1887
Volume 9, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2215-1931
  • E-ISSN: 2215-194X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study examined the accuracy of English-speaking learners of Spanish in storing L2 sounds within cognates and noncognates, specifically in words containing 〈g〉 and 〈h〉, which have differing cross-linguistic phoneme-grapheme correspondences. In the first task, participants heard Spanish words with target-like pronunciations of 〈g〉 and 〈h〉 or inaccurate pronunciations with an English-like phonemic substitution for these graphemes, and they decided whether or not they were words. The second task had participants decide between the two pronunciations of each Spanish word and select the accurate pronunciation. The findings in both tasks showed that for L2 learners, 〈h〉 cognate words had less accurate phonological representations compared to all other conditions, possibly due to the greater consistency in phoneme-grapheme correspondence for 〈h〉 in English. These results show that cognate status and orthographic (in)congruity interact to influence the accuracy of L2 lexical encoding.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jslp.22036.far
2023-11-17
2025-02-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Amengual, M.
    (2012) Interlingual influence in bilingual speech: Cognate status effect in a continuum of bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(3), 517–530. 10.1017/S1366728911000460
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728911000460 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2015) The perception of language-specific phonetic categories does not guarantee accurate phonological representations in the lexicon of early bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(5), 1221–1251. 10.1017/S0142716415000557
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716415000557 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2016) Cross-linguistic influence in the bilingual mental lexicon: Evidence of cognate effects in the phonetic production and processing of a vowel contrast. Frontiers in Psychology, 71, Article 617. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00617
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00617 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barrios, S., & Hayes-Harb, R.
    (2021) L2 processing of words containing English /æ/-/ɛ/ and /l/-/ɹ/ contrasts, and the uses and limits of the auditory lexical decision task for understanding the locus of difficulty. Frontiers in Communication, 61, Article 689470. 10.3389/fcomm.2021.689470
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.689470 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bassetti, B.
    (2017) Orthography affects second language speech: Double letters and geminate production in English. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 43(11), 1835–1842. 10.1037/xlm0000417
    https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000417 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bassetti, B., Masterson, J., Cerni, T., & Mairano, P.
    (2021) Orthographic forms affect speech perception in a second language: Consonant and vowel length in L2 English. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 47(12), 1583–1603. 10.1037/xhp0000949
    https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000949 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown, E. & Harper, D.
    (2009) Phonological evidence of interlingual exemplar connections. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 2(2), 257–274. 10.1515/shll‑2009‑1052
    https://doi.org/10.1515/shll-2009-1052 [Google Scholar]
  8. Broersma, M., & Cutler, A.
    (2011) Competition dynamics of second-language listening. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(1), 74–95. 10.1080/17470218.2010.499174
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.499174 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bybee, J.
    (2001) Phonology and language use. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511612886
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612886 [Google Scholar]
  10. Carrasco-Ortiz, H., Amengual, M., & Gries, S. T.
    (2021) Cross-language effects of phonological and orthographic similarity in cognate word recognition: The role of language dominance. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 11(3), 389–417. 10.1075/lab.18095.car
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.18095.car [Google Scholar]
  11. Cook, S. V., Pandža, N. B., Lancaster, A. K., & Gor, K.
    (2016) Fuzzy nonnative phonolexical representations lead to fuzzy form-to-meaning mappings. Frontiers in Psychology, 71, Article 1345. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01345
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01345 [Google Scholar]
  12. de Leeuw, J. R.
    (2015) jsPsych: A JavaScript library for creating behavioral experiments in a web browser. Behavior Research Methods, 47(1), 1–12. 10.3758/s13428‑014‑0458‑y
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0458-y [Google Scholar]
  13. Daidone, D.
    (2020) How learners remember words in their second language: The impact of individual differences in perception, cognitive abilities, and vocabulary size (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington.
  14. Darcy, I., Daidone, D., & Kojima, C.
    (2013) Asymmetric lexical access and fuzzy lexical representations in second language learners. The Mental Lexicon, 8(3), 372–420. 10.1075/ml.8.3.06dar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.8.3.06dar [Google Scholar]
  15. Duchon, A., Perea, M., Sebastián-Gallés, N., Martí, A., & Carreiras, M.
    (2013) EsPal: One-stop shopping for Spanish word properties. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1246–1258. 10.3758/s13428‑013‑0326‑1
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0326-1 [Google Scholar]
  16. Escudero, P., Simon, E., & Mulak, K. E.
    (2014) Learning words in a new language: Orthography doesn’t always help. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(2), 384–395. 10.1017/S1366728913000436
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728913000436 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gor, K., Cook, S., Bordag, D., Chrabaszcz, A., & Opitz, A.
    (2021) Fuzzy lexical representations in adult second language speakers. Frontiers in Psychology, 121, Article 732030. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.732030
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.732030 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hayes-Harb, R., & Barrios, S.
    (2021) The influence of orthography in second language phonological acquisition. Language Teaching, 54(3), 297–326. 10.1017/S0261444820000658
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000658 [Google Scholar]
  19. 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(3), 367–381. 10.1177/0023830910371460
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830910371460 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hualde, J. I.
    (2005) The sounds of Spanish. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kassambara, A.
    (2019) rstatix: Pipe-friendly framework for basic statistical tests. R package version 0.3.1. Retrieved fromhttps://cran.r-project.org/package=rstatix%0A
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Mair, P.
    (2019) WRS2: A collection of robust statistical methods. R package version 1.0-0. Retrieved fromhttps://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/WRS2/index.html
  23. Melnik, G. A., & Peperkamp, S.
    (2019) Perceptual deletion and asymmetric lexical access in second language learners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 145(1), EL13–EL18. 10.1121/1.5085648
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5085648 [Google Scholar]
  24. Pallier, C., Colomé, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N.
    (2001) The influence of native-language phonology on lexical access: Exemplar-based versus abstract lexical entries. Psychological Science, 12(6), 445–449. 10.1111/1467‑9280.00383
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00383 [Google Scholar]
  25. Rafat, Y.
    (2016) Orthography-induced transfer in the production of English-speaking learners of Spanish. The Language Learning Journal, 44(2), 197–213. 10.1080/09571736.2013.784346
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2013.784346 [Google Scholar]
  26. Ramus, F., Peperkamp, S., Christophe, A., Jacquemot, C., Kouider, S., & Dupoux, E.
    (2010) A psycholinguistic perspective on the acquisition of phonology. InC. Fougeron, B. Kühnert, M. d’Imperio, & N. Vallée (Eds.), Laboratory Phonology 10: Variation, phonetic detail and phonological representation (pp.311–340). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110224917.3.311
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110224917.3.311 [Google Scholar]
  27. Schepens, J., Dijkstra, T., Grootjen, F., & Van Heuven, W. J.
    (2013) Cross-language distributions of high frequency and phonetically similar cognates. PLoS ONE, 8(5), Article e63006. 10.1371/journal.pone.0063006
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0063006 [Google Scholar]
  28. Showalter, C. E.
    (2018) Impact of Cyrillic on native English speakers’ phono-lexical acquisition of Russian. Language and Speech, 61(4), 565–576. 10.1177/0023830918761489
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830918761489 [Google Scholar]
  29. Showalter, C. E., & Hayes-Harb, R.
    (2013) Unfamiliar orthographic information and second language word learning: A novel lexicon study. Second Language Research, 29(2), 185–200. 10.1177/0267658313480154
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658313480154 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2015) Native English speakers learning Arabic: The influence of novel orthographic information on second language phonological acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(1), 23–42. 10.1017/S0142716414000411
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716414000411 [Google Scholar]
  31. Simon, E., Chambless, D., & Alves, U. K.
    (2010) Understanding the role of orthography in the acquisition of a non-native vowel contrast. Language Sciences, 32(3), 380–394. 10.1016/j.langsci.2009.07.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2009.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  32. Stanislaw, H., & Todorov, N.
    (1999) Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(1), 137–149. 10.3758/BF03207704
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207704 [Google Scholar]
  33. Wilcox, R.
    (2012) Modern statistics for the social and behavioral sciences: A practical introduction. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Ziegler, J. C., Petrova, A., & Ferrand, L.
    (2008) Feedback consistency effects in visual and auditory word recognition: Where do we stand after more than a decade?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(3), 643–661. 10.1037/0278‑7393.34.3.643
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.643 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jslp.22036.far
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jslp.22036.far
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cognates; lexical decision; lexical encoding; orthography; Spanish
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error