head of Language Studies at Universidad CAECE Mar del Plata (English/Spanish Translation Program). His e-mail address is luchinipedroluis@gmail.com.

ukalves@gmail.com

luchinipedroluis@gmail.com

*
Full time Professor at the Graduate Program in Linguistics at Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil). Researcher at Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq-Brazil). His e-mail address is ukalves@gmail.com.

**
Full time Adjunct Professor, English Teacher Training Program, Humanities Division, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata (Argentina). Head of Language Studies at Universidad CAECE Mar del Plata (English/Spanish Translation Program). His e-mail address is luchinipedroluis@gmail.com.

SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Buenos Aires, ArgentinaUniversidad Nacional de Mar del PlataArgentinaBuenos Aires, ArgentinaUniversidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Figures | Tables

Figures (3)
Tables (8)

Thumbnail

Figure 1
Training sessions: identification test choices on TP

Thumbnail

Figure 2
Training sessions: identification test on TP - positive feedback

Thumbnail

Figure 3
Training sessions: identification test on TP - negative feedback

Thumbnail

Table 1
Accuracy rates (percentage of accuracy in first line, average and standard deviation in second line and median in third line of each column) in the Identification tasks (Pretest, Post-test and Delayed Post-test) and Friedman test results for the three groups.¹⁴ 14 In this table, perception results for all places of articulation are averaged together, since we found no place of articulation effects on perception.

Thumbnail

Table 2
Post-hoc Wilcoxon (Bonferroni) test results - Identification Task.

Thumbnail

Table 3
Kruskal-Wallis Test Results - Identification Test

Thumbnail

Table 4
Post-hoc Mann-Whitney (Bonferroni) test results - Identification Task

Thumbnail

Table 5
Production test results (average (in ms) in first line, standard deviation in second line and median in third line of each column) and Friedman test results¹⁷ 17 Unlike the data shown in Table 1 (perception), in this table each place of articulation is presented separately, since differences regarding place of articulation can be clearly shown in production. Although data on word-initial voiced stops were also collected, these data are not presented in this paper, as all of the students’ productions tended to produce pre-voiced consonants (cf. Simon & Leuschner, 2010). As pre-voiced stops occur variably in word-initial position in English, we interpret that the production of negative VOT by learners does not affect intelligibility and, therefore, they need not acquire the zero VOT pattern in word-initial /(, (, (/. This also justifies why our training sessions focused on the presence or absence of Positive VOT only.

Thumbnail

Table 6
Post-hoc Wilcoxon Test (Bonferroni) results - Production Test

Thumbnail

Table 7
Kruskal-Wallis test results - Production

Thumbnail

Table 8
Post-hoc Mann-Whitney (Bonferroni) test results - Production

Figure 1 Training sessions: identification test choices on TP

Figure 2 Training sessions: identification test on TP - positive feedback

Figure 3 Training sessions: identification test on TP - negative feedback

Table 1 Accuracy rates (percentage of accuracy in first line, average and standard deviation in second line and median in third line of each column) in the Identification tasks (Pretest, Post-test and Delayed Post-test) and Friedman test results for the three groups.¹⁴ 14 In this table, perception results for all places of articulation are averaged together, since we found no place of articulation effects on perception.

	Pattern	Pre	Post-test 1	Post-test 2	X2 (df)
Group 1 (Training)	Negative VOT	94.79% 11.38 (1.06) Md:12.00 91/96	98.96% 11.88 (.35) Md: 12.00 95/96	97.92% 11.75 (.463) Md:12.00 94/96	1.50 (2)
	Positive VOT	91.67% 11.00 (.93) Md:11.00 88/96	100% 12.00 (.00) Md:12.00 96/96	98.96% 11.88 (.35) Md:12.00 95/96	8.40 (2) *
	Zero VOT	75% 9.00 (1.31) Md:9.00 72/96	89.58% 10.75 (1.58) Md:11.00 86/96	89.58% 10.75 (1.76) Md:12.00 86/96	14.25 (2) ***
	Artificial Zero	40.63% 4.88 (1.73) Md:4.50 39/96	52.08% 6.25 (1.04) Md:6.00 50/96	59.38% 7.12 (2.48) Md:8.00 57/96	7.55 (2) *
Group 2 (Training + Instruction)	Negative VOT	96.88% 11.62 (.52) Md:12.00 93/96	97.92% 11.75 (.46) Md:12.00 94/96	100% 12.00 (.00) Md:12.00 96/96	3.5 (2)
	Positive VOT	90.63% 10.88 (1.36) Md:11.50 87/96	97.92% 11.75 (.46) Md:12.00 94/96	96.88% 11.62 (.74) Md:12.00 93/96	4.63 (2) *?
	Zero VOT	79.17% 9,50 (1.77) Md:9.00 76/96	94.79% 11.38 (1.06) Md:12.00 91/96	87.5% 10.50 (1.77) Md:11.00 84/96	6.08 (2) *
	Artificial Zero	39.58% 4.75 (1.83) Md:5.00 38/96	62.5% 7.50 (2.33) Md:7.50 60/96	54.17% 6.50 (2.88) Md:7.00 52/96	5.87 (2) *?
Control Group	Negative VOT	94.79% 11.38 (1.06) Md:12.00 91/96	96.88% 11.62 (.52) Md:12.00 93/96	97.92% 11.75 (.71) Md:12.00 94/96	2.92 (2)
	Positive VOT	98.96% 11.88(.35) Md:12.00 95/96	95.83% 11.50 (1.07) Md:12.00 92/96	93.75% 11.25 (2.12) Md:12.00 90/96	.29 (2)
	Zero VOT	68.75% 8.25 (1.83) Md:9.00 66/96	71.88% 8.62 (2.07) Md:8.50 69/96	69.79% 8.38 (2.20) Md:8.50 67/96	.54 (2)
	Artificial Zero	33.33% 3.88 (1.73) Md:3.50 32/96	34.38% 4.12 (2.90) Md:4.00 33/96	26.04% 3.12 (1.96) Md:2.50 25/96	3.47 (2)

Note. *? p < .10 (marginally significant), *p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 2 Post-hoc Wilcoxon (Bonferroni) test results - Identification Task.

	Pattern	Pre-test vs. Post-test 1	Post-test 1 vs. Post-test 2	Pre-test vs. Post-test 2
Group 1 (Training)	Negative VOT	-----	-----	-----
	Positive VOT	*	n.s.	n.s.
	Zero VOT	*	n.s.	*
	Artificial Zero	n.s.	n.s.	*
Group 2 (Training + Instruction)	Negative VOT	-----	-----	-----
	Positive VOT	n.s.	n.s.	n.s.
	Zero VOT	*	n.s	n.s
	Artificial Zero	*	n.s.	n.s.
	Negative VOT	-----	-----	-----
Control Group	Positive VOT	-----	-----	-----
	Zero VOT	-----	-----	-----
	Artificial Zero	-----	-----	-----

Note: ----- not applicable (Friedman test results were not significant), n.s. not significant, *significant (p<.017)

Table 3 Kruskal-Wallis Test Results - Identification Test

	Pre-test X2 (df)	Post-test 1 X2 (df)	Post-test 2 X2 (df)
Negative VOT	.05 (2)	1.28 (2)	2.02 (2)
Positive VOT	4.56 (2)	2.3 (2)	.52 (2)
Zero VOT	.90 (2)	8.65 (2)*	6.11 (2)*
Artificial Zero	1.64 (2)	6.26 (2)*	8.81 (2)*

Note. * < .05

Table 4 Post-hoc Mann-Whitney (Bonferroni) test results - Identification Task

		Group 1 vs. Group 2	Group 2 vs. Group 3	Group 1 vs. Group 3
Negative VOT	Pre-test	-----	-----	-----
	Post-test 1	-----	-----	-----
	Post-Test 2	-----	-----	-----
Positive VOT	Pre-test	-----	-----	-----
	Post-test 1	-----	-----	-----
	Post-Test 2	-----	-----	-----
>Zero VOT	Pre-test	-----	-----	-----
	Post-test 1	n.s.	**	*
	Post-Test 2	n.s.	*	*
Artificial Zero	Pre-test	-----	-----	-----
	Post-test 1	n.s.	*	n.s.
	Post-Test 2	n.s.	*	**

Note. ----- not applicable (Kruskal-Wallis test results were not significant), n.s. not significant, *p<.017, ** p<.01

Table 5 Production test results (average (in ms) in first line, standard deviation in second line and median in third line of each column) and Friedman test results¹⁷ 17 Unlike the data shown in Table 1 (perception), in this table each place of articulation is presented separately, since differences regarding place of articulation can be clearly shown in production. Although data on word-initial voiced stops were also collected, these data are not presented in this paper, as all of the students’ productions tended to produce pre-voiced consonants (cf. Simon & Leuschner, 2010). As pre-voiced stops occur variably in word-initial position in English, we interpret that the production of negative VOT by learners does not affect intelligibility and, therefore, they need not acquire the zero VOT pattern in word-initial /(, (, (/. This also justifies why our training sessions focused on the presence or absence of Positive VOT only.

		Pre-test	Post-test 1	Post-test 2	X2 (df)
Group 1 (Training)	/p/	27.77 (15.08) Md:23.86	27.16 (14.77) Md: 23.02	36.17 (20.51) Md: 31.35	4.75 (2) *?
	/t/	50.72 (15.69) Md: 49.09	55.29 (15.37) Md:60.77	59,73 (17.69) Md: 62.28	3.00 (2)
	/k/	67.24 (20.28) Md: 60.22	72.68 (13.99) Md: 77.19	81.98 (20.08) Md: 74.91	5.25 (2) *?
Group 2 (Training + Instruction)	/p/	41.33 (9.25) Md: 42.83	58.08 (15.62) Md: 59.62	58.62 (12.92) Md: 57.17	12.25 (2) **
	/t/	56.14 (14.61) Md: 54.89	64.71 (19.19) Md: 58.46	63.10 (16.13) Md: 62.66	12.25 (2) **
	/k/	77.32 (14.38) 74.94	86.03 (22.15) 81.39	86.66 (20.01) 79.91	4.75 (2) *?
Control Group	/p/	38.45 (21.99) 38.86	40.49 (24.28) 45.04	45.11 (27.63) 35.89	1.75 (2)
	/t/	50.75 (17,41) 46.07	49.69 (16.33) 49.37	56.70 (19.48) 59.29	4.75 (2) *?
	/k/	65.23 (17.8) 64.98	65.83 (19.27) 70.45	70.78 (19.57) 70.61	1.75 (2)

Note. Md = median; Standard deviations are presented in brackets; *? p < .10 (marginally significant), * p<.05, ** p<.01

Table 6 Post-hoc Wilcoxon Test (Bonferroni) results - Production Test

		Pre-test vs. Post-test 1	Post-test 1 vs. Post-test 2	Pre-test vs. Post-test 2
Group 1 (Training)	/p/	n.s.	n.s.	n.s.
	/t/	-----	-----	-----
	/k/	n.s.	n.s.	n.s.
Group 2 (Training + Instruction)	/p/	*	n.s.	*
	/t/	*	n.s.	*
	/k/	n.s.	n.s.	n.s.
Control Group	/p/	-----	-----	-----
	/t/	n.s.	n.s.	n.s
	/k/	-----	-----	-----

Note. ----- not applicable (Friedman test results were not significant), n.s. not significant, * p<.017, ** p<.01

Table 7 Kruskal-Wallis test results - Production

	Pre-test X2 (df)	Post-test X2 (df)	Post-test 2 X2 (df)
/p/	4.22 (2)	8.3 (2) *	4.16 (2)
/t/	1.22 (2)	1.75 (2)	.18 (2)
/k/	2.38 (2)	2.8 (2)	2.14 (2)

Note. * p<.05

Table 8 Post-hoc Mann-Whitney (Bonferroni) test results - Production

		Group 1 vs. 2	Group 2 vs. 3	Group 1 vs. 3
/p/	Pre-test	-----	-----	-----
	Post-test 1	**	n.s.	n.s.
	Post-test 2	-----	-----	-----
/t/	Pre-test	-----	-----	-----
	Post-test 1	-----	-----	-----
	Post-test 2	-----	-----	-----
/k/	Pre-test	-----	-----	-----
	Post-test 1	-----	-----	-----
	Post-test 2	-----	-----	-----

Note. ----- not applicable (Friedman test results were not significant), n.s. not significant, **p<.01

How to cite

copy

Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Centro de Comunicação e Expressão, Bloco B- 405, CEP: 88040-900, Florianópolis, SC, Brasil, Tel.: (48) 37219455 / (48) 3721-9819 - Florianópolis - SC - Brazil
E-mail: ilha@cce.ufsc.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

Versão para download de PDF

PDF

Inglês

Versões e tradução automática

Versão original do texto

English

Tradução automática

Google Translator
Microsoft Translator

Como citar

RIS

BIBTEX

Outros formatos de citação e exportação:

SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online
Rua Dr. Diogo de Faria, 1087 – 9º andar – Vila Clementino 04037-003 São Paulo/SP - Brasil
E-mail: scielo@scielo.org

Leia a Declaração de Acesso Aberto

Métricas

Effects of Perceptual Training on the Identification and Production of Word-Initial Voiceless Stops by Argentinean Learners of English

PlumX

Mensagem

[1] ukalves@gmail.com