Research shows that the orthographic forms (“spellings”) of second language (L2) words affect speech production in L2 speakers. This study investigated whether English orthographic forms lead L2 speakers to produce English homophonic word pairs as phonological minimal pairs. Targets were 33 orthographic minimal pairs, that is to say homophonic words that would be pronounced as phonological minimal pairs if orthography affects pronunciation. Word pairs contained the same target sound spelled with one letter or two, such as the /n/ in finish and Finnish (both /ˈfɪnɪʃ/ in Standard British English). To test for effects of length and type of L2 exposure, we compared Italian instructed learners of English, Italian-English late bilinguals with lengthy naturalistic exposure, and English natives. A reading-aloud task revealed that Italian speakers of EnglishL2 produce two English homophonic words as a minimal pair distinguished by different consonant or vowel length, for instance producing the target /ˈfɪnɪʃ/ with a short [n] or a long [nː] to reflect the number of consonant letters in the spelling of the words finish and Finnish. Similar effects were found on the pronunciation of vowels, for instance in the orthographic pair scene-seen (both /siːn/). Naturalistic exposure did not reduce orthographic effects, as effects were found both in learners and in late bilinguals living in an English-speaking environment. It appears that the orthographic form of L2 words can result in the establishment of a phonological contrast that does not exist in the target language. Results have implications for models of L2 phonological development.
AllanD. (1992). Oxford Placement Test. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
2.
Banca dati dell’Italiano parlato. Language server of Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz. Retrieved from http://languageserver.uni-graz.at/badip (accessed 30 May 2017).
3.
BassettiB. (2008) Orthographic input and second language phonology. In PiskeT.Young-ScholtenM. (Eds.), Input matters in SLA (pp. 191–206). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
4.
BassettiB. (2017). First and second language orthographies affect second language phonology: The orthography-induced singleton-geminate consonant contrast in second language speakers of English. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(11), 1835–1842.
5.
BassettiB.AtkinsonN. (2015). Effects of orthographic forms on pronunciation in experienced instructed second language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(2), 67–91.
6.
BassettiB.Hayes-HarbR.EscuderoP. (2015). Second language phonology at the interface between acoustic and orthographic input. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(1), 1–6.
7.
BertinettoP. M.BuraniC.LaudannaA.MarconiL.RattiD.RolandoC.ThorntonA. M. (2005). Corpus and lexical frequencies written in Italian (CoLFIS) [Corpus e lessico di frequenza dell’Italiano scritto (CoLFIS)]. Retrieved from http://linguistica.sns.it/CoLFIS/Home.htm.
8.
BertinettoP. M.LoporcaroM. (2005). The sound pattern of Standard Italian, as compared with the varieties spoken in Florence, Milan and Rome. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 35(2), 131–151.
9.
BestC. T.TylerM. D. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In MunroM. J.BohnO.-S. (Eds.), Second language speech learning: The role of language experience in speech perception and production (pp. 13–34). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
10.
BoersmaP.WeeninkD. (2016). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.0.19). Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/ (accessed 30 May 2017).
CanepariL. (2009). Dictionary of Italian pronunciation [Dizionario di pronuncia italiana]. Bologna, Italy: Zanichelli Editore.
13.
CarneyE. (1994). A survey of English spelling. Oxford, UK: Routledge.
14.
ClarkJ.YallopC. (1995). An introduction to phonetics and phonology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
15.
DavidsonL. (2010). Phonetic bases of similarities in cross-language production: Evidence from English and Catalan. Journal of Phonetics, 38(2), 272–288.
16.
DavisS. (2011). Geminates. In van OostendropM.EwenC. J.HumeE.RiceK. (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology ( Vol. 2. Suprasegmental and prosodic phonology, pp. 873–897). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
17.
D’ImperioM.RosenthallS. (1999). Phonetics and phonology of main stress in Italian. Phonology, 16(1), 1–28.
18.
ErdenerV. D.BurnhamD. K. (2005). The role of audiovisual speech and orthographic information in nonnative speech production. Language Learning, 55(2), 191–228.
19.
EscuderoP.Hayes-HarbR.MittererH. (2008). Novel second-language words and asymmetric lexical access. Journal of Phonetics, 36(2), 345–360.
20.
EscuderoP.WanrooijK. (2010). Learning the phonological forms of new words: Effects of orthographic and auditory input. Language and Speech, 53(3), 361–381.
21.
EspositoA.Di BenedettoM. G. (1999). Acoustical and perceptual study of gemination in Italian stops. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106(4), 2051–2062.
22.
FarnetaniE.KoriS. (1986). Effects of syllable and word structure on segmental durations in spoken Italian. Speech Communication, 5(1), 17–34.
23.
FlegeJ. E. (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings and problems. In StrangeW. (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Theoretical and methodological issues (pp. 233–277). Timonium, MD: York Press.
24.
GiordanoR.SavyR. (2012). On the consonatization of Italian consonantism: Geminate, strengthened and alveolar consonants in intervocalic context [Sulla consonantizzazione del consonantismo dell’Italiano: Consonanti geminate, rafforzate e fricative alveolari in contesto intervocalico]. In BianchiP.De BlasiN.De CaprioC.MontuoriF. (Eds.), The variation in Italian and in its history: Varieties and linguistic and textual variations [La variazione dell’Italiano e nella sua storia: Varietà e varianti linguistiche e testuali] (pp. 431–446). Firenze, Italy: Franco Cesati Editore.
25.
GoslinJ.GalluzziC.RomaniC. (2014). PhonItalia: A phonological lexicon for Italian. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 872–886.
26.
Hayes-HarbR.NicolJ.BarkerJ. (2010). Learning the phonological forms of new words: Effects of orthographic and auditory input. Language and Speech, 53(3), 367–381.
27.
KayeA. S. (2005). Gemination in English. English Today, 21, 43–55.
28.
KlattD. (1973). Interaction between two factors that influence vowel duration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 54(4), 1102–1104.
29.
KlattD. (1976). Linguistic uses of segmental duration in English: Acoustic and perceptual evidence. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 59, 1208–1221.
30.
KrämerM. (2009). The phonology of Italian. Cambridge, UK: CUP.
31.
LaverJ. (1994). Principles of phonetics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
LindblomB.LybergB.HolmgrenK. (1981). Durational patterns of Swedish phonology: Do they reflect short-term motor memory processes?Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club Publications.
33.
LoporcaroM. (1996). On the analysis of geminates in Standard Italian and Italian dialects. In HurchB.RhodesR. (Eds.), Natural phonology: The state of the art. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
34.
LoporcaroM.MaddiesonI. (1984). Patterns of sounds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35.
OhG. E.RedfordM. A. (2012). The production and phonetic representation of fake geminates in English. Journal of Phonetics, 40(1), 82–91.
36.
PayneE. M. (2005). Phonetic variation in Italian consonant gemination. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 35(2), 153–181.
37.
PortR. F. (1981). Linguistic timing factors in combination. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 69(1), 262–274.
38.
PiskeT.FlegeJ. E.MacKayI. R. A.MeadorD. (2002). The production of English vowels by fluent early and late Italian-English bilinguals. Phonetica, 59, 49–71.
39.
PytlykC. (2011). Shared orthography: Do shared written symbols influence the perception of L2 sounds?Modern Language Journal, 54(4), 541–557.
40.
RoachP. (2004). British English: Received pronunciation. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 34(21), 239–245.
41.
SelstM. V.JolicoeurP. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47(3), 631–650.
42.
TurkA.NakaiS.SugaharaM. (2006). Acoustic segment durations in prosodic research: A practical guide. In SudhoffS.LenertovaD.MeyerR.PappertS.AugurzkyP.MleinekI.RichterN.SchließerJ. (Eds.), Methods in empirical prosody research (pp. 1–28). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
43.
UmedaN. (1977). Consonant duration in American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61(3), 846–858.
44.
ValesioP. (1967). Geminate vowels in the structure of contemporary Italian. Lingua, 18, 251–270.
45.
VokicG. (2011). When alphabets collide: Alphabetic first-language speakers’ approach to speech production in an alphabetic second language. Second Language Research, 27(3), 391–417.
46.
WhiteL.TurkA. (2010). English words on the Procrustean bed: Polysyllabic shortening reconsidered. Journal of Phonetics, 38(3), 459–471.
47.
Young-ScholtenM.LangerM. (2015). The role of orthographic input in second language German: Evidence from naturalistic adult learners’ production. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(1), 93–114.
