The present study extends previous research reporting that orthographic forms, such as the use of a single letter or two letters to indicate the same sound, affect sound duration in second-language (L2) production. Native-language (L1) Korean L2 English sequential bilinguals performed a delayed repetition task for word pairs containing the same consonant or vowel spelled with one or two letters. Korean provided an interesting case because (1) it has an alphabetic orthographic system but not a Roman alphabet and thus, there may be no interorthographic interference and (2) it has no phonemic length contrast for vowels, whereas there is some disagreement on the contrastiveness of the consonant length, which can lead to an asymmetry in the grapheme-to-phoneme correspondence between vowels and consonants. The results showed that Korean learners produced the same English vowel with a short duration when spelled with a single letter and with a long duration when spelled with double letters or digraphs composed of two different letters; this variation in duration did not appear when producing English consonants spelled with a single or two letters. This study further examined whether individual differences in inhibitory control influenced the magnitude of orthographic effects in the production of English vowels by Korean learners. Individual differences in inhibitory control were not strongly related to the influence of orthography on vowel production.
AbutalebiJ.GreenD. W. (2007). Bilingual language production: The neurocognition of language representation and control. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20, 242–275.
2.
AhnS.-C.IversonG. K. (2004). Dimensions in Korean laryngeal phonology. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 13(4), 345–379.
3.
BassettiB. (2006). Orthographic input and phonological representations in learners of Chinese as a foreign language. Written Language and Literacy, 9, 95–114.
4.
BassettiB. (2017). Orthography affects second language speech: Double letters and geminate production in English. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 1835–1842.
5.
BassettiB.AtkinsonN. (2015). Effects of orthographic forms on pronunciation in experienced instructed second language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(1), 67–91.
6.
BassettiB.MairanoP.MastersonJ.CerniT. (2020). Effects of orthographic forms on second language speech production and phonological awareness, with consideration of speaker-level predictors. Language Learning, 70(4), 1218–1256.
7.
BassettiB.Sokolović-PerovićM.MairanoP.CerniT. (2018). Orthography-induce length contrasts in the second language phonological systems of L2 speakers of English: Evidence from minimal pairs. Language and Speech, 61(4), 577–597.
8.
BestC. T.TylerM. D. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In Ocke-SchwenB.MonroM. J. (Eds.), Second language speech learning: The role of language experience in speech perception and production (pp. 13–34). John Benjamins.
9.
BoersmaP.WeeninkD. (2016). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (version 6.0.19). http://www.praat.org/
10.
Bundgaard-NielsenR.BestC. T.KroosC.TylerM. D. (2012). Second language learners’ vocabulary expansion is associated with improved second language vowel intelligibility. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 643–664.
11.
Bundgaard-NielsenR.BestC. T.TylerM. D. (2011a). Vocabulary size matters: The assimilation of second-language Australian English vowels to first-language Japanese vowel categories. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 51–67.
12.
Bundgaard-NielsenR.BestC. T.TylerM. D. (2011b). Vocabulary size is associated with second language vowel perception performance in adult learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 433–461.
13.
BürknerP. (2021). Bayesian item response modeling in R with brms and Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 100(5), 1–54.
14.
ChoT.JunS.-A.LadefogedP. (2002). Acoustic and aerodynamic correlates of Korean stops and fricatives. Journal of Phonetics, 30, 193–228.
15.
DaidoneD.DarcyI. (2021). Vocabulary size is a key factor in predicting second language lexical encoding accuracy. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 688356.
16.
DarcyI.MoraJ. C. (2016). Executive control and phonological processing in language acquisition: The role of early bilingual experience in learning an additional language. In GranenaG.JacksonD. O.YilmazY. (Eds.), Cognitive individual differences in second language processing and acquisition (pp. 249–277). John Benjamins.
17.
DarcyI.MoraJ. C.DaidoneD. (2016). The role of inhibitory control in second language phonological processing. Language Learning, 66(4), 741–773.
18.
DempsterF. N. (1993). Resistance to interference: Developmental changes in a basic processing dimension. In HoweM. L.PasnakR. (Eds.), Emerging themes in cognitive development: Vol. 1. Foundations (pp. 3–27). Springer.
19.
DiamondA. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168.
20.
ErdenerV. D.BurnhamD. K. (2005). The role of audiovisual speech and orthographic information in nonnative speech production. Language Learning, 55, 191–228.
21.
EriksenB.EriksenC. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception and Psychophysics, 16(1), 143–149.
22.
EscuderoP.HayesR.MittererH. (2008). Novel L2 words and asymmetric lexical access. Journal of Phonetics, 36(2), 345–360.
23.
EscuderoP.SimonE.MulakK. E. (2014). Learning words in a new language: Orthography doesn’t always help. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 384–395.
24.
EscuderoP.WanrooijK. (2010). The effect of L1 orthography on non-native vowel perception. Language and Speech, 53, 343–365.
25.
FriedmanN. P.MiyakeA. (2004). The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(1), 101–135.
26.
Ghaffarvand MokariP.WernerS. (2019). On the role of cognitive abilities in second language vowel learning. Language and Speech, 62, 260–280.
27.
GollanT. H.SandovalT.SalmonD. P. (2011). Cross-language intrusion errors in aging bilinguals reveal the link between executive control and language selection. Psychological Science, 22(9), 1155–1164.
28.
HanJ.-I. (1996). The phonetics and phonology of “tense” and “plain” consonants in Korean [PhD dissertation]. Cornell University.
29.
HarnishfegerK. K. (1995). The development of cognitive inhibition: Theories, definitions, and research evidence. In DempsterF. N.BrainerdC. J. (Eds.), Interference and inhibition in cognition (pp. 175–204). Academic Press.
30.
Hayes-HarbR.BarriosS. (2021). The influence of orthography in second language phonological acquisition. Language Teaching, 54, 297–326.
31.
Hayes-HarbR.NicolJ.BarkerJ. (2010). Learning the phonological forms of new words: Effects of orthographic and auditory input. Language and Speech, 53, 367–381.
32.
HedgeC.PowellG.SumnerP. (2018). The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 1166–1186.
33.
JeffreysH. (1961). Theory of probability (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
34.
JunS.-A. (2015). Asymmetrical prosodic effects on the laryngeal gesture in Korean. In ConnellB.ArvanitiA. (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology IV (pp. 235–253). Cambridge University Press.
35.
KayeA. S. (2005). Gemination in English. English Today, 21, 43–55.
36.
KimD.ClayardsM.KongE. (2020). Individual differences in perceptual adaptation to unfamiliar phonetic categories. Journal of Phonetics, 81, 100984.
37.
KimM.-R.DuanmuS. (2004). “Tense” and “lax” stops in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 13, 59–104.
38.
KingstonJ.DiehlR. L. (1994). Phonetic knowledge. Language, 70(3), 419–454.
39.
KrzysikI. (2020). The relationship between inhibitory control and speech production in young multilinguals. Yearbook of the Poznan Linguistic Meeting, 6, 59–79.
40.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26.
41.
LeeH.JongmanA. (2015). Acoustic evidence for diachronic sound change in Korean prosody: A comparative study of the Seoul and South Kyungsang dialects. Journal of Phonetics, 50, 15–33.
Lev-AriS.PeperkampS. (2013). Low inhibitory skill leads to non-native perception and production in bilinguals’ native language. Journal of Phonetics, 41, 320–331.
44.
LiS.BotezatuM. R.ZhangM.GuoT. (2021). Different inhibitory control components predict different levels of language control in bilinguals. Memory and Cognition, 49, 758–779.
45.
LinckJ.HoshinoN.KrollJ. (2008). Cross-language lexical processes and inhibitory control. The Mental Lexicon, 3(3), 349–374.
46.
LinckJ.SchwieterJ. W.SundermanG. (2012). Inhibitory control predicts language switching performance in trilingual speech production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(3), 651–662.
47.
LlompartM. (2021). Phonetic categorization ability and vocabulary size contribute to the encoding of difficult second-language phonological contrasts into the lexicon. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24, 481–496.
48.
MercierJ.PivnevaI.TitoneD. (2014). Individual differences in inhibitory control relate to bilingual spoken word processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 89–117.
49.
MittererH. (2018). Not all geminates are created equal: Evidence from Maltese glottal consonants. Journal of Phonetics, 66, 28–44.
50.
MiyakeA.FriedmanN. P.EmersonM. J.WitzkiA. H.HowerterA.WagerT. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49–100.
51.
MoraJ. C.DarcyI. (2017). The relationship between cognitive control and pronunciation in a second language. In IsaacsT.TrofimovichP. (Eds.), Second language pronunciation assessment: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 95–120). Multilingual Matters.
52.
NationI. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening?Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59–82.
53.
NationI. S. P.BeglarD. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher, 31(7), 9–13.
54.
NiggJ. T. (2000). On inhibition/disinhibition in developmental psychopathology: Views from cognitive and personality psychology and a working inhibition taxonomy. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 220–246.
55.
NimzK.KhattabG. (2020). On the role of orthography in L2 vowel production: The case of Polish learners of German. Second Language Research, 36(4), 623–652.
56.
OhG. E.RedfordM. A. (2012). The production and phonetic representation of fake geminates in English. Journal of Phonetics, 40(1), 82–91.
57.
PickettE. R.BlumsteinS. E.BurtonM. W. (1999). Effects of speaking rate on the singleton/geminate consonant contrast in Italian. Phonetica, 56, 135–157.
58.
PivnevaI.PalmerC.TitoneD. (2012). Inhibitory control and L2 proficiency modulate bilingual language production: Evidence from spontaneous monologue and dialogue speech. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article 57.
59.
PoarchG. J. (2018). Multilingual language control and executive function: A replication study. Frontiers in Communication, 3, Article 46.
60.
R Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
61.
RafatY.WhiXordV.JoanisseM. F.SwiderskiN.CornwellS.MohagheghM.ValdiviaC.FakoorniaN.NasrollahzadehP.HabibiL. (2021). First-language-specific orthographic effects in second-language speech: A comparison of Korean-English and Farsi-English bilinguals. Journal of Monolingual & Bilingual Speech, 3(1), 102–122.
62.
ShepperdL. (2024). Cross-scriptal orthographic influence on second language phonology. Languages, 9, 210.
63.
ShinJ.KiaerJ.ChaJ. (2012). The sounds of Korean. Cambridge University Press.
64.
ShinJ.-H. (1996, October26). Acoustic features differentiating Korean medial lax and tense stops [Conference session]. The first Seoul National Conference on Phonetic Sciences (Session 1.3), Seoul.Seoul National University.
65.
ShowalterC. E.Hayes-HarbR. (2013). Unfamiliar orthographic information and second language word learning: A novel lexicon study. Second Language Research, 29, 185–200.
66.
ShowalterC. E.Hayes-HarbR. (2015). Native English speakers learning Arabic: The influence of novel orthographic information on second language phonological acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 23–42.
67.
SilvaD. (1992). The phonetics and phonology of stop lenition in Korean [PhD dissertation]. Cornell University.
68.
SimonE.ChamblessD.AlvesU. K. (2010). Understanding the role of orthography in the acquisition of a non-native vowel contrast. Language Sciences, 32, 380–394.
69.
SinghN.MishraR. K. (2012). Does language proficiency modulate oculomotor control? Evidence for Hindi-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 771–781.
70.
SinghN.MishraR. K. (2013). Second language proficiency modultes conflict-monitoring in an oculomotor Stroop task: Evidence from Hindi-English bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 322.
71.
Sokolović-PerovićM.BassettiB.DillonS. (2020). English orthographic forms affect L2 English speech production in native users of a non-alphabetic writing system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23, 591–601.
72.
TaylorI.TaylorM. M. (2014). Writing and literacy in Chinese, Korean and Japanese: Revised edition (Vol. 14). John Benjamins.
73.
TiegoJ.TestaR.BellgroveM. A.PantelisC.WhittleS. (2018). A hierarchical model of inhibitory control. Frontiers of Psychology, 9, Article 1339.
74.
Van VeenV.CohenJ. D.BotvinickM. M.StengerV. A.CarterC. S. (2001). Anterior cingulate cortex, conflict monitoring, and levels of processing. Neuroimage, 14, 1302–1308.
75.
VokicG. (2011). When alphabets collide: Alphabetic first-language speakers’ approach to speech production in an alphabetic second language. Second Language Research, 27, 391–417.
76.
WangR.FanX.LiuC.CaiZ. G. (2016). Reviewing the bilingual cognitive control literature: Can a brain-based approach resolve the debate?Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(2), 118–134.
77.
Young-ScholtenM.LangerM. (2015). The role of orthographic input in second language German: Evidence from naturalistic adult learners’ production. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 93–114.
