Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Second Language Studies
Vol. 5:2 (2022) ► pp.266–306

Explicit versus non-explicit prosodic training in the learning of Spanish L2 stress contrasts by French listeners

 | University of Zurich, Switzerland | University of Fribourg, Switzerland
 | University of Zurich, Switzerland
Different methods to acquire a language can contribute differently to learning success. In the present study we tested the success of L2 stress contrasts acquisition, when ab initio learners were taught or not about the theoretic nature of L2 stress contrasts. In two 4-hour perceptual training methods, French-speaking listeners received either (a) explicit instructions about Spanish stress patterns and perception activities commonly used in L2 pronunciation courses or (b) no explicit instructions and a unique perception activity, a shape/word matching task. Results showed that French-speaking listeners improved their ability to identify and discriminate stress contrasts in Spanish after training. However, there was no significant difference between explicit and non-explicit training nor was there an effect on stress processing under different phonetic variability conditions. This suggests that in L2 stress acquisition, non-explicit training may benefit ab initio learners as much as explicit instruction and activities used in L2 pronunciation courses.
Keywords: stress ‘deafness’, perceptual prosodic training, instructional treatment, explicit, non-explicit, phonetic variability, shape/word matching task
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Discrimination of L2 stress contrasts
    • 1.2Training methods for learning L2 stress contrasts
    • 1.3Hypothesis and predictions
  • 2.Methods
    • 2.1Design
    • 2.2Participants
    • 2.3Training protocol
      • 2.3.1Explicit training
        • Procedure
        • Training activities
        • Material
      • 2.3.2Non-explicit training
        • Procedure
        • Training activity
        • Material
    • 2.4Control group
    • 2.5Measures
      • 2.5.1Identification
        • Material
        • Procedure
        • Outcome measure
      • 2.5.2Odd-One-Out
        • Material
        • Procedure
        • Outcome measure
      • 2.5.3Music aptitude
        • Material
        • Procedure
        • Outcome measure
    • 2.6Statistical analysis
      • 2.6.1Training effect as a function of training methods
      • 2.6.2Training effect as a function of training methods and phonetic variability
      • 2.6.3Training effect as a function of training methods and tasks (identification vs Odd-One-Out)
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Identification
    • 3.2Odd-One-Out
    • 3.3Identification versus Odd-One-Out
  • 4.General discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.21017.sch
References (48)
References
Antoniou, M., Wong, P. C. M., & Wang, S. (2015). The effect of intensified language exposure on accommodating talker variability, J. Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 58(3), 722–727. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baars, B. J. (1988). A cognitive theory of consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items, J. Memory Lang, 591, 390–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bemani Naeini, M., & Adni, Z. (2017). The impact of explicit vs. implicit instruction on pronunciation intelligibility among Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English, 6(2), 103–123.Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2011). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. [Computer Software]. [URL]
Bradlow, A., Akahane-Yamada, R., Pisoni, D. B., & Tohkura, Y. (1997). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: Long-term retention of learning in perception and production. Perception & Psychophysics, 611, 977–985. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, A. (2015). Phonetic training significantly mitigates the stress ‘deafness’ of French speakers. International Journal of Linguistics, 71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degrave, P. (2017). Can music help learners and teachers in word stress perception? Travaux du Cercle Belge de Linguistique, 111, 1–20.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules. An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 171, 379–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dufour, S., Nguyen, N., & Frauenfelder, U. (2010). Does training on a phonemic contrast absent in the listener’s dialect influence word recognition?, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America Express Letters, 1281, EL43–EL48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dupoux, E., Pallier, C., Sebastián, N., & Mehler, J. (1997). A destressing ‘deafness’ in French?, J. Memory Lang, 36(3), 406–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dupoux, E., Peperkamp, S., & Sebastián, N. (2001). A robust method to study stress ‘deafness’, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 110(3–1), 1606–1618. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dupoux, E., Sebastián, N., Navarrete, E., & Peperkamp, S. (2008). Persistent stress ‘deafness’: The case of French learners of Spanish, Cognition, 106(2), 682–706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fujisaki, H., & Kawashima, T. (1970). Some experiments on speech perception and a model for the perceptual mechanism. Annual Report of the Engineering Research Institute, Vol. 29, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, 1970, 207–214.Google Scholar
Garde, P. (1968). L’accent. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Gordon, E. (1989). Advanced measures of music audition. Chicago: GIA Publications.Google Scholar
Gordon, J., & Darcy, I. (2016). The development of comprehensible speech in L2 learners. A classroom study on the effects of short-term pronunciation instruction. Journal of Second language Pronunciation, 2(1), 56–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Honbolygó, F., Kóbor, A., & Csépe, V. (2017). Cognitive components of foreign word stress processing difficulty in speakers of a native language with non-contrastive stress. International Journal of Bilingualism, September 4, 2017. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hualde, J. I. (2012). Stress and rhythm. In J. I. Hualde, A. Olarrea & E. O’Rourke (Eds.). The handbook of Hispanic linguistics (pp. 153–171). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kissling, E. M. (2013). Teaching pronunciation: Is explicit phonetics instruction beneficial for FL learners? The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 720–744. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kolinsky, R., Cuvelier, H., Goetry, V., Peretz, I. & Morais, J. (2009). Music training facilitates lexical stress processing. Music Perception, 26(3), 235–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lacheret-Dujour, A., & Beaugendre, F. (1999). La prosodie du français. Paris: CNRS éditions.Google Scholar
Logan, J. S., Lively, S. E., & Pisoni, D. B. (1991). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: a first report. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 891, 874–886. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michas, I. C., & Berry, D. C. (1994). Implicit and explicit processes in a second-language learning task. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 61, 357–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 501, 417–528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nieuwenhuis, R., Pelzer, B., & te Grotenhuis, M. (2012). Tools for detecting influential data in mixed effects models. The R Journal, 4(2). URL [URL] (Last viewed April 18, 2020).
Ortega-Llebaria, M., Gu, H., & Fan, J. (2013). English Speakers’ Perception of Spanish Lexical Stress: Context-Driven L2 Stress Perception, J. Phon., 411, 186–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pakjamsai, J., & Pongpairoj, N. (2018). The effectiveness of explicit and implicit instruction of L2 English word stress among L1 Thai learners. Thoughts, 11, 1–28.Google Scholar
Peperkamp, S., Vendelin, I., & Dupoux, E. (2010). Perception of predictable stress: A cross-linguistic investigation, Journal of Phonetics, 38(3), 422–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pisoni, D. B. (1973). Auditory and phonetic memory codes in the discrimination of consonants and vowels. Perception & Psychophysics, 131, 253–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quilis, A. (1999). Tratado de fonética y fonología españolas (2nd ed.). Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [computer software]. [URL]
Rahmani, H., Rietveld, T., & Gussenhoven, C. (2015). Stress ‘deafness’ reveals absence of lexical marking of stress or tone in the adult grammar. PLoS ONE, 10(12): e0143968. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saito, Y., & Saito, K. (2016). Differential effects of instruction on the development of second language comprehensibility, word stress, rhythm, and intonation: The case of inexperienced Japanese EFL learners. Language Teaching Research, 21(5), 589–608. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwab, S. & Dellwo, V. (2017). Intonation and talker variability in the discrimination of Spanish lexical stress contrasts by Spanish, German and French listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 142 (4), 2419–2429. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Explicit and implicit training methods for the learning of stress contrasts in Spanish. In Lahoz-Bengoechea, J. M., Pérez Ramón, R., & Villa Villa, J. (Eds.), Subsidia. Tools and resources for speech sciences. Malaga: Universidad de Malaga.Google Scholar
S. Schwab, N. Giroud, M. Meyer, & Dellwo, V. (2020). Working memory and not acoustic sensitivity is related to stress processing ability in a foreign language: An ERP study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 551, 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwab, S., & Llisterri, J. (2013). Does training make French speakers more able to identify lexical stress? Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech, Concordia Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 51.Google Scholar
Segal, O., & Kishon-Rabin, L. (2018). Influence of the native language in sensitivity to lexical stress: evidence from native Arabic and Hebrew speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(1), 151–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomson, R. I., & Derwing, T. M. (2015). The effectiveness of L2 pronunciation instruction: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics, 361, 326–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, A. (2009). Phonetic variability and the variable perception of L2 word stress by French Canadian listeners. International Journal of Bilingualism, 131, 35–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Dommelen, W. A., & Hazan, V. (2012). Impact of talker variability on word recognition in non-native listeners, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 1321, 1690–1699. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Werker, J. F., & Logan, J. S. (1985). Cross-language evidence for three factors in speech perception. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 371, 35–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. (1984). Phonemic and phonetic factors in adult cross-language speech perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 751, 1866–1878. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wong, P. C. M., Perrachione, T. K., & Parrish, T. B. (2007). Neural characteristics of successful and less successful speech and word learning in adults. Human Brain Mapping, 28(10), 995–1006. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Guijarro-Fuentes, Pedro & Francesco Romano
2024. The acquisition of object drop and island sensitivity in L2 Spanish by German speakers. Journal of Second Language Studies DOI logo
Schwab, Sandra, Faustine Etter, Julie Kamber, Michael Mouthon, Lars Rogenmoser, Lea B. Jost & Jean-Marie Annoni
2024. The influence of linguistic and cognitive background on word stress processing in an unknown language. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.