CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 0Phonetics and Phonology ResearchEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 80 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

On English Language Learners’ Prosody: The Possible Impact of L2 Aptitude, Musical Ability, and Proficiency on Nuclear Accent Placement in Spanish L1 Contexts

Open access
Barra–García, Christopher Felipe, Véliz-Campos, Mauricio, Figueroa Candia, Mauricio A., Pereira-Reyes, Yasna, Kartsevski Dune, Mackarena·2026·Language Teaching Research Quarterly
DOI 10.32038/ltrq.2026.55.04
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Although the literature has recently recognised the significance of suprasegmental features in L2 English perception and production, nuclear accent (NA) placement remains partly terra incognita (Landblom & Ionin, 2022; Nagle & Baese-Berk, 2022). Thus, this study examined the extent to which Spanish L1 learners of English can perceive and produce English NA placement. A total of 53 participants completed NA placement perception (listening and identification) and production tasks based on utterances in unmarked and marked contexts. Also, the role of L2 aptitude, musical ability, and L2 proficiency was analysed using three standardised tests: the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT), the Musical Ear Test (MET), and the Cambridge Placement Test. The results indicate that L2 aptitude was a weak predictor, whereas musical ability, specifically rhythm sensitivity, strongly predicted NA placement perception accuracy across the different sentence types. This effect was positively moderated by English proficiency. The study deepens our understanding of the perception-production link and supports the inclusion of prosodic training in L2 English acquisition.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This study examined how 53 Chilean Spanish L1 learners of English perceive and produce English nuclear accent (NA) placement in unmarked and marked contexts, and whether L2 aptitude, musical ability, and proficiency predict that performance. Rhythm sensitivity, especially when moderated by English proficiency, predicted NA perception, while L2 aptitude and the tested predictors did not explain NA production.

Key findings

  • NA placement was only partially mastered: overall perception accuracy was 43% (M = 15.20/35) and overall production accuracy was 55% (M = 19.30/35). Unmarked contexts were easier than marked contexts for both perception (59% vs. 23%) and production (75% vs. 31%).
  • Production scores were significantly higher than perception scores overall, t(52) = 5.07, p < .001, d = 0.70; the same pattern held for unmarked contexts, t(52) = 4.50, p < .001, d = 0.62, and marked contexts, t(52) = 2.75, p < .01, d = 0.38.
  • Rhythm sensitivity was the most consistent predictor of NA perception: in the overall model with melody and rhythm separated, F(2, 50) = 6.19, p < .01, R² = .17; rhythm sensitivity β = 0.47, t = 3.26, p < .01, while melody sensitivity was not significant (β = -0.06, p = .677). The rhythm sensitivity × L2 proficiency interaction was significant overall, F(3, 49) = 8.75, p < .001, R² = .31, β = 0.32, p < .05, and in unmarked contexts, F(3, 49) = 8.02, p < .001, R² = .29, β = 0.42, p < .01, but not in marked contexts (β = 0.02, p = .924).
  • L2 aptitude was a weak or non-significant predictor, and no regression model for NA production reached significance; perception and production did not significantly predict each other, F(1, 51) = 0.45, p = .504.

Methods

  • Quantitative, non-experimental, cross-sectional design with descriptive, comparative, correlational, and predictive components. Participants were 53 Chilean undergraduate students in an English teacher education programme, all Spanish L1, with no self-reported sensory, hearing, or cognitive impairment, and all completed the five instruments.
  • Instruments were a Cambridge online General English Test (25 multiple-choice items), two researcher-designed NA tasks using 35 broad-focus utterances (19 unmarked LLI items and 16 marked items), MLAT Parts I and II (maximum 44 points), and the Musical Ear Test (melody and rhythm subtests, 104 scored items). Production was administered before perception.
  • Analyses included descriptive statistics, paired-samples t tests, Pearson correlations, and multiple linear regression with standardised z-scores. Production recordings (1,855 sentences) were independently rated by two experienced English teachers using Praat; inter-rater reliability was excellent, ICC(2,1) = .962, 95% CI [.935, .978].

Limitations

  • The paper states that the cross-sectional design precludes claims about developmental causality, that the sample was relatively small and specific (Chilean Spanish L1 English teacher education students who had taken or were taking an intonation course), and that this limits generalisation to other Spanish-speaking populations, proficiency levels, instructional contexts, and learner profiles.
  • The paper also states that the proficiency measure did not include extended oral, listening, or discourse-pragmatic tasks, that the MLAT subtests used may not have fully captured the aptitude construct most relevant to prosody, and that the study focused on broad-focus utterances.
  • Evident from the text: the production task allowed rehearsal and may have drawn on explicit knowledge from the intonation course, which complicates interpretation of production exceeding perception; the perception task allowed only one auditory presentation with no replay; and no spontaneous or semi-spontaneous speech was examined.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.32038/ltrq.2026.55.04

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

1 of 80 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingown data

    The effect of musical ability (rhythm sensitivity) on NA placement perception accuracy was positively moderated by English proficiency.

    “This effect was positively moderated by English proficiency.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Musical ability, specifically rhythm sensitivity, strongly predicted NA placement perception accuracy across different sentence types.

    “The results indicate that L2 aptitude was a weak predictor, whereas musical ability, specifically rhythm sensitivity, strongly predicted NA placement perception accuracy across the different sentence types.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    L2 aptitude was a weak predictor of English nuclear accent placement performance in Spanish L1 learners.

    “The results indicate that L2 aptitude was a weak predictor, whereas musical ability, specifically rhythm sensitivity, strongly predicted NA placement perception accuracy across the different sentence types.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    When melody and rhythm were examined separately in unmarked contexts, only rhythm sensitivity remained significant, F(2,50)=3.68, p<.05, R2=.09; β=0.40, t=2.64, p<.05.

    “When melody and rhythm were examined separately, only rhythm sensitivity remained significant, F(2, 50) = 3.68, p < .05,R² = .09;β = 0.40, t = 2.64, p < .05.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Perception in marked contexts was positively associated with overall musical ability (r=.34, p<.05).

    “perception in marked contexts was positively associated with overall musical ability (r = .34,p < .05)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 57
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 31

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    In L2 contexts, musical ability has been associated with enhanced perception and, in some cases, improved production of non-native contrasts, especially where timing, pitch, or prosodic patterning is involved.

    “In L2 contexts, musical ability has been associated with enhanced perception and, in some cases, improved production of non-native contrasts, especially where timing, pitch, or prosodic patterning is involved (Cason et al., 2020;Delogu & Zheng, 2020;Götz et al., 2023;Li & DeKeyser, 2017;Milovanov et al., 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Cason et al., 2020

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Delogu & Zheng, 2020 source

      The Introduction reports an established association between musical skills and L2 perception, while the Discussion reports that higher musicality was associated with more intelligible and accurate reproduction of unfamiliar Arabic sentences. The Methods use pitch and timing variations in a perception task, but the paper does not show that musicality improved production of those specific non-native contrasts. Its own production finding concerns whole-sentence reproduction, not isolated pitch or timing contrasts. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Götz et al., 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    In marked contexts, the production model was non-significant, F(3,49)=2.05, p=.119, R2=.06, with only a marginal effect for overall musical ability (β=-0.27, t=-1.93, p=.060).

    “In marked contexts, the model was also non-significant, F(3, 49) = 2.05, p = .119,R² = .06,with only a marginal effect for overall musical ability (β = -0.27,t = -1.93,p = .060).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Overall, production exceeded perception, t(52)=5.07, p<.001, d=0.70, 95% CI [0.39,0.99].

    “Overall, production exceeded perception, t(52) = 5.07, p < .001,d = 0.70, 95% CI [0.39, 0.99].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    In the marked-context model, overall musical ability predicted marked-context perception (β=0.33, t=2.36, p<.05), whereas L2 proficiency and overall L2 aptitude did not.

    “In this model, overall musical ability predicted marked-context perception (β = 0.33, t = 2.36, p < .05),whereas L2 proficiency and overall L2 aptitude did not.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Within the overall perception model, L2 proficiency (β=0.27, t=2.04, p<.05) and overall musical ability (β=0.29, t=2.25, p<.05) were significant positive predictors, whereas overall L2 aptitude was not (β=0.13, t=0.93, p=.357).

    “Within this model, L2 proficiency (β = 0.27, t = 2.04, p < .05)and overall musical ability (β = 0.29, t = 2.25, p < .05)were significant positive predictors, whereas overall L2 aptitude was not (β = 0.13, t = 0.93, p = .357).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Overall NA perception was positively associated with L2 proficiency (r=.36, p<.01), overall musical ability (r=.37, p<.01), and overall L2 aptitude (r=.31, p<.05).

    “At the bivariate level, overall NA perception was positively associated with L2 proficiency (r = .36,p < .01),overall musical ability (r = .37,p < .01),and overall L2 aptitude (r = .31,p < .05).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    In unmarked contexts, the production model was non-significant, F(3,49)=1.13, p=.344, R2=.01, although L2 aptitude showed a marginal tendency (β=-0.26, t=-1.68, p=.099).

    “In unmarked contexts, the model was non-significant, F(3, 49) = 1.13, p = .344,R² = .01,although L2 aptitude showed a marginal tendency (β = -0.26,t = -1.68,p= .099).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    In marked contexts, production exceeded perception with a smaller effect size.

    “and in marked contexts, although with a smaller effect size”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    In unmarked contexts, the initial model was significant, F(3,49)=4.46, p<.01, R2=.17, with L2 proficiency emerging as the only significant predictor (β=0.28, t=2.03, p<.05).

    “In unmarked contexts, the initial model was significant, F(3, 49) = 4.46, p < .01,R² = .17,with L2 proficiency emerging as the only significant predictor (β = 0.28, t = 2.03, p < .05).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    The mean difference between raters was not statistically significant, Mdiff = 0.019, t(52) = 0.17, p = .868, indicating no evidence of systematic rater bias.

    “The mean difference between raters was not statistically significant, Mdiff = 0.019, t(52) = 0.17, p = .868,indicating no evidence of systematic rater bias.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Overall NA production was not significantly correlated with L2 proficiency, overall musical ability, or overall L2 aptitude.

    “By contrast, overall NA production was not significantly correlated with any of these variables.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    A second model tested the interaction between L2 proficiency and overall musical ability; the model was significant, F(3,49)=5.72, p<.01, explaining 21% of the variance, but the interaction term did not reach significance (β=0.21, t=1.35, p=.182).

    “A second model tested the interaction between L2 proficiency and overall musical ability.Although the model was significant, F(3, 49) = 5.72, p < .01,explaining 21% of the variance, the interaction term did not reach significance (β = 0.21, t = 1.35, p = .182).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Neither the model testing whether perception predicted production nor the model testing whether production predicted perception was significant, F(1,51)=0.45, p=.504.

    “Neither model was significant, F(1, 51) = 0.45, p = .504”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    When the musical ability composite was disaggregated, only rhythm sensitivity significantly predicted overall NA perception, F(2,50)=6.19, p<.01, R2=.17; rhythm sensitivity: β=0.47, t=3.26, p<.01; melody sensitivity: β=-0.06, t=-0.42, p=.677.

    “When the musical ability composite was disaggregated, only rhythm sensitivity significantly predicted overall NA perception, F(2, 50) = 6.19, p < .01,R² = .17;rhythm sensitivity: β = 0.47, t = 3.26, p < .01;melody sensitivity: β = -0.06,t = -0.42,p = .677.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Perception in unmarked contexts was positively associated with L2 proficiency (r=.37, p<.01) and overall L2 aptitude (r=.35, p<.05).

    “whereas perception in unmarked contexts was positively associated with L2 proficiency (r = .37,p < .01)and overall L2 aptitude (r = .35,p < .05).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    The initial overall production model was non-significant, F(3,49)=1.09, p=.362, R2=.01, and none of the predictors contributed significantly: L2 proficiency (β=0.14, t=0.97, p=.335), overall musical ability (β=-0.15, t=-1.07, p=.290), and overall L2 aptitude (β=-0.17, t=-1.08, p=.283).

    “The initial overall production model was non-significant, F(3, 49) = 1.09, p = .362,R² = .01,and none of the predictors contributed significantly: L2 proficiency (β = 0.14, t = 0.97, p = .335),overall musical ability (β = -0.15,t = -1.07,p = .290),and overall L2 aptitude (β = -0.17,t = -1.08,p = .283).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    In the overall perception model, the set of predictors was significant, F(3,49)=5.30, p<.01, accounting for 20% of the variance.

    “In the overall perception model, the set of predictors was significant, F(3, 49) = 5.30, p < .01,accounting for 20% of the variance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Premisenone given

    Research remains limited, particularly with regard to the joint examination of perception and production and to the learner variables that may support each.

    “Even so, research remains limited, particularly with regard to the joint examination of perception and production and to the learner variables that may support each.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    NA is the most prominent accent in an intonational phrase and is closely tied to information structure, especially focus.

    “NA is the most prominent accent in an intonational phrase and is closely tied to information structure, especially focus (Halliday, 1967;Ladd, 1979).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Halliday, 1967

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Ladd, 1979

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    The perception-production relationship appears to depend on the phonological target, task demands, prior experience, and other learner-internal variables.

    “The perception-production relationship is thus now widely seen as neither linear nor uniform across phonological domains, learners, or task conditions (Nagle & Baese-Berk, 2022), but appears to depend instead on the phonological target, task demands, prior experience, and other learner-internal variables.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Nagle & Baese-Berk, 2022

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Premisenone given

    English also allows marked cases in which NA shifts leftwards, leaving a de-accented tail to the right.

    “English also allows marked cases in which NA shifts leftwards, though, leaving a de-accented tail to the right.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Much of the empirical basis for major L2 speech models derives from segmental research, particularly on vowels, limiting their explanatory reach for suprasegmental acquisition.

    “Much of the empirical basis for these models derives from segmental research, though, particularly on vowels, limiting their explanatory reach for suprasegmental acquisition (Gorba & Cebrian, 2021;Mennen & de Leeuw, 2014).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Gorba & Cebrian, 2021 source
    • cites Mennen & de Leeuw, 2014 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    The perception-production relationship is now widely seen as neither linear nor uniform across phonological domains, learners, or task conditions.

    “The perception-production relationship is thus now widely seen as neither linear nor uniform across phonological domains, learners, or task conditions (Nagle & Baese-Berk, 2022), but appears to depend instead on the phonological target, task demands, prior experience, and other learner-internal variables.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Nagle & Baese-Berk, 2022

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisenone given

    Although L1 influence is clearly important, it cannot fully explain variation in L2 prosodic performance.

    “Although L1 influence is clearly important, it cannot fully explain variation in L2 prosodic performance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Although perception is often assumed to precede production, the empirical evidence is somewhat conflicting.

    “Although perception is often assumed to precede production, the empirical evidence is somewhat conflicting.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    English and Spanish differ in how they signal information salience: English relies more heavily on prosody, whereas Spanish relies more heavily on syntax and to a lesser extent on prosody.

    “While both English and Spanish use prosodic prominence to signal information salience (or focus), they differ in terms of how they do so with English relying more heavily on prosody, whereas Spanish relies more heavily on syntax, and to a lesser extent, prosody.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites del Saz & Grau, 2022 source

      Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

    • cites Frota & Prieto, 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Hoot & Leal, 2020 source

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    L2 proficiency has repeatedly been associated with greater phonological sensitivity, better phonology-pragmatics alignment, and reduced L1 interference.

    “L2 proficiency has repeatedly been associated with greater phonological sensitivity, better phonology-pragmatics alignment, and reduced L1 interference (Bachman & Palmer, 2010;Mennen, 2015;Ortega & Wu, 2025).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bachman & Palmer, 2010

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Mennen, 2015 source
    • cites Ortega & Wu, 2025 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The canonical English pattern is for NA to fall on the last lexical item (LLI), often referred to as the default or unmarked pattern.

    “The canonical English pattern is for NA to fall on the last lexical item (LLI), often referred to as the default or unmarked pattern (Halliday, 1967;del Saz & Grau, 2022;Nilsenová & Swerts, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Halliday, 1967

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites del Saz & Grau, 2022 source

      Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

    • cites Nilsenová & Swerts, 2012 source

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    In phonological research, higher proficiency has been associated with more target-like production, greater perceptual sensitivity, and stronger integration of phonological and pragmatic information.

    “In phonological research, higher proficiency has been associated with more target-like production, greater perceptual sensitivity, and stronger integration of phonological and pragmatic information (Bachman & Palmer, 2010;Levis & Wichmann, 2015;Mennen, 2015;Ortega & Wu, 2025).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bachman & Palmer, 2010

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Levis & Wichmann, 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Mennen, 2015 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    In both English and Spanish, prosody helps signal which element in an utterance is informationally salient; broad-focus utterances treat all information as new, while narrow-focus utterances place prominence more selectively on leftward new elements.

    “As pointed out earlier, in both English and Spanish, prosody helps signal which element in an utterance is informationally salient: while broad-focus utterances typically all the information in an utterance as new, narrow-focus utterances place prominence more selectively on the leftward new element(s) (Ladd, 1979).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ladd, 1979

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    The MLAT has demonstrated strong reliability and validity and has been widely used for studying grammar, vocabulary learning, and overall achievement.

    “The MLAT has demonstrated strong reliability and validity and has been widely used for studying grammar, vocabulary learning, and overall achievement (Chalmers et al., 2021;Dale & Sparks, 2024;Li, 2019;Sparks & Dale, 2023b).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Chalmers et al., 2021 source

      Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

    • cites Dale & Sparks, 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Li, 2019

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    L2 aptitude has largely been studied in relation to L2 learning success, but its role in L2 pronunciation learning remains unexplored.

    “It must be pointed out that L2 aptitude has largely been studied in relation to L2 learning success, yet its role in L2 pronunciation learning remains unexplored (Chalmers et al., 2021;Li, 2019;Saito, 2023).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Chalmers et al., 2021 source

      Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

    • cites Li, 2019

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Saito, 2023 source

      Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisereasoning

    Under certain circumstances, the NA is moved towards the left in an utterance, including cases of narrow focus and some broad-focus cases.

    “Under certain circumstances, the NA is moved towards the left in an utterance, including cases of narrow focus, where part of the information in an utterance is treated as given information and de-accented as a result; also, in cases of broad focus, there are certain types of utterances where the NA is often found early on in the utterance, rather than on the LLI.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    No item-level reliability statistics were available for the public online version of the Cambridge test, so no internal reliability coefficient is reported.

    “As no item-level reliability statistics were available for the public online version of the test, no internal reliability coefficient is reported for this instrument in the present study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Rhythm sensitivity may still stand as a general auditory-attentional advantage in marked contexts; however, proficiency alone may not suffice to overcome the added demands of leftward prominence shift and deaccentuation.

    “Rhythm sensitivity may still stand as a general auditory-attentional advantage in such cases; however, proficiency alone may not suffice to overcome the added demands of leftward prominence shift and deaccentuation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisenone given

    Previous work has consistently treated the MLAT as one of the best-established measures of language aptitude, and subsequent research supports its relevance for explaining differences in L2 learning outcomes.

    “Previous work has consistently treated the MLAT as one of the best-established measures of language aptitude, and subsequent research has continued to support its relevance for explaining differences in L2 learning outcomes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The Cambridge online General English Test does not provide a full four-skills proficiency profile, nor does it include extended speaking, writing, or reading-comprehension tasks.

    “The instrument does not provide a full four-skills proficiency profile, nor does it include extended speaking, writing, or reading-comprehension tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Rhythm sensitivity may facilitate the detection of prominence, while proficiency helps learners assign it linguistic and discourse value.

    “Rhythm sensitivity may facilitate the detection of prominence, while proficiency helps them assign it linguistic and discourse value.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The decision to administer only MLAT Parts I and II was made for construct relevance, because the remaining sections may rely on language proficiency and confound the construct.

    “This decision was made for reasons of construct relevance.The remaining sections could also confound the construct, as they may rely on language proficiency.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    English exhibits a less flexible word order and relies more heavily on prosody to mark focus.

    “English exhibits a less flexible word order and relies more heavily on prosody to mark focus (Frota & Prieto, 2015;Zubizarreta & Nava, 2011).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Frota & Prieto, 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Zubizarreta & Nava, 2011

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    For the production task, 1,855 recorded sentences were independently assessed by two experienced teachers of English as an L2 who used Praat software to double-check parameters for NA placement (mainly fundamental frequency).

    “For the production task, a total of 1,855 recorded sentences were independently assessed by two experienced teachers of English as an L2 who used Praat software to double-check parameters for NA placement (mainly, Fundamental frequency).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The production task allowed for rehearsal and may have let learners draw on explicit knowledge acquired in their intonation course.

    “In contrast, the production task allowed for rehearsal and may have let learners draw on explicit knowledge acquired in their intonation course.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Procedural reliability was supported by computer-based administration, automatic item progression, fixed exposure time, randomised presentation, and standardised audio specifications.

    “Procedural reliability was supported by computer-based administration, automatic item progression, fixed exposure time, randomised presentation, and standardised audio specifications.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationnone given

    Melody may relate to pitch-based prominence, whereas rhythm may be associated with temporal structuring and speech timing.

    “Melody may relate to pitch-based prominence, whereas rhythm may be associated with temporal structuring and speech timing.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The production task was administered first to reduce the possibility that listening to the target utterances in the perception task would prime subsequent oral production.

    “This decision was made to reduce the possibility that listening to the target utterances in the perception task would prime subsequent oral production.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisereasoning

    The MET provides separate measures of melody and rhythm sensitivity, both of which are theoretically relevant to L2 prosody.

    “The MET was selected for the present study because it provides separate measures of melody and rhythm sensitivity, both of which are theoretically relevant to L2 prosody.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Spanish and English both draw on prosodic prominence to express informational salience, yet they differ in the way syntax and prosody interact to achieve communicative salience.

    “Spanish and English both draw on prosodic prominence to express informational salience, yet they differ in the way syntax and prosody interact to achieve communicative salience.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites del Saz & Grau, 2022 source

      Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

    • cites Frota & Prieto, 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Zubizarreta & Nava, 2011

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The role of L2 aptitude in pronunciation learning remains rather unclear.

    “Nonetheless, its role in pronunciation learning remains rather unclear.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisereasoning

    The MET has shown strong evidence of reliability and validity.

    “The MET has shown strong evidence of reliability and validity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisereasoning

    The MLAT has a long history, extensive use in L2 research, and a strong reputation as a foreign language achievement predictor.

    “The MLAT was selected because of its long history, extensive use in L2 research, and strong reputation as a foreign language achievement predictor.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Because only Parts I and II of the MLAT were used, the aptitude construct operationalised in the present study should be interpreted as sound-related and memory-related L2 aptitude rather than as global language aptitude.

    “At the same time, because only Parts I and II were used in the present study, the aptitude construct operationalised here should be interpreted as sound-related and memory-related L2 aptitude rather than as global language aptitude.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Because Spanish and English differ rhythmically, and because NA placement is embedded within broader prosodic organisation, rhythm sensitivity may be particularly relevant to learners' ability to detect prominence in English.

    “Because Spanish and English differ rhythmically, and because NA placement is embedded within broader prosodic organisation, rhythm sensitivity may be particularly relevant to learners' ability to detect prominence in English.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Study design and conductnone given

    All stimuli were randomised for each presentation of the task.

    “All stimuli were randomised for each presentation of the task.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationown data

    Perception and production seem to operate differently, functioning not as two symmetrical manifestations of a single underlying ability.

    “perception and production seem to operate differently, functioning not as two symmetrical manifestations of a single underlying ability”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    The MLAT has traditionally proven useful in predicting broader language-learning outcomes, including sound-symbol association, memory, and analytic language-learning ability.

    “The MLAT has traditionally proven useful in predicting broader languagelearning outcomes, including sound-symbol association, memory, and analytic languagelearning ability (Carroll & Sapon, 2002;Wen et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Carroll & Sapon, 2002

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Wen et al., 2017 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Recent empirical research indicates that linking aptitude to L2 pronunciation is still relatively sparse and methodologically heterogeneous.

    “Recent empirical research indicates that linking aptitude to L2 pronunciation is still relatively sparse and methodologically heterogeneous (Saito, 2023;Trofimovich et al., 2015).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Saito, 2023 source

      Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

    • cites Trofimovich et al., 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    The Musical Ear Test (MET) operationalises musical ability through melody and rhythm.

    “The Musical Ear Test (MET) operationalises musical ability through melody and rhythm (Wallentin et al., 2010), a highly relevant distinction for NA placement.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wallentin et al., 2010 source

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationown data

    Learner-internal variables do not contribute in equal measure: rhythm sensitivity and proficiency appear to better predict perception, whereas MLAT aptitude measures showed very little predictive power.

    “learner-internal variables do not contribute in equal measure: rhythm sensitivity and proficiency appear to better predict perception, whereas MLAT aptitude measures showed very little predictive power.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    NA placement taps into sensitivity to temporal patterning, prominence distribution, cue integration, and the interface between phonology and discourse.

    “NA placement, however, taps into sensitivity to temporal patterning, prominence distribution, cue integration, and the interface between phonology and discourse.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    The perception-production relationship is neither linear nor uniform, nor necessarily bidirectional, across all phonological domains.

    “This reading reinforces the broader argument that the perception-production relationship is neither linear nor uniform, nor necessarily bidirectional, across all phonological domains (Nagle, 2018;Nagle & Baese-Berk, 2022)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Nagle, 2018

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Nagle & Baese-Berk, 2022

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study received formal approval from the relevant institutional bioethics committee.

    “The study received formal approval from the relevant institutional bioethics committee.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

    Premisecitation

    NA placement is a prosodic mechanism through which speakers structure information and signal what is perceived as or meant to be communicatively salient.

    “NA placement, within the conceptual framework adopted here, is a prosodic mechanism through which speakers structure information and signal what is perceived as or meant to be communicatively salient (Halliday, 1967;Ladd, 1979).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Halliday, 1967

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Ladd, 1979

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Data collection was distributed across several days to reduce fatigue, but the order of administration remained constant for all participants.

    “Data collection was distributed across several days to reduce fatigue, but the order of administration remained constant for all participants.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Spanish favours LLI NA placement even in narrow-focus contexts and allows greater syntactic flexibility, often allowing focused components to surface in utterance-final position where prosodic prominence aligns with linear order.

    “Spanish favours LLI NA placement even in narrow-focus contexts (del Saz & Grau, 2022) and allows greater syntactic flexibility, often allowing focused components to surface in utterance-final position where prosodic prominence aligns with linear order.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites del Saz & Grau, 2022 source

      Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Perception and production in NA placement may rely on partially distinct mechanisms, since perception requires the listener to detect and interpret prominence in real time, while production requires the speaker to plan and execute a prominence pattern in relation to syntax and discourse.

    “perception and production in NA placement may rely on partially distinct mechanisms, since perception requires the listener to detect and interpret prominence in real time, while production requires the speaker to plan and execute a prominence pattern in relation to syntax and discourse.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Work in this area has pointed to links between musicality and pitch perception, temporal processing, auditory attention, and memory, all of which are relevant to speech learning.

    “Work in this area has pointed to links between musicality and pitch perception, temporal processing, auditory attention, and memory, all of which are relevant to speech learning (Bidelman et al., 2013;Ghooch Kanloo et al., 2026;Patel, 2014;Turker & Reiterer, 2021).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bidelman et al., 2013 source

      Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

    • cites Ghooch Kanloo et al., 2026

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Patel, 2014

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This interaction suggests a layered model of L2 prosodic development, in which auditory sensitivity provides access to cues and proficiency enables learners to integrate those cues into emerging L2 phonological and pragmatic representations.

    “This interaction suggests a layered model of L2 prosodic development, in which auditory sensitivity provides access to cues and proficiency enables learners to integrate those cues into emerging L2 phonological and pragmatic representations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The absence of significant effects for MLAT-based aptitude should not be taken as evidence that cognitive abilities are irrelevant to L2 prosody altogether; more likely, the result points to a measurement and construct-validity issue, in that the specific aptitude components assessed may not fully capture the cognitive mechanisms most relevant to NA placement.

    “The absence of significant effects for MLAT-based aptitude should not be taken as evidence that cognitive abilities are irrelevant to L2 prosody altogether; more likely, the result points to a measurement and construct-validity issue, in that the specific aptitude components assessed may not fully capture the cognitive mechanisms most relevant to NA placement.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The two tasks were matched in number of items, sentence length, and sentence type, improving comparability between perception and production instruments.

    “The two tasks were also matched in number of items, sentence length, and sentence type, improving comparability between perception and production instruments.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationown data

    Taken together, the perception analyses indicate that rhythm sensitivity was the most consistent predictor of NA perception, and that its contribution was amplified by higher L2 proficiency, particularly in overall and unmarked conditions.

    “Taken together, the perception analyses indicate that rhythm sensitivity was the most consistent predictor of NA perception, and that its contribution was amplified by higher L2 proficiency, particularly in overall and unmarked conditions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Testing conditions were standardised as far as possible across sessions, and participants were allowed to adjust audio volume as needed.

    “Testing conditions were standardised as far as possible across sessions, and participants were allowed to adjust audio volume as needed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Premisenone given

    In unmarked utterances in English, there is a tendency to place NA on the last lexical item.

    “In unmarked utterances in English, there is a tendency to place NA on the last lexical item.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Production data were independently rated by two experienced teachers of English, and inter-rater reliability was assessed using a two-way random-effects intraclass correlation coefficient with absolute agreement (ICC[2,1]).

    “Production data were independently rated by two experienced teachers of English, and inter-rater reliability was assessed using a two-way random-effects intraclass correlation coefficient with absolute agreement (ICC[2,1]).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
73 of 73

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Language aptitude is not an isolated general ability, but a composite of interconnected variables including phonetic coding ability, grammatical sensitivity, rote learning ability, and inductive language learning ability.

    “The test assumes the premise that language aptitude is not an isolated general ability, but rather a composite of interconnected variables, including phonetic coding ability, grammatical sensitivity, rote learning ability, and inductive language learning ability.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The General English Test (Cambridge placement test) validly measures L2 proficiency.

    “Cambridge placement test scores were retrieved from the official online platform.”
    “The General English Test was presented in an online computer-based format in a computer laboratory.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The NA perception and production tasks validly measure NA placement.

    “Its purpose was to measure participants' ability to listen to and identify the location of NA in 35 recorded English utterances.”
    “Recorded responses were scored dichotomously: a fully accurate NA placement received one point, while inaccurate, incomplete, unclear, or partial responses received zero points.”
3 of 3

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentt(52) = 0.17reported p = .868 · recomputed p = .866

    “t(52) = 0.17, p = .868”

  • Consistentt(52) = 5.07reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(52) = 5.07, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(52) = 4.5reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(52) = 4.50, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(3, 49) = 5.3reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .003

    “F(3, 49) = 5.30, p < .01”

  • ConsistentF(3, 49) = 5.72reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .002

    “F(3, 49) = 5.72, p < .01”

  • ConsistentF(2, 50) = 6.19reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .004

    “F(2, 50) = 6.19, p < .01”

  • ConsistentF(3, 49) = 8.75reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(3, 49) = 8.75, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(3, 49) = 4.46reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .008

    “F(3, 49) = 4.46, p < .01”

  • ConsistentF(2, 50) = 3.68reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .032

    “F(2, 50) = 3.68, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(3, 49) = 8.02reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(3, 49) = 8.02, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(3, 49) = 2.37reported p = .082 · recomputed p = .082

    “F(3, 49) = 2.37, p = .082”

  • ConsistentF(2, 50) = 3.75reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .030

    “F(2, 50) = 3.75, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(3, 49) = 1.09reported p = .362 · recomputed p = .362

    “F(3, 49) = 1.09, p = .362”

  • ConsistentF(3, 49) = 1.13reported p = .344 · recomputed p = .346

    “F(3, 49) = 1.13, p = .344”

  • ConsistentF(3, 49) = 2.05reported p = .119 · recomputed p = .119

    “F(3, 49) = 2.05, p = .119”

  • ConsistentF(1, 51) = 0.45reported p = .504 · recomputed p = .505

    “F(1, 51) = 0.45, p = .504”

16 of 16

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • MLAT maximum scores disagree

    Minor

    Table 1 lists maximum scores of 28 for Phonetic Script and 43 for overall L2 aptitude, while the methods state that the maxima are 29 and 44, respectively.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford University Press.
  2. Best, C. (1995). A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Theoretical and methodological issues (pp. 171-204). York Press.
  3. Best, C., & Tyler, M. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In M. Munro, & O. Bohn (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege (pp. 13-34).
  4. Calhoun, S., La Cruz, E., & Olssen, A. (2018). The interplay of information structure, semantics, prosody, and word ordering in Spanish intransitives. Laboratory Phonology, 9(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.5334/labphon. · DOI
  5. Carroll, J., & Sapon, S. (2002). Modern language aptitude test (MLAT): Manual (2002 ed.). Second Language Testing.
  6. Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D., & Goodwin, J. (2010). Teaching pronunciation: A course book and reference guide (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  7. Flege, J. E. (1995). Second-language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 233-277). York Press.
  8. Meyer, & N. Schiller (Eds.), Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production: Differences and similarities (pp. 319-355). Mouton de Gruyter.
  9. Frota, S., & Prieto, P. (Eds.). (2015). Intonation in Romance: Language families, phonetics and phonology. Oxford University Press.
  10. Gordon, J., & Darcy, I. (2018). Teaching segmentals vs. suprasegmentals: Different effects of explicit instruction on comprehensibility. Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Proceedings, 10(1), 116-126.
  11. Gordon, J., & Darcy, I. (2022). Teaching segmentals and suprasegmentals effects of explicit pronunciation instruction on comprehensibility, fluency, and accentedness. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 8(2), 168-195. https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.21042. · DOI
  12. gor · DOI
  13. Hirsch, A., & Wagner, M. (2011, April). Patterns of prosodic prominence in English intransitive sentences [Conference presentation]. 34th Generative Linguistics in the Old World (GLOW 34).
  14. Klassen, J. (2013). Second language acquisition of English focus prosody: Evidence from Spanish native speakers. In J. Cabrelli Amaro, T. Judy, & D. Pascual y Cabo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2013 (pp. 76-84). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
  15. Ladd, D. (1979). Light and Shadow: A study of the syntax and semantics of sentence in English. In L. R. Waugh & F. Van Coetsem (Eds.), Contributions to grammatical studies: Semantics and syntax. (pp. 93- 131).
  16. ch8 · DOI
  17. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
  18. Trofimovich, P., Kennedy, S., & Foote, J. A. (2015). Variables affecting L2 pronunciation development. In M. Reed & J. Levis (Eds.), The handbook of English pronunciation (pp. 353-373). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118346952. · DOI
  19. ch20 · DOI

Cited by

Still being checked.

Related

Metadata

Authors
Barra–García, C. F., Véliz-Campos, M., Figueroa Candia, M. A., Pereira-Reyes, Y., & Kartsevski Dune, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Concepción (CL)
  • Universidad de Talca (CL)
  • Faculty of Art and Humanities, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción, Chile
  • Faculty of Art and Humanities, Universidad de Concepción,Concepción, Chile
  • Faculty of Educational Sciences, Universidad de Talca, Linares, Chile
ORCID
Venue
Language Teaching Research Quarterly
Publisher
EUROKD Egitm Danismanlik Group
Published
2026-08
Volume
55
Pages
74-101
ISSN
  • 2651-3110 (ISSN-L)
  • 2667-6753
DOI
10.32038/ltrq.2026.55.04
OpenAlex
W7202356256
Semantic Scholar
451784d39a1453762ef25002c4851b67067afb9b
Cited by
0
References
66
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Language Teaching Research Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Universidad de Concepción
  • Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (1220209)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Keywords
prosody, English as a second language, musical ability, second language proficiency, perception-production link, prosodic features

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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