Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:47:53.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of orthographic forms on pronunciation in experienced instructed second language learners

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2015

BENE BASSETTI  and
NATHAN ATKINSON
BENE BASSETTI
Affiliation:
University of Warwick
NATHAN ATKINSON
Affiliation:
University of York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In spite of burgeoning evidence that the orthographic forms (“spellings”) of second language (L2) words affect L2 learners’ pronunciation, little is known about the pronunciation of known words in experienced learners. In a series of four studies, we investigated various orthographic effects on the pronunciation of L2 English words in instructed learners with 10 years’ experience of learning English. Participants were native users of the phonologically transparent Italian writing system. Study 1 investigated the pronunciation of “silent letters,” using a word-reading task and a word-repetition task. Study 2 examined the effects of vowel spelling on vowel duration, namely, whether L2 speakers produce the same target vowel as longer when it is spelled with a vowel digraph than with a singleton letter. Study 3 explored the effects of the morphemic spelling of the past tense marker <ed> using a verb paradigm-production task. Study 4 tested whether L2 speakers produce homophonic words differently when they are spelled differently. Results confirmed that orthographic forms affect experienced instructed learners’ pronunciation of known words, albeit less so in immediate word repetition than in reading-aloud tasks.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , January 2015 , pp. 67 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alario, F. X., Perre, L., Castel, C., & Ziegler, J. C. (2007). The role of orthography in speech production revisited. Cognition, 102, 464–475. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2006.02.002Google Scholar
Bassetti, B. (2014). First and second language orthographies affect second language phonology: The orthography-induced singleton-geminate consonant contrast in second language speakers of English. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Bassetti, B., Hayes-Harb, R., & Escudero, P. (2015). Second language phonology at the interface between acoustic and orthographic input. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 1–6.Google Scholar
Beers, C. S., & Beers, J. W. (1992). Children's spelling of English inflectional morphology. In Templeton, S. & Bear, D. R. (Eds.), Development of orthographic knowledge and the foundations of literacy: A memorial festschrift for Edmund H. Henderson (pp. 231–251). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bertinetto, P. M., & Loporcaro, M. (2005). The sound pattern of Standard Italian, as compared with the varieties spoken in Florence, Milan and Rome. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 35, 131–151.Google Scholar
Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In Munro, M. J. & Bohn, O.-S. (Eds.), Second language speech learning: The role of language experience in speech perception and production (pp. 13–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bohn, O.-S. (1995). Cross-language speech perception in adults: First language transfer doesn't tell it all. In Strange, W. (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 279–304). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Brown, C. M. (2000). The interrelation between speech perception and phonological acquisition from infant to adult. In Archibald, J. (Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 4–63). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Browning, S. R. (2004). Analysis of Italian children's English pronunciation. Report contributed to the EU FP5 PF STAR Project. Retrieved from http://www.eee.bham.ac.uk/russellm/ItalianEnglishReport%5CItalianEnglish_report_v2.htmGoogle Scholar
Bryant, P., Nunes, T., & Bindman, M. (1997). Children's understanding of the connection between grammar and spelling. In Blachman, B. (Ed.), Linguistic underpinnings of reading (pp. 219–240). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Carney, E. (1994). A survey of English spelling. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chen, M. (1970). Vowel length variation as a function of the voicing of the consonant environment Phonetica, 22, 129–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J., & Yallop, C. (1995). An introduction to phonetics and phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. D., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. (1993). PsyScope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 25, 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, V. J. (2004). The spelling of the regular past tense in English: Implications for lexical spelling and dual process models. In Bergh, G., Herriman, J., & Mabärg, M. (Eds.), AIMO: An International Master of Syntax (pp. 59–68). Gothenburg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Cook, V. J., & Bassetti, B. (2005) An introduction to researching second language writing systems. In Cook, V. & Bassetti, B. (Eds.), Second language writing systems (pp. 1–67). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, L. (2010). Phonetic bases of similarities in cross-language production: Evidence from English and Catalan. Journal of Phonetics, 38, 272–288.Google Scholar
Davies, G., Dillon, S., & Dillon, T. (1993) Master your spelling: Book 1 (2nd ed.). Cheltenham: Stanley Thomes.Google Scholar
d’Imperio, M., & Rosenthall, S. (1999). Phonetics and phonology of main stress in Italian. Phonology, 16, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erdener, V. D., & Burnham, D. K. (2005). The role of audiovisual speech and orthographic information in nonnative speech production. Language Learning, 55, 191–228.Google Scholar
Escudero, P., & Boersma, P. (2004). Bridging the gap between L2 speech perception research and phonological theory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 551–585.Google Scholar
Escudero, P., Hayes-Harb, R., & Mitterer, H. (2008). Novel second-language words and asymmetric lexical access. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 345–360.Google Scholar
Escudero, P., & Wanrooij, K. (2010). Learning the phonological forms of new words: Effects of orthographic and auditory input. Language and Speech, 53, 361–381.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., Bohn, O.-S., & Jang, S. (1997). Effects of experience on non-native speakers’ production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 437–470.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., MacKay, I. R., & Meador, D. (1999). Native Italian speakers’ perception and production of English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 2973.Google Scholar
Hall, N. (2011). Vowel epenthesis. In van Oostendorp, M., Ewen, C. J., Hume, E., & Rice, K. (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology (pp. 1576–1596). Oxford: Wiley–Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hayes-Harb, R., Nicol, J., & Barker, J. (2010). Learning the phonological forms of new words: Effects of orthographic and auditory input. Language and Speech, 53, 367–381.Google Scholar
Klatt, D. (1976). Linguistic uses of segmental duration in English: Acoustic and perceptual evidence. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 59, 1208–1221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krebs-Lazendic, L., & Best, C. T. (2013). First language suprasegmentally-conditioned syllable length distinctions influence perception and production of second language vowel contrasts. Laboratory Phonology, 4, 435–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. C. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 1089–1091.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2007). Morphological processes in language comprehension. In Gaskell, M. G. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 175–193). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nimz, K. (2011). Vowel perception and production of late Turkish learners of L2 German. Paper presented at the 17th International Congress of the Phonetic Sciences, Hong Kong, August 17–21.Google Scholar
Nooteboom, B. G., & Doodeman, G. J. (1980). Production and perception of vowel length in spoken sentences. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 67, 276–287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piske, T., Flege, J. E., MacKay, I. R. A., & Meador, D. (2002). The production of English vowels by fluent early and late Italian-English bilinguals. Phonetica, 59, 49–71.Google Scholar
Pytlyk, C. (2011). Shared orthography: Do shared written symbols influence the perception of L2 sounds? Modern Language Journal, 54, 541–557.Google Scholar
Rafat, Y. (2011). Orthography-induced transfer in the production of novice adult English-speaking learners of Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Roach, P. (2004). British English: Received pronunciation. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 34, 239–245.Google Scholar
Rogers, D., & d’Arcangeli, L. (2004). Italian. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 34, 117–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turk, A., Nakai, S., & Sugahara, M. (2006). Acoustic segment durations in prosodic research: A practical guide. In Sudhoff, S., Lenertova, D., Meyer, R., Pappert, S., Augurzky, P., Mleinek, I., et al. (Eds.), Methods in empirical prosody research (pp. 1–28). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vokic, G. (2011). When alphabets collide: Alphabetic first-language speakers’ approach to speech production in an alphabetic second language. Second Language Research, 27, 391–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, J. C. (2000). Longman pronunciation dictionary. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Young-Scholten, M. (2002). Orthographic input in L2 phonological development. In Burmeister, P., Piske, T., & Rohde, A. (Eds.), An integrated view of language development: Papers in honour of Henning Wode (pp. 263–279). Trier, Germany: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Young-Scholten, M., Akita, M., & Cross, N. (1999). Focus on form in phonology: Orthographic exposure as a promoter of epenthesis. In Robinson, P. & Jungheim, N. O. (Eds.), Pragmatics and pedagogy: Proceedings of the third PacSLRF (Vol. 2, pp. 227–233). Tokyo: Aoyama Gakuin University.Google Scholar
Young-Scholten, M., & Hannahs, S. S. (1997). Current issues in the first and second language acquisition of phonology. In Hannahs, S. S. & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.), Focus on phonological acquisition (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zampini, M. L. (1994). The role of native language transfer and task formality in the acquisition of Spanish spirantization. Hispania, 77, 470–481.Google Scholar
Zampini, M. L. (2008). L2 speech production research: Findings, issues, and advances. In Edwards, J. G. H. & Zampini, M. L. (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp. 219–249). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar