Cited by 26

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How does having a good ear promote successful second language speech acquisition in adulthood? Introducing Auditory Precision Hypothesis-L2

Saito, Kazuya·2023·Language Teaching

Abstract

In this paper, I first provide a brief review of how scholars have conceptualized, tested, and elaborated aptitude frameworks relevant to second language (L2) speech learning. Subsequently, I introduce an emerging paradigm that assigns a fundamental role to domain-general auditory processing (i.e., having a good ear) in L1 speech acquisition and proposes that the same faculty acts as a cornerstone of L2 speech learning (i.e., the Auditory Precision Hypothesis-L2). This hypothesis predicts that learners with more precise auditory processing ability will be able to make the most of every input opportunity, which will result in more advanced L2 speech proficiency. To close, I will provide suggestions on how scholars can assess L2 students’ auditory processing ability (e.g., our team's offline test deposited at L2 Speech Tools for Researchers & Teachers [ http://sla-speech-tools.com/ ]) and discuss how the results can be used to maximize learners’ L2 speech learning opportunities via optimal, profile-matched training programs (e.g., explicit vs. incidental training; naturalistic vs. classroom learning; phonetic vs. auditory training).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0261444822000453

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 99

  1. Moore, 2012, An introduction to the psychology of hearing
  2. 10.1177/0956797618763090 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.bandl.2005.01.002 · DOI
  4. 10.1093/cercor/bht311 · DOI
  5. 10.1121/1.3593366 · DOI
  6. 10.1038/ncomms11070 · DOI
  7. 10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01186-3 · DOI
  8. 10.1177/0023830909349151 · DOI
  9. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002731 · DOI
  10. 10.1111/lang.12011 · DOI
  11. 10.1111/jcpp.12139 · DOI
  12. 10.1371/journal.pone.0128839 · DOI
  13. 10.1044/jshr.3604.842 · DOI
  14. Saito, in press-b, Incidental and multimodal high variability phonetic training: Potential, limits, and future directions, Language Learning
  15. 10.1017/9781108886901.002 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1111/lang.12345 · DOI
  17. Hornickel, 2013, Unstable representation of sound: A biological marker of dyslexia, Journal of Neuroscience, 33, 3500, 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4205-12.2013 · DOI
  18. 10.1017/S1366728918000895 · DOI
  19. 10.1111/desc.12836 · DOI
  20. 10.1002/tesq.3120 · DOI
  21. 10.1121/10.0003330 · DOI
  22. Saito, in press-c, Training auditory processing promotes second language speech acquisition, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
  23. 10.1037/xge0000688 · DOI
  24. 10.1111/lang.12000 · DOI
  25. 10.1177/0265532217703433 · DOI
  26. 10.1017/S1366728915000450 · DOI
  27. Carroll, 1959, Modern language aptitude test
  28. 10.1073/pnas.1204319109 · DOI
  29. 10.1111/lang.12322 · DOI
  30. 10.1017/S0272263117000183 · DOI
  31. 10.1121/1.3506351 · DOI
  32. 10.1016/j.lindif.2015.04.005 · DOI
  33. 10.1016/j.bandl.2012.11.006 · DOI
  34. 10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.357 · DOI
  35. 10.1016/S0095-4470(03)00046-9 · DOI
  36. 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00712.x · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.1016/j.bandl.2007.12.004 · DOI
  38. 10.1017/S0272263118000256 · DOI
  39. 10.1017/S0272263115000248 · DOI
  40. Saito, in press-a, Does domain-general auditory processing uniquely explain the outcomes of second language speech acquisition, even once cognitive and demographic variables are accounted for?, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
  41. 10.1016/j.jml.2020.104168 · DOI
  42. Skehan, 2016, Cognitive individual differences in L2 processing and acquisition, 15
  43. 10.1016/j.jecp.2021.105196 · DOI
  44. Brazil, 1997, The communicative value of intonation in English book
  45. 10.1152/jn.00923.2011 · DOI
  46. 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00198-1 · DOI
  47. 10.1017/S0142716420000491 · DOI
  48. 10.1891/1945-8959.11.1.45 · DOI
  49. 10.1121/1.1912375 · DOI
  50. 10.1017/S0272263104040021 · DOI
  51. 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00485.x · DOI
  52. 10.1111/lang.12161 · DOI
  53. 10.1017/S0272263112000666 · DOI
  54. 10.1093/applin/ams066 · DOI
  55. 10.1017/S0272263121000012 · DOI
  56. 10.1016/j.wocn.2015.03.001 · DOI
  57. 10.1044/jslhr.4205.1061 · DOI
  58. 10.1016/j.system.2007.10.003 · DOI
  59. 10.1017/S027226311500042X · DOI
  60. 10.1093/applin/amu024 · DOI
  61. 10.1017/S0272263106060013 · DOI
  62. 10.1006/jpho.2002.0174 · DOI
  63. 10.1017/S027226310404001X · DOI
  64. 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01192.x · DOI
  65. 10.1016/j.clinph.2008.01.108 · DOI · Paper page
  66. 10.1111/1467-9922.00147 · DOI · Paper page
  67. 10.1002/9781118346952.ch20 · DOI
  68. 10.1017/S027226310808073X · DOI · Paper page
  69. 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104481 · DOI
  70. 10.1111/desc.12530 · DOI
  71. 10.1080/16513860600568573 · DOI
  72. 10.1098/rstb.2013.0090 · DOI
  73. 10.1017/S0272263120000467 · DOI
  74. 10.1057/9780230584587_11 · DOI
  75. 10.1017/S0272263120000649 · DOI
  76. 10.1111/lang.12244 · DOI
  77. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01765.x · DOI
  78. 10.1017/S0272263112000022 · DOI
  79. 10.1038/nrn3836 · DOI
  80. 10.1017/S0142716418000152 · DOI
  81. 10.1017/S0272263117000432 · DOI
  82. Gabay, 2015, Incidental auditory category learning, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41, 1124
  83. 10.1075/lllt.17.07bes · DOI
  84. 10.1162/0898929042568541 · DOI
  85. 10.1017/S0267190521000015 · DOI
  86. 10.1371/journal.pone.0147320 · DOI
  87. 10.1016/0749-596X(92)90012-M · DOI
  88. Penner, 2001, Approaches to bootstrapping: Phonological, lexical, syntactic, and neurophysiological aspects of early language acquisition, 269
  89. 10.1073/pnas.1713975115 · DOI · Paper page
  90. 10.1016/j.cortex.2018.03.012 · DOI
  91. 10.1177/0267658320978493 · DOI
  92. Saito, in press-e, Domain-general auditory processing as a conceptual and measurement framework for second language speech learning aptitude: A test-retest reliability study, Studies in Second Language Acquisition
  93. Saito, in press-d, Roles of domain-general auditory processing in spoken second-language vocabulary attainment in adulthood, Applied Psycholinguistics
  94. 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00955.x · DOI
  95. 10.1016/j.bandl.2019.02.004 · DOI
  96. Meara, 2005, LLAMA language aptitude tests: The manual
  97. 10.1016/j.heares.2006.05.004 · DOI
  98. 10.1111/lang.12447 · DOI
  99. 10.1017/9781108589789.020 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 26

Metadata

Authors
Saito, K.
Venue
Language Teaching
Published
2023-01-25
Volume
56
Issue
4
Pages
522-538
ISSN
  • 0261-4448
  • 1475-3049
Cited by
26
References
5
Language
en
Funders
  • Spencer Foundation (202100074)
  • Leverhulme Trust (RPG-2019-039)
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/S013024/1)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review