Is Full-Time Equivalent an Appropriate Measure to Assess L1 and L2 Perception of L2 Speakers with Limited L2 Experience?

Abstract

The revised version of the Speech Learning Model (SLM-r) regards full-time equivalent (FTE), which involves the amount of L2 use during the length of residence (LOR) in an L2 setting, as the main factor in L2 speech acquisition. Previous studiesshowed that LOR has a significant effect on L2 and L1 production and perception but does not explain differences between populations (i.e., L1-Spanish L2-English vs. L1-English L2-Spanish). A reanalysis of the data has been conducted by calculating the FTE of the experienced participants. The aim was also to investigate whether the assumptions of the SLM-r are applicable to L1 and L2 perception. A series of correlation tests between FTE and category boundary—between voiced and voiceless stops—was conducted, yielding non-significant results. The relatively short LOR of participants, the quality of the input and differences in terms of L2 instruction between participants could explain the lack of a clear effect of FTE in this study. Therefore, FTE on its own may not be sufficient to account for L2 accuracy in perception, at least for L2 speakers with limited L2 input, and other factors should be considered.

The acquisition of L2 voiced stops by English learners of Spanish and Spanish learners of English

“…In a study that examined the production of voiceless stops by the same group of L1-English speakers as in the current study, Gorba and Cebrian (2021) found that English learners of Spanish with experience living in the L2 setting outperformed those with no experience in an L2 setting in their production of Spanish /p/ and /k/, indicating a positive effect of L2 experience on L2 accuracy. The same result was replicated by Spanish learners of English (Gorba, 2020). However, contrary to Flege (1987), no influence of the L2 on the L1 was found regardless of the amount of L2 experience.…”

“…However, contrary to Flege (1987), no influence of the L2 on the L1 was found regardless of the amount of L2 experience. The different outcome regarding the effect of the L2 on the L1 in the studies reported above could be explained by the fact that the length of residence of the most experienced group in Gorba and Cebrian (2021) and Gorba (2020) was considerably shorter than that of the group tested in Flege (1987) about 4 years vs. 12, respectively -, as well as other factors, including a limited use of the L2 -even in the L2 settingand amount of L2 instruction.…”

“…So far, the studies reported above have focused on voiceless stops. Research investigating their voiced counterparts seems to suggest overall that voiced stops may pose a greater difficulty for L2 speakers than voiceless stops and, in fact, studies investigating both types of categories show a more target-like production regarding the latter (Gorba, 2020). For example, a number of studies have investigated the acquisition of short-lag voiced stops, especially English stops, by speakers of languages that contrast prevoicing (voiced stops) and short-lag VOT (voiceless stops), such as Spanish, Italian or French (e.g., Caramazza et al 1973;Flege and Eefting 1987;Hazan and Boulakia 1993;MacKay et al 2001;Nathan 1987;Williams 1977).…”

“…In short, L2 learners may be able to improve their production of voiced stops, although generally to a lesser extent than voiceless stops (Nagle, 2019;Dmitrieva et al, 2020;Gorba, 2020;Huffman, 2019, but cf. Herd et al, 2015;Hutchinson and Dmitrieva, 2021).…”

Differential Effects of Input Quantity and Input Quality on Bilingual Development: A Study with Kurdish–English Adolescents

“…At least among external factors, the lion's share of this development has been attributed to the language input bilinguals are exposed to in both instructional and naturalistic settings (e.g., Anderson et al 2021;Muñoz 2014). However, most of these attempts investigated the contribution of either input quantity or quality on certain bilingual language skills (e.g., Dicataldo and Roch 2020;Gorba 2023;Unsworth 2013), and few have focused on the impact of both the amount of language exposure and the richness of the language environment on bilingual development. Those studies that have done so have mainly concentrated on a limited number of input factors, mostly in naturalistic language learning contexts, and explored their relationship to a specific language domain (e.g., Eide and Hjelde 2023;Verhagen et al 2022).…”