Search

We provide an exhaustive review of studies in the relatively new domain of research on the influence of orthography on second language (L2) phonological acquisition. While language teachers have long recognized the importance of written input—in addition to spoken input—on learners’ development, until this century there was very little systematic research investigating the relationship between orthography and L2 phonological acquisition. Here, we review studies of the influence of written input on L2 phonological awareness, phoneme perception, the acquisition of phonological processes and syllable structure, and the pronunciation and recognition of words. We elaborate the variables that appear to moderate written input effects: (1) whether or not a novel phonological contrast is systematically represented by the L2 writing system (systematicity); (2) whether some or all of the L2 graphemes are familiar to learners from the L1 (familiarity); (3) for familiar graphemes, whether the native language (L1) and the L2 employ the same grapheme-phoneme correspondences (congruence); and (4) the ability of learners to perceive an auditory contrast that is systematically represented in writing (perceptibility). We conclude by calling for future research on the pedagogical implications of this body of work, which has thus far received very little attention by researchers.

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.

Input is a necessary condition for language acquisition. In the language classroom, input may come from a variety of sources, including the teacher and student peers. Here we ask whether adult Lx learners are sensitive to the social roles of teachers and students such that they exhibit a preference for input from the teacher. We conducted an experiment wherein adult English speakers heard words in an artificial language. During an exposure phase, in one condition a “teacher” produced words with 25 ms of VOT on initial stop segments and a “student” produced the same words with 125 msec of VOT; in another condition the VOT durations were reversed. At test, participants judged productions by a different “student” and demonstrated a preference for the productions that matched the VOT durations of the teacher during exposure, providing evidence for an influence of social factors in differentiating input in Lx acquisition.

Research often demonstrates discrepancies between learners’ perception and encoding of novel lexical contrasts. In some cases, L2 learners appear to establish contrastive lexical representations that are undermined by online perceptual neutralization (e.g., Cutler and Weber, 2006). In others, L2 learners’ target-like online perceptual representations access non-target-like lexical representations (e.g., Darcy et al., 2013). Here we further investigate the relationship between learners’ perceptual and lexical representation of novel contrasts in order to better understand the source of the difficulty that they face. Two groups of naive English speakers learned 5 minimal pairs distinguished by the notoriously difficult [t Π]-[t ʃʰ] aspiration or [t ʃʰ]-[dʒh] voicing contrast among Hindi affricates. Following a word learning phase, participants were tested on their perception and lexical representation of the novel contrasts. We observed that while listeners generally demonstrated perceptual sensitivity to the two affricate contrasts, they failed to encode the novel contrast lexically. Interestingly, there was a significant positive correlation between participants’ perceptual acuity and their ability to contrast newly learned minimal pairs, suggesting that learner’s ability to encode a novel segmental contrast may be predicted by their pre-existing perceptual sensitivity, as has been reported for lexical tone contrasts (e.g., Perrachione et al., 2011).

Native English speakers’ pre-existing perceptual sensitivity to Mandarin lexical tone contrasts is associated with the ability to distinguish newly learned minimal pairs (Wong and Perrachione, 2007). Perrachione et al. (2011) further demonstrated that degree of pre-existing sensitivity predicts whether learners subsequently benefit more from single- or multiple-talker training. Together these findings point to the importance of pre-existing sensitivity in second language learning, yet the role of sensitivity to consonant contrasts has not been explored. We investigated variability in pre-existing sensitivity among native English speakers perceiving Hindi voiced and voiceless dental-retroflex stop contrasts. Fifty-two participants completed a web-based AXB task involving the four contrasts produced by four native Hindi speakers. Participants varied widely in their discrimination accuracy, ([t]-[ʈ], mean proportion correct = 0.59, min = 0.31, median = 0.59, max = .84; [tʰ]-[ʈʰ], mean = 0.53, min = 0.31, median = 0.53, max = 0.75; [d]-[ɖ], mean = 0.56, min = 0.25, median = 0.56, max = 0.75; [dɦ]-[ɖɦ], mean = 0.64, min = 0.38, median = 0.63, max = 0.81). In addition, the relative difficulty of the contrasts differed across speakers, complicating the construct of pre-existing sensitivity. We conclude that listeners exhibit variability in their pre-existing sensitivity to Hindi consonant contrasts, warranting further investigation into how this ability relates to their word learning success.

Hindi consonant contrasts are known to pose difficulties for native English speakers (e.g., Polka, 1991; Werker and Tees, 2002; and Cibelli, 2015). While a limited set of Hindi consonants have received a great deal of attention (i.e., the coronal stops), we do not yet know how learners perceive other segments from Hindi’s relatively large consonant inventory. To address this gap, we conducted a perceptual assimilation study modeled after Faris et al. (2018) to investigate the perceptual assimilation of twenty Hindi consonants (tʃ, tʃʰ, dʒ, dʒʰ, t, tʰ, d, dʰ, ʈ, ʈʰ, ɖ, ɖʰ, ʃ, ʂ, s, z, l, r, ɽ, ɽʰ) by native English speakers with no prior Hindi language learning experience. We later examined the discrimination of 46 pairs from the same set of phones in a new group of participants from the same population using an AX discrimination task. Participants exhibited patterns of perceptual assimilation and discrimination of Hindi phonemes that suggest that native English speakers will experience difficulty across the Hindi consonant inventory. We consider the findings in the context of the Perceptual Assimilation Model (Best, 1994 and Best and Tyler, 2007), providing a fuller account of the difficulty posed by the Hindi consonant inventory for second-language learners.Hindi consonant contrasts are known to pose difficulties for native English speakers (e.g., Polka, 1991; Werker and Tees, 2002; and Cibelli, 2015). While a limited set of Hindi consonants have received a great deal of attention (i.e., the coronal stops), we do not yet know how learners perceive other segments from Hindi’s relatively large consonant inventory. To address this gap, we conducted a perceptual assimilation study modeled after Faris et al. (2018) to investigate the perceptual assimilation of twenty Hindi consonants (tʃ, tʃʰ, dʒ, dʒʰ, t, tʰ, d, dʰ, ʈ, ʈʰ, ɖ, ɖʰ, ʃ, ʂ, s, z, l, r, ɽ, ɽʰ) by native English speakers with no prior Hindi language learning experience. We later examined the discrimination of 46 pairs from the same set of phones in a new group of participants from the same population using an AX discrimination task. Participants exhibited patterns of perceptual assimilation and discrimination of Hindi phonemes that suggest that native English speakers will experience difficulty acro...

Adult second language (L2) learners often experience difficulty producing and perceiving nonnative phonological contrasts. Even relatively advanced learners, who have been exposed to an L2 for long periods of time, struggle with difficult contrasts, such as /ɹ/–/l/ for Japanese learners of English. To account for the relative ease or difficulty with which L2 learners perceive and acquire nonnative contrasts, theories of L2 speech perception and phonology often appeal to notions of ‘similarity’, but how is ‘similarity’ best captured? In this article, we review two prominent approaches to similarity in L2 speech perception and phonology and present the findings from two experiments that investigated the role of phonological features in the perception and lexical representation of two vowel contrasts that exist in English, but not in Spanish. In particular, we explored whether L1 phonological features can be reused to represent nonnative contrasts in the second language (Brown, 1998, 2000), as well as to what extent new phonological structure might be acquired by advanced late-learners. We show that second language acquisition of phonology is not constrained by the phonological features made available by the learner’s native language grammar, nor is the use of particular phonological features in the native language grammar sufficient to trigger redeployment. These findings suggest that feature availability is neither a necessary, nor a sufficient, condition to predict the observed learning outcomes. These results are discussed in the context of current theories of nonnative and L2 speech perception and phonological development.

Adults experience difficulty using novel second language (L2) phonological contrasts to distinguish words. Indeed, even the ability to perceive and/or produce a novel contrast with relative accuracy does not guarantee an ability to implement the contrast to distinguish words in tasks that require lexical access. These observations lead to questions regarding the phonological content of learners’ lexical representations of difficult L2 contrasts. We employed an artificial lexicon study to examine the lexical encoding and implementation of Japanese consonant and vowel length contrasts by native English speakers. In the first experiment, native English speakers were taught a set of six Japanese-like auditory minimal pairs with pictured meanings. The members of each pair were differentiated by vowel length (e.g., [teki] vs. [teeki]). Participants were then asked to match the pictures to auditory words in four conditions: matched (see picture of ‘teki’, hear [teki]), vowel length mismatch (see ‘teki’, hear [teeki], and consonant length mismatch (see ‘teki’, hear [tekki]). Participants performed accurately on matched items, but were more likely to reject word forms mismatched for consonant than for vowel length. The results from this and subsequent experiments provide insight into the lexical encoding strategies used by learners for difficult novel contrasts.Adults experience difficulty using novel second language (L2) phonological contrasts to distinguish words. Indeed, even the ability to perceive and/or produce a novel contrast with relative accuracy does not guarantee an ability to implement the contrast to distinguish words in tasks that require lexical access. These observations lead to questions regarding the phonological content of learners’ lexical representations of difficult L2 contrasts. We employed an artificial lexicon study to examine the lexical encoding and implementation of Japanese consonant and vowel length contrasts by native English speakers. In the first experiment, native English speakers were taught a set of six Japanese-like auditory minimal pairs with pictured meanings. The members of each pair were differentiated by vowel length (e.g., [teki] vs. [teeki]). Participants were then asked to match the pictures to auditory words in four conditions: matched (see picture of ‘teki’, hear [teki]), vowel length mismatch (see ‘teki’, hear [te...

To attain native-like competence, second language (L2) learners must establish mappings between familiar speech sounds and new phoneme categories. For example, Spanish learners of English must learn that [d] and [ð], which are allophones of the same phoneme in Spanish, can distinguish meaning in English (i.e., /deɪ/ “day” and /ðeɪ/ “they”). Because adult listeners are less sensitive to allophonic than phonemic contrasts in their native language (L1), novel target language contrasts between L1 allophones may pose special difficulty for L2 learners. We investigate whether advanced Spanish late-learners of English overcome native language mappings to establish new phonological relations between familiar phones. We report behavioral and magnetoencepholographic (MEG) evidence from two experiments that measured the sensitivity and pre-attentive processing of three listener groups (L1 English, L1 Spanish, and advanced Spanish late-learners of English) to differences between three nonword stimulus pairs ([idi]-[iði], [idi]-[iɾi], and [iði]-[iɾi]) which differ in phones that play a different functional role in Spanish and English. Spanish and English listeners demonstrated greater sensitivity (larger d' scores) for nonword pairs distinguished by phonemic than by allophonic contrasts, mirroring previous findings. Spanish late-learners demonstrated sensitivity (large d' scores and MMN responses) to all three contrasts, suggesting that these L2 learners may have established a novel [d]-[ð] contrast despite the phonological relatedness of these sounds in the L1. Our results suggest that phonological relatedness influences perceived similarity, as evidenced by the results of the native speaker groups, but may not cause persistent difficulty for advanced L2 learners. Instead, L2 learners are able to use cues that are present in their input to establish new mappings between familiar phones.

Adult second language (L2) learners gain knowledge of L2 allophones with experience. However, it is not well understood how this knowledge is acquired. We investigated whether naive subjects use lexical cues in the form of visual referents to acquire L2 allophones. We exposed native English speakers to one of two artificial languages where novel words containing two acoustically similar sounds, [b] and [β], occurred in an overlapping distribution. The words were paired with an image that either did or did not reinforce the contrast (i.e., [bati]—"apple" and [βati]—"penguin" (DiffImage group) or [bati]—"penguin" and [βati]—"penguin" (SameImage group)). Participants completed three tests to determine whether the exposure phase impacted their ability to perceive and lexically encode the [b]-[β] contrast in trained and untrained words. If subjects use lexical cues in the form of visual referents to infer the phonological status of [b] and [β], then participants in the DiffImage group, but not the SameImage group, should discriminate and lexically encode the distinction. Data from 40 participants suggest that lexical cues may impact participants’ lexical encoding, but not perceptual sensitivity, to the [b]-[β] contrast. We discuss our findings in relation to proposed learning mechanisms.

Previous research has shown that neural responses to words during sentence comprehension are sensitive to both lexical repetition and a word's predictability in context. While previous research has often contrasted the effects of these variables (e.g. by looking at cases in which word repetition violates sentence-level constraints), little is known about how they work in tandem. In the current study we examine how recent exposure to a word and its predictability in context combine to impact lexical semantic processing. We devise a novel paradigm that combines reading comprehension with a recognition memory task, allowing for an orthogonal manipulation of a word's predictability and its repetition status. Using event-related brain potentials (ERPs), we show that word repetition and predictability have qualitatively similar and additive effects on the N400 amplitude. We propose that prior exposure to a word and predictability impact lexical semantic processing in an additive and independent fashion.