As Training B was based on prosodic features and thereby implied oral practice at the
sentence level, Group B should have obtained better scores for phrase reading than Group A.
The analysis of the mean post-training scores for phrases, detailed in Table 3 below, indeed
seems to confirm Hypothesis 2 #2, contrary to the mean scores for words.
Table 3: Post-training scores for phrases
On the one hand, the mean post-training scores given by Judge 1 for the phrases are 3.70
for Group A, and 3.52 for Group B. The hypothesis is invalidated because it is the segmental
group that has got the better mean score. The difference of 0.18 is superior to 0.10, but the
question of the significance of such a difference may be raised.
On the other hand, if one follows the scores that were given by Judge 2, Hypothesis 2 #2
appears to be confirmed. Group A has obtained 3.98, and Group B, 4.22. The (small)
difference of 0.24 enables us to note that a suprasegmental training may help French learners
in phrase reading more than a segmental training.
Similarly, Group B is better at phrase reading than Group A according to Judge 3’s scores,
with 3.28 against 3.06 respectively, and a difference of 0.22. This advantage of the effects of a
prosodic training over a segmental training confirms the hypothesis.
As regards the mean score of each group, it is Group B, i.e. the prosodic group, that has
obtained the better score (3.67). With 3.58 out of 7, Group A has 0.09 less than Group B. The
hypothesis is therefore confirmed as far as phrase reading is concerned, yet the difference
between the two groups is so slight that generalizing about the importance of prosody vis-àvis
segments is too risky. Finally, what is noteworthy is that among the one hundred phrases
that were recorded after the trainings, only one phrase has obtained the full score (7 out of 7,
i.e. native-likeness). It was given by Judge 2 to the reading of Phrase 5 by Subject 9, that is,
one participant of the prosodic group. If the prosodic training is the cause for that, then our
central hypothesis may be close to the truth. The analysis of the evolutions of the groups
(within-groups design) will provide more answers and confirmations – or invalidations.