Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T04:59:00.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Learning words in a new language: Orthography doesn't always help*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2013

PAOLA ESCUDERO ,
ELLEN SIMON  and
KAREN E. MULAK
PAOLA ESCUDERO*
Affiliation:
MARCS Institute, University of Western Sydney, Penrith, Australia
ELLEN SIMON
Affiliation:
Ghent University, Linguistics Department, Ghent, Belgium
KAREN E. MULAK
Affiliation:
MARCS Institute, University of Western Sydney, Penrith, Australia
*
Address for correspondence: Paola Escudero, MARCS Institute, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith NSW 2751, Australiapaola.escudero@uws.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that orthography is activated during speech processing and that it may have positive and negative effects for non-native listeners. The present study examines whether the effect of orthography on non-native word learning depends on the relationship between the grapheme–phoneme correspondences across the native and non-native orthographic systems. Specifically, congruence between grapheme–phoneme correspondences across the listeners’ languages is predicted to aid word recognition, while incongruence is predicted to hinder it. Native Spanish listeners who were Dutch learners or naïve listeners (with no exposure to Dutch) were taught Dutch pseudowords and their visual referents. They were trained with only auditory forms or with auditory and orthographic forms. During testing, non-native listeners were less accurate when the target and distractor pseudowords formed a minimal pair (differing in only one vowel) than when they formed a non-minimal pair, and performed better on perceptually easy than on perceptually difficult minimal pairs. For perceptually difficult minimal pairs, Dutch learners performed better than naïve listeners and Dutch proficiency predicted learners’ word recognition accuracy. Most importantly and as predicted, exposure to orthographic forms during training aided performance on minimal pairs with congruent orthography, while it hindered performance on minimal pairs with incongruent orthography.

Keywords

word learningword recognitionorthographycongruence between orthographic systemsnon-native listeners
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 384 - 395
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

Footnotes

*

This research was initiated and supported by grant 275.75.005 from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) awarded to PE. ES's work was supported by a post-doctoral research grant from the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) and KM's work was supported by PE's start-up research funds awarded by the University of Western Sydney. We thank Etske Ooijevaar and Irene ter Avest for help with data collection. We also thank three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions.

References

Adank, P., van Hout, & Van de Velde, H. (2007). An acoustic description of the vowels of northern and southern standard Dutch II: Regional varieties. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121, 1130–1141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alderson, J. C., & Huhta, A. (2005). The development of a suite of computer-based diagnostic tests based on the Common European Framework. Language Testing, 22, 301–320.Google Scholar
Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realist perspective on cross-language speech perception. In Strange (ed.), pp. 171–204.Google Scholar
Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementaries. In Bohn, O.-S. & Munro, M. J. (eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege, pp. 13–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Broersma, M. (2005). Perception of familiar contrasts in unfamiliar positions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117, 3890–3901.Google Scholar
Broersma, M., & Cutler, A. (2008). Phantom word activation in L2. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 36, 22–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chládková, K., Escudero, P., & Boersma, P. (2011). Context-specific acoustic differences between Peruvian and Iberian Spanish listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130, 416–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A., & Broersma, M. (2005). Phonetic precision in listening. In Hardcastle, W. J. & Mackenzie Beck, J. (eds.), A figure of speech: A Festschrift for John Laver, pp. 63–91. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cutler, A., Weber, A., & Otake, T. 2006. Asymmetric mapping from phonetic to lexical representations in second-language listening. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 269–284.Google 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. (2005). Linguistic perception and second language acquisition (LOT Dissertation Series 113). Utrecht: Utrecht University Press.Google Scholar
Escudero, P. (2009). Linguistic perception of “similar” L2 sounds. In Boersma, P. & Hamann, S. (eds.), Phonology in perception, pp. 151–190. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Escudero, P., Benders, T., & Lipski, S. (2009). Native, non-native and L2 perceptual cue weighting for Dutch vowels: The case of Dutch, German, and Spanish listeners. Journal of Phonetics, 37, 452–466.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., Broersma, M., & Simon, E. (2013). Learning words in a third language: Effects of vowel inventory and language proficiency. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 746–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escudero, P., Hayes-Harb, R., & Mitterer, H. (2008). Novel second-language words and asymmetric lexical access. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 345–360.CrossRefGoogle 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. (1995). Second-language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In Strange (ed.), pp. 229–273.Google Scholar
Hayes-Harb, R., & Masuda, K. (2008). Development of the ability to lexically encode novel L2 phonemic contrasts. Second Language Research, 24, 5–33.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
Pallier, C., Colomé, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2001). The influence of native-language phonology on lexical access: Exemplar-based vs. abstract lexical entries. Psychological Science, 12, 445–449.Google Scholar
Pattamadilok, C., Morais, J., Ventura, P., & Kolinsky, R. (2007). The locus of the orthographic consistency effect in auditory word recognition: Further evidence from French. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 700–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perre, L., Pattamadilok, C., Montant, M., & Ziegler, J. C. (2009). Orthographic effects in spoken language: On-line activation or phonological restructuring? Brain Research, 1275, 73–80.Google Scholar
Perre, L., & Ziegler, J. C. (2008). On-line activation of orthography in spoken word recognition. Brain Research, 1188, 132–138.Google Scholar
Shatzman, K. B., & McQueen, J. M. (2006). Prosodic knowledge affects the recognition of newly acquired words. Psychological Science, 17, 372–377.Google Scholar
Strange, W. (ed.) (1995). Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in crosslanguage research. Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Taft, M., Castles, A., Davis, C., Lazendic, G., & Nguyen-Hoan, M. (2008). Automatic activation of orthography in spoken word recognition: Pseudohomograph priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 366–379.Google Scholar
Ventura, P., Morais, J., Pattamadilok, C., & Kolinsky, R. (2004). The locus of the orthographic consistency effect in auditory word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19, 57–95.Google Scholar
Weber, A., & Cutler, A. (2004). Lexical competition in non-native spoken-word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 1–25.Google Scholar
Ziegler, J. C., & Ferrand, L. (1998). Orthography shapes the perception of speech: The consistency effect in auditory word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 683–689.Google Scholar
Ziegler, J. C., Ferrand, L., & Montant, M. (2004). Visual phonology: The effects of orthographic consistency on different auditory word recognition tasks. Memory & Cognition, 32, 732–741.Google Scholar