Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T11:33:15.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Second language learning of phonological alternations with and without orthographic input: Evidence from the acquisition of a German-like voicing alternation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2020

Shannon L. Barrios Open the ORCID record for Shannon L. Barrios [Opens in a new window]  and
Rachel Hayes-Harb Open the ORCID record for Rachel Hayes-Harb [Opens in a new window]
Shannon L. Barrios*
Affiliation:
University of Utah
Rachel Hayes-Harb
Affiliation:
University of Utah
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While a growing body of research investigates the influence of orthographic input on the acquisition of second language (L2) segmental contrasts, few studies have examined its influence on the acquisition of L2 phonological processes. Hayes-Harb, Brown, and Smith (2018) showed that exposure to words’ written forms caused native English speakers to misremember the voicing of final obstruents in German-like words exemplifying voicing neutralization. However, they did not examine participants’ acquisition of the final devoicing process. To address this gap, we conducted two experiments wherein native English speakers (assigned to Orthography or No Orthography groups) learned German-like words in suffixed and unsuffixed forms, and later completed a picture naming test. Experiment 1 investigated learners’ knowledge of the surface voicing of obstruents in both final and nonfinal position, and revealed that while all participants produced underlyingly voiced obstruents as voiceless more often in final than nonfinal position, the difference was only significant for No Orthography participants. Experiment 2 investigated participants’ ability to apply the devoicing process to new words, and provided no evidence of generalization. Together these findings shed light on the acquisition of final devoicing by naïve adult learners, as well as the influence of orthographic input in the acquisition of a phonological alternation.

Keywords

final obstruent devoicingGermanorthographysecond language phonologyword learning
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , May 2020 , pp. 517 - 545
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2020

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

Aksu-Koç, A., & Slobin, D. I. (1985). The acquisition of Turkish. In Slobin, D. I. (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Albright, A., & Hayes, B. (2011). Learning and learnability in phonology. In Goldsmith, J., Riggle, J., & Yu, A. C. L. (Eds.), The handbook of phonological theory (2nd ed., pp. 661–690). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer-Henney, D., & van de Vijver, R. (2012). On the role of substance, locality, and amount of exposure in the acquisition of morphophonemic alternations. Laboratory Phonology, 3. doi: 10.1515/lp-2012-0013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bals, B. A. (2004). The acquisition of grade alternation in North Saami. Nordlyd, 32, 1–27.Google Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.01CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bassetti, B. (2006). Orthographic input and phonological representations in learners of Chinese as a foreign language. Written Language & Literacy, 9, 95–114.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4 (Version R package 1.1–1.10). Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berko, J. (1958). The child’s learning of English morphology. Word, 14, 150–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2018). PRAAT: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.0.37). Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/Google Scholar
Bradlow, A. R., Pisoni, D. B., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Tohkura, Y. i. (1997). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: IV. Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 2299–2310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broselow, E., Chen, S.-I., & Wang, C. (1998). The emergence of the unmarked in second language phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 261–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckler, H., & Fikkert, P. (2016). Using distributional statistics to acquire morphophonological alternations: Evidence from production and perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 540. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00540CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cristia, A., & Seidl, A. (2008). Is infants’ learning of sound patterns contrained by phonological features? Language Learning and Development, 4, 203–227. doi: 10.1080/15475440802143109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durham, K., Hayes-Harb, R., Barrios, S., & Showalter, C. E. (2016). The influence of various visual input types on L2 learners’ memory for the phonological forms of newly-learned words. In J. Levis, H. Le., I. Lucic, E. Simpson, & S. Vo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference (pp. 98–107). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.Google Scholar
Eckman, F. R. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning, 27, 315–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F. R. (1981). On the naturalness of interlanguage phonological rules. Language Learning, 31, 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escudero, P. (2015). Orthography plays a limited role when learning the phonological forms of new words: The case of Spanish and English learners of novel Dutch words. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 7–22. doi: 10.1017/s014271641400040xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escudero, P., Hayes-Harb, R., & Mitterer, H. (2008). Novel second-language words and asymmetric lexical access. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 345–360. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2007.11.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escudero, P., Simon, E., & Mulak, K. E. (2014). Learning words in a new language: Orthography doesn’t always help. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 384–395. doi: 10.1017/s1366728913000436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fikkert, P., & Freitas, M. J. (2006). Allophony and allomorphy cue phonological acquisition: Evidence from the European Portuguese vowel system. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 5, 83–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K., & Forster, J. (2003). DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grantham O’Brien, M., & Fagan, S. M. B. (2016). German phonetics and phonology: Theory and practice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hayes-Harb, R., Brown, K., & Smith, B. L. (2018). Orthographic input and the acquisition of German final devoicing by native speakers of English. Lang Speech, 61, 547–564. doi: 10.1177/0023830917710048CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes-Harb, R., & Cheng, H.-W. (2016). The influence of the Pinyin and Zhuyin writing systems on the acquisition of Mandarin word forms by native English speakers. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00785CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes-Harb, R., & Hacking, J. (2015). The influence of written stress marks on native English speakers’ acquisition of Russian lexical stress contrasts. Slavic and East European Journal, 59, 91–109.CrossRefGoogle 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. doi: 10.1177/0023830910371460CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes-Harb, R., Smith, B. L., Bent, T., & Bradlow, A. R. (2008). The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit for native speakers of Mandarin: Production and perception of English word-final voicing contrasts. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 664–679. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2008.04.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hothorn, T., Bretz, F., & Westfall, P. (2008). Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal, 50, 346–363. doi: 10.1002/bimj.200810425CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jessen, M., & Ringen, C. (2002). Laryngeal features in German. Phonology, 19, 189–218. doi: 10.1017/S0952675702004311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerkhoff, A. (2007). The acquisition of morpho-phonology: The Dutch voicing alternation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Kleber, F., John, T., & Harrington, J. (2010). The implications for speech perception of incomplete neutralization of final devoicing in German. Journal of Phonetics, 38, 185–196. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2009.10.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mok, P. P. K., Lee, A., Li, J. J., & Xu, R. B. (2018). Orthographic effects on the perception and production of L2 Mandarin tones. Speech Communication, 101, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.specom.2018.05.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. (2003). Phonetic diversity, statistical learning, and acquisition of phonology. Language and Speech, 46, 115–154. doi: 10.1177/00238309030460020501CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Port, R., & O’Dell, M. (1985). Neutralization of syllable-final voicing in German. Journal of Phonetics, 13, 455–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pytlyk, C. (2011). Shared orthography: Do shared written symbols influence the perception of L2 sounds? Modern Language Journal, 95, 541–557. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01244.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roettger, T. B., Winter, B., Grawunder, S., Kirby, J., & Grice, M. (2014). Assessing incomplete neutralization of final devoicing in German. Journal of Phonetics, 43, 11–25. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2014.01.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Showalter, C. E. (2018). Impact of Cyrillic on native English speakers’ phono-lexical acquisition of Russian. Language and Speech, 61, 565–576. doi: 10.1177/0023830918761489CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Showalter, C. E., & Hayes-Harb, R. (2013). Unfamiliar orthographic information and second language word learning: A novel lexicon study. Second Language Research, 29, 185–200. doi: 10.1177/0267658313480154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Showalter, C. E., & Hayes-Harb, R. (2015). Native English speakers learning Arabic: The influence of novel orthographic information on second language phonological acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 23–42. doi: 10.1017/s0142716414000411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, E., Chambless, D., & Kickhöfel Alves, U. (2010). Understanding the role of orthography in the acquisition of a non-native vowel contrast. Language Sciences, 32, 380–394. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2009.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. L., & Peterson, E. A. (2012). Native English speakers learning German as a second language: Devoicing of final voiced stop targets. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 129–140. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2011.09.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174–215.Google ScholarPubMed
Steriade, D. (2000). Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics-phonology boundary. In Broe, M. B. & Pierrehumbert, J. B. (Eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology V. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van de Vijver, R., & Baer-Henney, D. (2011). Acquisition of voicing and vowel alternations in German. In N. Danis, K. Mesh, & H. Sung (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (Vol. 2, pp. 603–615). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
van de Vijver, R., & Baer-Henney, D. (2014). Developing biases. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–8. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00634CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, C. (2006). Learning phonology with substantive bias: An experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science, 30, 945–982. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_89CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 nonour of Henning Wode (pp. 263–279). Trier: 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young-Scholten, M., & Langer, M. (2015). The role of orthographic input in second language German: Evidence from naturalistic adult learners’ production. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 93–114. doi: 10.1017/s0142716414000447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zamuner, T. S., Kerkhoff, A., & Fikkert, P. (2006). Acquisition of voicing neutralization and alternations in Dutch. Paper presented at the Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Zamuner, T. S., Kerkhoff, A., & Fikkert, P. (2012). Phonotactics and morphophonology in early child language: Evidence from Dutch. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 481–499. doi: 10.1017/s0142716411000440CrossRefGoogle Scholar