Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5jtmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-04T17:34:35.382Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Sociophonetic Variability on L2 Vocabulary Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 August 2025

Friederike Fichtner Open the ORCID record for Friederike Fichtner [Opens in a new window] ,
Joe Barcroft ,
Mitchell Sommers  and
Paul Olejarczuk
Friederike Fichtner*
Affiliation:
Languages and Cultures, https://ror.org/027bzz146 California State University, Chico , Chico, CA, USA
Joe Barcroft
Affiliation:
Romance Languages and Literatures, https://ror.org/01yc7t268 Washington University in St. Louis , St. Louis, MO, USA
Mitchell Sommers
Affiliation:
Psychological & Brain Sciences, https://ror.org/01yc7t268 Washington University in St. Louis , St. Louis, MO, USA
Paul Olejarczuk
Affiliation:
English, https://ror.org/027bzz146 California State University, Chico , Chico, CA, USA
*
Corresponding author: Friederike Fichtner; Email: ffichtner@csuchico.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Acoustic variability refers to variations in speech that do not alter linguistic content. Previous studies have demonstrated that acoustic variability improves second language (L2) word learning when varying talker, speaking style, or speaking rate but not amplitude or fundamental frequency (Barcroft & Sommers, 2005; Sommers & Barcroft, 2007). The current study examined the effects of region-based sociophonetic variability. In Experiment 1, English speakers attempted to learn German nouns while viewing pictures and listening to the words with low sociophonetic variability (six speakers of one regional variety, one repetition per speaker) and high sociophonetic variability (six speakers of each of six different regional varieties, one repetition per speaker). Participants completed picture-to-L2 and L2-to-first language (L1) posttests. Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1 while counterbalancing word groups and learning conditions. Results of both experiments revealed increased accuracy for high over low variability, suggesting that regionally varied exemplars of words lead to more robust developing lexical representations.

Keywords

acoustic variabilityGermanlinguistic diversityvocabulary learningsociophonetic variability

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , First View , pp. 1 - 25
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Assmann, P., Nearey, T. M., & Hogan, J. (1982). Vowel identification: Orthographic, perceptual, and acoustic aspects. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 71, 975–989.10.1121/1.387579CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barbour, S., & Stevenson, P. (1995). Variation in German. A critical approach to German sociolinguistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barcroft, J. (2001). Acoustic variation and lexical acquisition. Language Learning, 51(4), 563–590.10.1111/0023-8333.00168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barcroft, J. (2002). Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition. Language Learning, 52(2), 323–363.10.1111/0023-8333.00186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barcroft, J. (2015). Lexical input processing and vocabulary learning. John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barcroft, J., & Sommers, M. (2005). Effects of acoustic variability on second language vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(3), 387–414.10.1017/S0272263105050175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barcroft, J., & Sommers, M. (2014). Effects of variability in fundamental frequency on L2 vocabulary learning: A comparison between learners who do and do not speak a tone language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(3), 423–449. doi:10.1017/S0272263113000582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bordag, D., Gor, K., & Opitz, A. (2022). Ontogenesis Model of the L2 Lexical Representation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 25(2), 185–201.10.1017/S1366728921000250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradlow, A. R., Pisoni, D. B., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Tohkura, Y. (1997). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: IV. Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101(4), 2299–2310. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.418276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulgarelli, F., & Weiss, D. J. (2021). Desirable difficulties in language learning? How talker variability impacts artificial grammar learning. Language Learning, 71(4), 1085–1121.10.1111/lang.12464CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bürkner, P-C (2017). brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1), 1–28. doi:10.18637/jss.v080.i01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldinger, S. D., Pisoni, D. B., & Logan, J. S. (1991). On the nature of talker variability effects on recall of spoken word lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 17(1), 152–162.Google ScholarPubMed
Gor, K., Cook, S., Bordag, D., Chrabaszcz, A., & Opitz, A. (2021). Fuzzy Lexical Representations in Adult Second Language Speakers. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 732030. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.732030CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, K. C., Mackie, J. S., & Yu-Hsiang Lo, R. (2019). Phonological Corpus Tools: Software for doing phonological analysis on transcribed corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 24(4), 522–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardison, D. A. (2003). Acquisition of second-language speech: Effects of visual cues, context, and talker variability. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(4), 495–522. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716403000250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, B. (2009). Introductory Phonology. Blackwell-Wiley.Google Scholar
König, W., Elspaß, S., & Möller, R. (2019). Dtv-Atlas Deutsche Sprache (19th ed.). Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.Google Scholar
Koo, T., & Li, M. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(March). doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 89(2), 874–886.10.1121/1.1894649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lively, S. E., Logan, J. S., & Pisoni, D. B. (1993). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: II. The role of phonetic environment and talker variability in learning new perceptual categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94(3), 1242–1255.10.1121/1.408177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lively, S. E., Pisoni, D. B., Yamada, R. A., Tohkura, Y., & Yamada, T. (1994). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/. III. Long-term retention of new phonetic categories. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 96(4), 2076–2087. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.410149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Modern Language Association Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages. (2007). Foreign languages and higher education: New structures for a changed world. Profession, 234–245.10.1632/prof.2007.2007.1.234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullennix, J. W., Pisoni, D. B., & Martin, C. S. (1989). Some effects of talker variability on spoken word recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85(1), 365–378.10.1121/1.397688CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nygaard, L. C., Sommers, M., & Pisoni, D. B. (1995). Effects of stimulus variability on perception and representation of spoken words in memory. Perception & Psychophysics, 57(7), 989–1001.10.3758/BF03205458CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Core Team (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Ryalls, B. O., & Pisoni, D. B. (1997). The effect of talker variability on word recognition in preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 33(3), 441–452.10.1037/0012-1649.33.3.441CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlation: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–28.10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sinkeviciute, R., Brown, H., Brekelmans, G., & Wonnacott, E. (2019). The role of input variability and learner age in second language vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(4), 795–820.10.1017/S0272263119000263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommers, M. S., & Barcroft, J. (2006). Stimulus variability and the phonetic relevance hypothesis: Effects of variability in speaking style, fundamental frequency, and speaking rate on spoken word identification. Journal of the American Acoustical Society, 119(4), 2406–2416.10.1121/1.2171836CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sommers, M. S., & Barcroft, J. (2007). An integrated account of the effects of acoustic variability in first language and second language: Evidence from amplitude, fundamental frequency, and speaking rate variability. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(2), 231–249.10.1017/S0142716407070129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommers, M., Barcroft, J., & Mulqueeny, K. (2008, November 13–15). Further Studies of Acoustic Variability and Vocabulary [Conference paper]. 49th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Chicago, IL, United States.10.1037/e527312012-049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommers, M., & Barcroft, J. (2011). Indexical information, encoding difficulty, and second language vocabulary learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(2), 417–434.10.1017/S0142716410000469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommers, M., & Barcroft, J. (2013). Effects of referent token variability on L2 vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 63(2), 186–210.10.1111/lang.12007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommer, M., & Barcroft, J. (2019, June 26–28). The effects of talker variability on L2 vocabulary learning depend on time allowed for encoding [Conference paper]. Experimental Psycholinguistics Conference, Palma de Mallorca, Spain.Google Scholar
Sommers, M., Nygaard, L. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1994). Stimulus variability and spoken word recognition. Effects of variability in speaking rate and overall amplitude. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 96(3), 1314–1324.10.1121/1.411453CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uchihara, T., Webb, S., Saito, K., & Trofimovich, P. (2022). The effects of talker variability and frequency of exposure on the acquisition of spoken word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44(2), 357–380.10.1017/S0272263121000218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiener, S., Chan, M. K., & Ito, K. (2020). Do explicit instruction and high variability phonetic training improve nonnative speakers’ Mandarin tone productions? The Modern Language Journal, 104(1), 152–168.10.1111/modl.12619CrossRefGoogle Scholar