Interestingly enough, the overall comparison of the post-training scores (marked out of
seven: cf. 3.2.3.) obtained by the two groups reveals that neither group is better than the other
after the trainings. As a consequence, neither training has had a better effect on the French
EFL learners’ read production capacities than the other. The detailed scores that were given
to each speaker by each judge are listed in the tables of Appendix E.
The following table (Table 1) shows the mean post-training scores of Group A and Group B
given by the three listener-judges, as well as the general mean score of each group and the
conclusion that can be drawn from that (in the “result” column):
Table 1: Overall post-training scores
Concerning the mean scores of Judge 1 – the British English speaker –, Group A has
obtained 3.37 out of 7, and Group B has got 3.30 out of 7. Even though Group A, i.e. the
segmental group, has a slight advantage of 0.07 over Group B, it is impossible to draw
significant conclusions from such results. The gap between the two scores is far too small
(inferior to 0.1), and it is therefore non-significant. Judging by the scores given by the British
English speaker, neither a prosodic training, nor a segmental training helps French EFL
learners improve their (read) production skills more than the other.
Although higher than the scores given by Judge 1, the mean scores given by Judge 2 – the
American English speaker – are just as inconclusive. While Group B has a mean score of 4.24
out of 7, the slightly higher score obtained by Group A, that is, 4.29, cannot be said to
provide evidence that a segmental training has a better effect on production skills and global
intelligibility than a prosody-centred training. Again, the difference from 4.24 to 4.29 is too
little, i.e. 0.05. The two groups may be considered to be at the same level.
As for the mean scores that Judge 3 – the academic expert in English phonology – has
given to each group, they seem to point to a slight advantage of Group B over Group A. The
former has obtained a mean score of 3.37, whereas the latter has obtained 3.24. The difference
between the two is superior to 0.10, i.e. 0.13. Still, it is too little to ascertain that Group B is
better than Group A according to Judge 3.
When the mean score of each group is worked out from the three judges’ mean scores, the
closeness between the general levels of the two groups is even more striking. As Group A
obtains 3.63, and Group B obtains 3.64, the surprisingly tiny difference of 0.01 is of even less
significance than it is with the mean scores of each judge separately. As a conclusion, the two
groups can be said to be at the same level after their respective trainings. Neither the
prosodic training, nor the segmental training has helped the French EFL learners more than
the other. Consequently, it seems that as far as read speech skills are concerned, prosodic
features are not more important than individual sounds. Instead, they have the same weight
in intelligibility, indeed foreign-accentedness.
Albeit it is still very risky to jump to conclusions, it is worth noticing is that the segmental
group has obtained slightly better scores than the prosodic group in the two native speakers’
judgements (Judges 1 and 2), and only to the expert’s ears (Judge 3) is the prosodic group
better. One may thus wonder if the native speakers’ judgements should not be followed, and
segments are actually slightly more important than prosody. Nevertheless, such a conclusion
is far too hasty, since the experiment only tested read speech capacities of French learners,
and the gaps between the scores of Group A and Group B according to both native speakers
are, once again, too insignificant (i.e. 0.07 and 0.05). Further research needs to investigate the
spontaneous speech capacities and the perception skills of French EFL learners after either a
prosodic training or a segmental training.
Even though the two groups turn out to have similar capacities of read production after
their trainings, it is interesting to have a look at the scores of each group in the production of
the words only, and then the productions of the phrases only.