Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T15:16:24.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of orthographic input in second language German: Evidence from naturalistic adult learners’ production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2015

MARTHA YOUNG-SCHOLTEN  and
MONIKA LANGER
MARTHA YOUNG-SCHOLTEN*
Affiliation:
Newcastle University
MONIKA LANGER
Affiliation:
University of Cologne
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Martha Young-Scholten, School of English Literature, Language and Lingusitics, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE7 1RU, England. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A yearlong study of the acquisition of German by three American secondary school students reveals influence of orthographic input on their segmental development in phonology. The three had not been exposed to German prior to the year they spent in Germany, they received little explicit instruction on German, and they were the only native English speakers in their communities. Examination of their production of word-initial <s>, which is realized as [z] in German but [s] in English, points to influence of the orthographic input they received while interacting with written text as fully matriculated students in German secondary schools. Despite considerable aural input from their standard German-speaking peers, teachers, and host family members over the 12 months of their stay in Germany, the three learners’ production of word-initial <s> was typically [s]. Finer-grained analysis using Praat shows variation in voicing, suggesting these learners were also responding to the aural input.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , January 2015 , pp. 93 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

Abrahamsson, N. (2003). Development and recoverability of L2 codas: A longitudinal study of Chinese–Swedish interphonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 313–349.Google Scholar
Akita, M. (1998). A longitudinal study of Japanese EFL learners’ interlanguage phonology. Paper presented at EUROSLA 8.Google Scholar
Bassetti, B. (2009). Orthographic input and second language phonology. In Piske, T. & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.), Input matters in SLA (pp. 191–206). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bassetti, B., & Atkinson, N. (2015). Effects of orthographic forms on pronunciation in experienced instructed second language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 67–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2013). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.3.51). Retrieved June 2, 2013, from http://www.praat.org/Google Scholar
Broselow, E. (1987). Non-obvious transfer: On predicting epenthesis errors. In Ioup, G. & Weinberger, S. (Eds.), Interlanguage phonology. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Broselow, E., & Finer, D. (1991). Parameter setting and transfer in second language phonology and syntax. Second Language Research, 7, 35–59.Google Scholar
Carlisle, R. (1998). The acquisition of onsets in a markedness relationship: A longitudinal study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 245–260.Google Scholar
Chéreau, C., Gaskell, M. G., & Dumay, N. (2007). Reading spoken words: Orthographic effects in auditory priming. Cognition, 102, 341–360.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., Meisel, J., & Pienemann, M. (1983). Deutsch als Zweitsprache. Der Sspracherwerb ausländischer Arbeiter. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1986). The availability of Universal Grammar to adult and child learners—A study of the acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research, 2, 93–119.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1989). The UG paradox in L2 acquisition. Second Language Research, 5, 1–29.Google Scholar
Dellatolas, G., Willadino, B., Do Nasciamento Souza, L., Nunes Filho, G., Queiroz, E., & Deloche, G. (2003). Cognitive consequences of early phase of literacy. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 9, 771–782.Google Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Munro, J., & Thomson, R. I. (2008). A longitudinal study of ESL learners’ fluency and comprehensibility development. Applied Linguistics, 29, 359–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning, 31, 315–330.Google Scholar
Eckman, F. (1981). On the naturalness of interlanguage phonological rules. Language Learning, 31, 195–216.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. G. H. (2006). Acquiring a non-native phonology: Linguistic constraints and social barriers. London: Continuum.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., Simon, E., & Mulak, K. (2014). Learning words in a new language: Orthography doesn't always help. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 384–395.Google Scholar
Escudero, P., & Wanrooij, K. (2010). The effect of L1 orthography on non-native vowel perception. Language and Speech, 53, 343–365.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1987). A critical period for learning to pronounce foreign languages? Applied Linguistics, 8, 162–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning. Theory, findings and problems. In Strange, W. (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 233–277). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (2009). Give input a chance! In Piske, T. & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.), Input matters in SLA (pp. 175–190). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Goad, H., White, L., & Steele, J. (2003). Missing surface inflection in L2 acquisition: A prosodic account. In Beachley, B., Brown, A., & Conlin, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st BUCLD (pp. 264–275). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Gut, U. (2009). Non-native speech: A corpus-based analysis of phonological and phonetic properties of L2 English and German. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hancin-Bhatt, B. (2008). Second language phonology in optimality theory. In Edwards, H. J. & Zampini, M. L. (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp. 117–146). Amsterdam: Benjamins.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
Højen, A., & Flege, J. E. (2006). Early learners’ discrimination of second-language vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 3072–3084.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. (1989). Child language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ioup, G. (2008). Exploring the role of age on the acquisition of a second language sound system. In Hansen Edwards, J. & Zampini, M. L. (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp. 41–62). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ioup, G., & Weinberger, S. (1987). Interlanguage phonology. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Klein, W., & Perdue, C. (1997). The basic variety (or: Couldn't natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research, 13, 301–347.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E. (1967). The biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishra, R. K., Singh, N., Pandey, A., & Huettig, F. (2012). Spoken language-mediated anticipatory eye-movements are modulated by reading ability—Evidence from Indian low and high literates. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 5, 1–10.Google Scholar
Moyer, A. (2009). Input as a critical means to an end: Quantity and quality of experience in L2 phonological attainment. In Piske, T. & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.), Input matters in SLA (pp. 159–174). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ortega, L., & Iberri-Shea, G. (2005). Longitudinal research in second language acquisition: Recent trends and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 26–45.Google Scholar
Ota, M., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Haywood, S. L. (2008). The KEY to the ROCK: Near-homophony in nonnative visual word recognition. Cognition, 111, 263–269.Google Scholar
Perre, L., & Ziegler, J. C. (2008). On-line activation of orthography in spoken word recognition. Brain Research, 1188, 132–138.Google Scholar
Piske, T., & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.). (2009). Input matters in SLA. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Rafat, Y. (2011). Orthography-induced transfer in the production of adult novice English speaking learners of Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Reis, A., & Castro-Caldas, A. (1997). Illiteracy: A cause for biased cognitive development. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 3, 444–450.Google Scholar
Rose, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (2014). The PhonBank Project: Data and software-assisted methods for the study of phonology and phonological development. In Durand, J., Gut, U., & Kristoffersen, G. (Eds.), Handbook of corpus phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Tomaselli, A. (1990). Some implications from an analysis of German word order. In Abraham, W., Kosmeijer, W., & Reuland, E. (Eds.), Issues in Germanic syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Seliger, H. W. (1978). Implications of a multiple critical period hypothesis for second language learning. In Ritchie, W. C. (Ed.), Second language research: Issues and implications (pp. 11–19). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Snow, C. E., & Hoefnagel-Höhle, M. (1982). Age differences in the pronunciation of foreign sounds. In Krashen, S., Long, M., & Scarcella, R. (Eds.), Child–adult differences in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Tarone, E., Bigelow, M., & Hansen, K. (2009). Literacy and second language oracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tropf, H. (1987). Sonority as a variability factor in second language phonology. In Leather, J. & James, A. J. (Eds.), Sound patterns in second language acquisition (pp. 173–191). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (2011). The acquisition of German: Introducing organic grammar. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, M., Verspoor, M. H., & Lowie, W. (2011). Variability and DST. In Verspoor, M., De Bot, K., & Lowie, W. (Eds.), A dynamic systems approach to second language development: Methods and techniques (pp. 55–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Venezky, R. L. (1970). The structure of English orthography. The Hague: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Winitz, H., Gillespie, B., & Starcev, J. (1995). The development of English speech patterns of a 7-year-old Polish-speaking child. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 117–143.Google Scholar
Wode, H. (2009). Developing non-native pronunciation in an immersion setting. In Piske, T. & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.), Input matters in SLA (pp. 238–256). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Young-Scholten, M. (1995). The negative effects of “positive” evidence on L2 phonology. In Eubank, L., Selinker, L., & Smith, M. Sharwood (Eds.), The current state of interlanguage (pp. 107–122). Amsterdam: Benjamins.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: WVT Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Young-Scholten, M. (2004). Prosodic constraints on allophonic distribution in adult L2 acquisition. International Journal of Bilingualism, 8, 67–77.Google Scholar
Young-Scholten, M. (2011). Development in phonology: Another perspective on age. In Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K., Wrembel, M., & Kul, M. (Eds.), Achievements and perspectives in SLA of speech. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Young-Scholten, M. (2013). Low-educated immigrants and the social relevance of second language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 29, 441–454.Google Scholar
Zampini, M. (1997). L2 Spanish spirantization, prosodic domains and interlanguage rules. In Hannahs, S. J. & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.), Focus on phonological acquisition (pp. 209–233). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar