Arabic Plain and Emphatic L2 Development

This section presents an answer to the second research question of the study: Does more

L2 exposure over time lead to similar learning development with Arabic L2 plain and emphatic sounds? As I discussed the results from the L2 labeling task and goodness-of-fit rating task in

chapter 4, the answer is “No”. Arabic plain and Arabic emphatic sounds did not show a similar learning development with more L2 exposure. I examined the overall development of the plain and emphatic sounds in the three different learner groups (NG, IG, and AG) by examining the accuracy results from the L2 labeling task and the goodness ratings. The results of the plain sounds showed that the NG’s performance was higher than the performance of the IG, and the performance of the IG was higher than the performance of the AG (Figure 4.37). This was an indication that the three learner groups did not show any L2 learning development for L2 Arabic plain sounds with more exposure. This finding was supported by a one-way ANOVA to compare the effect of L2 exposure on accuracy of labeling L2 plain sounds. A significant effect of L2 exposure on the accuracy of labeling the plain sounds was found for the three groups. This significance, however, was not an indication of L2 development. On the contrary, as I explained

126

above, this was due to the decrease of accuracy performance rather than a positive increase that you would expect with more L2 exposure. As I explained earlier, this decrease in the accuracy of performance for the plain sounds among the learner groups could be either attributed to a

perceptual confusion that is due to the learners’ attempt to distinguish the differences between the plain and emphatic consonants, or it could be attributed to the vowel conditions /a/ and /a:/. As I explained in chapter 1, vowel quality of /a/ and /a:/ is different than the English vowels and even though the main task asks listeners to focus only on the consonants of the stimuli, listeners’ focus may have deviated from the main task and listeners were actually paying more or equal attention to the vowels used in the syllable structures. Consequently, accuracy rates fluctuated for the plain Arabic sounds among the learner groups. So, Arabic L2 plain sounds did not show any learning improvement with more L2 exposure.

On the other hand, I also examined the overall development of the emphatic sounds in the three different learner groups (NG, IG, and AG) by examining the accuracy results from the L2 labeling task and the goodness ratings. The results showed that the accuracy performance of the AG was higher than the accuracy performance of the IG, and the accuracy performance of the IG was higher than the accuracy performance of the NG (Figure 4.38). This was an indication that the three learner groups did this time show a gradual L2 learning development for L2 Arabic emphatic sounds with more L2 exposure. This was supported by a one-way ANOVA to compare the effect of L2 exposure on accuracy of labeling L2 emphatic sounds.

My answer to the research question was also supported by the findings of the goodness ratings of the L2 labeling task. The goodness ratings of the plain and emphatic sounds

demonstrated similar result patterns to the accuracy result patterns. In other words, the high goodness ratings of the plain sounds indicate that the L2 listeners were very confident about their

127

chosen L2 categories. As for the emphatic sounds, the gradual increase in the goodness ratings of these sounds indicate that L2 listeners are becoming more confident about their chosen L2 categories with more L2 exposure. Results from a one-way ANOVA to compare the effect of L2 exposure on goodness ratings of labeled L2 plain sounds showed that there was no significant effect of L2 exposure on the goodness results of labeled L2 plain sounds for the three groups (Figure 4.39). On the other hand, there was a significant effect of L2 exposure on the goodness results of labeled L2 emphatic sounds for the three groups (Figure 4.40).

With regards to the differences between the NSR condition and the FSR condition for the three learner groups, my findings show that in the NSR, the three learner groups show better accuracies in the /a:/ condition than in the /a/ condition. A mixed-design ANOVA with a within- subjects factor of vowel duration (short vowel /a/ vs. long vowel /a:/) and a between-subject factor of groups (NG vs. IG vs. AG) was performed. The results showed that there was a main effect of vowel duration without any significant interaction among the groups. This means that the accuracies were higher for the long vowel condition /a:/ than for the short vowel /a/

condition. This leads us to believe that the perception of sounds is easier with a long vowel than a short vowel. I also noticed that the accuracy difference between the long and the short vowels was larger among the NG than other groups (Figure 4.8). However, as time goes on, and with more L2 exposure, L2 accuracies for the short vowel /a/ condition improved and started to catch up with the long vowel /a:/ condition suggesting that L2 exposure affects the overall L2 accuracy with short vowel /a/. In the FSR, the three learner groups showed no difference in the accuracies for when /a:/ and /a/ were used. According to a mixed-design ANOVA with the vowel duration (short /a/ vs. long /a:/) as the within-subjects factor, and groups (NG vs. IG vs. AG) as the between-subjects factor, there was neither main effect of vowel duration nor significant

128

interaction among the groups. I also noticed that the accuracy difference between the long and the short vowels was larger among the NG and AG (Figure 4.23), suggesting that the short vowel /a/ condition was more difficult than the long vowel /a:/ condition for the NG and AG. I believe that this may be due to the increased difficulty of the FSR task.

As for the accuracy performance of plain and emphatic sounds in the NSR and FSR for the three learner groups, my findings show that in the NSR, the accuracies of the plain sounds were better than the accuracies of the emphatic sounds in both /a/ and /a:/ conditions in the three learner groups. A mixed-design ANOVA with the consonants (plain vs. emphatic) and vowels (short /a/ vs. long /a:/) as the within-subjects factor and groups (NG vs. IG vs. AG) as the between-subject factor was performed. The results showed that there was a main effect of consonant type. This means that the accuracies were higher for the plain sounds than the emphatic sounds (Figures 4.9, 4.10, and 4.11). The results showed no significant interaction between the vowels and consonants. In the FSR, accuracies of plain sounds were also better than accuracies of emphatic sounds in the three learner groups. A mixed-design ANOVA with the

consonants and vowel duration (plain vs. emphatic vs. short /a/ vs. long /a:/) as the within-

subjects factor, and groups (NG vs. IG vs. AG) as the between-subjects factor was performed. There was a main effect of consonant type (Figures 4.24, 4.25, and 4.26). In both NSR and FSR conditions, the results from the AG showed that the accuracies of the plain sounds were in general better than the accuracies of the emphatic sounds but I did not see any significance.

As for the goodness ratings of plain and emphatic sounds in the NSR and FSR for the three learner groups, in the NSR condition average goodness ratings of plain sounds were better than those of emphatic sounds in the three groups. I conducted a mixed-design ANOVA with the

129

subjects factor, and groups (NG vs. IG vs. AG) as the between-subjects factor. The results indicate that there was a main effect of consonant type. This means that the goodness were higher for the plain sounds than the emphatic sounds (Figures 4.13, 4.14, and 4.15). In the FSR condition, my results showed that goodness of plain sounds were better than goodness of emphatic sounds in the three groups. A mixed-design ANOVA with the consonants and vowel duration (plain vs. emphatic vs. short /a/ vs. long /a:/) as the within-subjects factor, and groups (NG vs. IG vs. AG) as the between-subjects factor was performed. The results showed that there was a main effect of consonant type (Figures 4.28, 4.29, and 4.30). This means that the goodness ratings were higher for the plain sounds than the emphatic sounds.

So, the answer to my second research question is “No”. L2 Arabic plain and emphatic sounds did not show similar learning development across time with more L2 exposure. The four plain sounds did not show L2 development with more L2 exposure; accuracy results differed but did not show a gradual learning pattern between the three learner groups. On the other hand, the four emphatic sounds demonstrated a gradual development with more L2 exposure; accuracy results reflected better performance as L2 experience increased.

5.3. English L1 to Arabic L2 Mappings