Phonetic feature size in second language acquisition: Examining VOT in voiceless and voiced stops

Abstract

Featural approaches to second language phonetic acquisition posit that the development of new phonetic norms relies on sub-phonemic features, expressed through a constellation of articulatory gestures and their corresponding acoustic cues, which may be shared across multiple phonemes. Within featural approaches, largely supported by research in speech perception, debate remains as to the fundamental scope or ‘size’ of featural units. The current study examines potential featural relationships between voiceless and voiced stop consonants, as expressed through the voice onset time cue. Native English-speaking learners of Spanish received targeted training on Spanish voiceless stop consonant production through a visual feedback paradigm. Analysis focused on the change in voice onset time, for both voiceless (i.e. trained) and voiced (i.e. non-trained) phonemes, across the pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest. The results demonstrated a significant improvement (i.e. reduction) in voice onset time for voiceless stops, which were subject to the training paradigm. In contrast, there was no significant change in the non-trained voiced stop consonants. These results suggest a limited featural relationship, with independent voice onset time (VOT) cues for voiceless and voices phonemes. Possible underlying mechanisms that limit feature generalization in second language (L2) phonetic production, including gestural considerations and acoustic similarity, are discussed.

Advancements of Phonetics in the 21st century: Quantitative data analysis

“…It is also possible to test 'for the null' in a frequentist framework, using equivalence tests (Lakens et al, 2018), or just examining confidence intervals (Sonderegger, 2023, 3.3.3.2), to assess whether the true effect lies in a range of effect sizes the analyst deems functionally equivalent to zero. An example from phonetics is Olson (2022). Testing 'for the null' is rare in phonetic studies, but should be more common given that it is often of theoretical interest whether an effect is not present (e.g.…”

Optimizing second language pronunciation instruction: Replications of Martin and Sippel (2021), Olson and Offerman (2021), and Thomson (2012)

“…In the Long Simultaneous paradigm (Olson, 2022), 20 participants completed the visual feedback training three times, once per week over a four-week period. Each time, they worked with voiceless stops at all three places of articulation.…”

“…However, the number of stimuli was different (18 per place of articulation) as was the phonetic context in which the stop appeared (stop + /a/, /e/, and /u/). Furthermore, for the words in utterances, in Olson (2019) the target words were utterance-medial but in Olson (2022) they were utterance-initial. Thus, position in the utterance and, as a result, the prosodic context in which the target forms appeared was different across the two studies.…”