Phonetic compliance: a proof-of-concept study

In this paper, we introduce the concept of “phonetic compliance,” which is defined as the intrinsic individual ability to produce speech sounds that are unusual in the native language, and constitutes a part of the ability to acquire L2 phonetics and phonology. We argue that phonetic compliance represents a systematic source of variance that needs to be accounted for if one wants to improve the control over the independent variables manipulated in SLA experimental studies. We then present the results of a two-fold proof-of-concept study aimed at testing the feasibility of assessing phonetic compliance in terms of gradient. In study 1, a pilot data collection paradigm is implemented on an occasional sample of 10 native French speakers engaged in two reproduction tasks involving respectively vowels and aspirated stops, and data are analyzed using descriptive statistics. In study 2, complementary data including L1-typical realizations are collected, resulting in the development of a first set of indicators that may be useful to appropriately assess, and further refine the concept of, phonetic compliance. Based on a critical analysis of the contributions and limitations of the proof-of-concept study, general discussion formulates the guidelines for the following stages of development of a reliable and valid test of phonetic compliance.

[1]  Rod Ellis,et al.  Individual Differences in Second Language Learning , 2008 .

[2]  Hugo Fastl,et al.  Psychoacoustics: Facts and Models , 1990 .

[3]  E. Vajda.  Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A Guide to the Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet , 2000 .

[4]  Peter Skehan,et al.  Chapter 18. Individual Differences in Second Language Learning , 2008 .

[5]  Peter Robinson,et al.  Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning conditions in second language acquisition , 2001 .

[6]  G. Dogil,et al.  Assessment of phonetic ability , 2009 .

[7]  P. Kuhl.  Human adults and human infants show a “perceptual magnet effect” for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[8]  Alene Moyer,et al.  Age, Accent and Experience in Second Language Acquisition: An Integrated Approach to Critical Period Inquiry , 2004 .

[9]  F. Gagné.  Transforming gifts into talents: the DMGT as a developmental theory1 , 2004 .

[10]  Paul Iverson,et al.  Phonetic training with acoustic cue manipulations: a comparison of methods for teaching English /r/-/l/ to Japanese adults. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Stefan Fruehauf,et al.  Vowels And Consonants An Introduction To The Sounds Of Languages , 2016 .

[12]  A. Anastasi.  Individual differences. , 2020, Annual review of psychology.

[13]  J. Schwartz,et al.  The Dispersion-Focalization Theory of vowel systems , 1997 .

[14]  Victor Ginsburgh,et al.  La dynamique des langues en Belgique , 2006 .

[15]  P. Robinson.  APTITUDE AND SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION , 2005, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics.

[16]  Robert J. Zatorre,et al.  Individual differences in the acquisition of second language phonology , 2009, Brain and Language.

[17]  A. Baddeley,et al.  The phonological loop as a language learning device. , 1998, Psychological review.

[18]  L'apprentissage des langues en Communauté française : curriculum, attitudes des élèves et auto-évaluation , 2008 .

[19]  William L. Martens,et al.  The effects of identification training on the identification and production of American English vowels by native speakers of Japanese , 2005, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[20]  Ratree Wayland,et al.  Training English and Chinese Listeners to Perceive Thai Tones: A Preliminary Report , 2004 .

[21]  Francis Mangubhai,et al.  What do we know about learning and teaching second languages: implications for teaching , 2006 .

[22]  T. Scovel.  A Time to Speak: A Psycholinguistic Inquiry into the Critical Period for Human Speech , 1988 .

[23]  Dennis H. Klatt,et al.  Software for a cascade/parallel formant synthesizer , 1980 .

[24]  P. Robinson.  Individual Differences, Aptitude Complexes, SLA Processes, and Aptitude Test Development , 2012 .

[25]  John B. Carroll,et al.  Modern language aptitude test. , 1959 .

[26]  E. Schneiderman,et al.  The talented language learner: some preliminary findings , 1988 .

[27]  Véronique Delvaux,et al.  Production training in second language acquisition: a comparison between objective measures and subjective judgments , 2013, INTERSPEECH.

[28]  P. Skehan.  Individual Differences in Second Language Learning , 1989, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[29]  James Emil Flege,et al.  Factors affecting degree of foreign accent in an L2: a review , 2001, J. Phonetics.

[30]  James Emil Flege,et al.  What accounts for “ age ” effects on overall degree of foreign accent ? , 2011 .

[31]  David V. Tiedeman,et al.  Modern Language Aptitude Test , 1960 .

[32]  A. Baddeley.  Working memory and language: an overview. , 2003, Journal of communication disorders.

[33]  William M. Hartmann,et al.  Psychoacoustics: Facts and Models , 2001 .

[34]  P. Skehan.  Individual Differences in Second Language Learning , 1989 .

[35]  Charles W. Stansfield,et al.  Language Aptitude Reconsidered , 1990 .

[36]  Arnold Zellner,et al.  Introduction to Measurement with Theory , 2009 .

[37]  Alexander L. Francis,et al.  Selective attention and the acquisition of new phonetic categories. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[38]  M. Porath.  Transforming gifts into talents: the DMGT as a developmental theory—a response , 2004 .