Utilizing electropalatography to train palatalized versus unpalatalized consonant productions by native speakers of American English learning Russian

Abstract

Previous research has shown that English-speaking learners of Russian, even those with advanced proficiency, often have not acquired the contrast between palatalized and unpalatalized consonants, which is a central feature of the Russian consonant system. The present study examined whether training utilizing electropalatography (EPG) could help a group of Russian learners achieve more native-like productions of this contrast. Although not all subjects showed significant improvements, on average, the Russian learners showed an increase from pre- to post-training in the second formant frequency of vowels preceding palatalized consonants, thus enhancing their contrast between palatalized and unpalatalized consonants. To determine whether these acoustic differences were associated with increased identification accuracy, three native Russian speakers listened to all pre- and post-training productions. A modest increase in identification accuracy was observed. These results suggest that even short-term EPG training can be an effective intervention with adult L2 learners.

Effects of Ultrasound Familiarization on Production and Perception of Nonnative Contrasts

“…One group of learners was trained on /s/ vs. /s j /, while another group was trained on /t/ vs. /t j /. As mentioned in section 1.1 above, Hacking et al (2017) found that learners improved in the acoustic production of palatalized consonants as measured by changes in the second formant transitions of the adjacent vowel, but these relevant phonetic changes after training did not result in improved identification of palatalization by native Russian listeners. In terms of generalization, Hacking et al (2017) found no differences in production based on which pair a learner was trained on.…”

“…Schmidt (2012) reports similar results for 2 speakers of Korean on similar English contrasts. Hacking et al (2017) used EPG to train English-speaking learners of Russian to produce palatalized consonants, resulting in improvements to certain acoustic properties associated with palatalization but not in significant improvements in identification of these sounds by native Russian listeners. While these results are encouraging, the use of EPG as a feedback tool faces substantial hurdles in that the false palates must be custommade for each participant.…”

“…Pajak and Levy (2014) conclude that L1 learners make higher-order generalizations over phonetic dimensions, which increases their sensitivity to a novel L2 context that makes use of the same phonetic dimension. Hacking et al (2017) explored a different type of generalization, namely, whether L2 learners trained on a secondary articulation for one consonant could generalize to another consonant. Specifically, they used EPG to train learners on producing secondary palatalization in Russian (details on palatalization are presented in section 1.4 below).…”

Teaching-oriented research

“…In the studies in (Foote & McDonough, 2017;Huensch, 2016;Qian, Chukharev-Hudilainen, & Levis, 2018). They may also involve both face-to-face instruction and the use of technology (e.g., Hacking, Smith, & Johnson, 2016;Hardison, 2018;McCrocklin, 2019).…”

“…Non-technology interventions are especially valuable in showing how pronunciation instruction is successful in different instructional settings (e.g., learning Spanish word stress during a study abroad in Romanelli, Menegotto & Smyth, 2017). In the papers in Table 1, we find the use of oral corrective feedback with form-focused instruction (Lee & Lyster, 2016;Saeli, 2019); sensory-learning (Cerreta & Trofimovich, 2018); shadowing (Foote & McDonough, 2017); visualization of tone (Chun, Jiang, Meyr, & Yang, 2015); and the use of electropalatography to learn Russian palatal consonants (Hacking, Smith, & Johnson;.…”