Previous studies have demonstrated the existence of non-native gemination in the speech of native (L1) Italian learners of a second language (L2), corresponding to double letters. We present the results of a bimodal truncated word-matching experiment testing phonological expectations for 30 L1 Italian learners of L2 French, and 30 L1 French control speakers. Manipulated consonantal durations affected responses and response times for learners, but not for native speakers: stimuli with lengthened consonants corresponding to single-letter spelling resulted in lower accuracy and higher response times; stimuli with short consonants corresponding to double-letter spelling resulted in high accuracy, but response times increased. We argue that exposure to native French in the classroom and during stays abroad has promoted the development of fuzzy L2 phonological representations, so that learners correctly process words spelled with double letters but cannot turn off their perceptual sensitivity to consonant duration, which remains modulated by orthography.
AltmannHBergerIBraunB (2012) Asymmetries in the perception of non-native consonantal and vocalic length contrasts. Second Language Research28: 387–413.
2.
BarrDJLevyRScheepersCTilyHJ (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language68: 255–78.
3.
BarriosSHayes-HarbR (2021) L2 processing of words containing English/æ/–/ε/and/l/–/ɹ/contrasts, and the uses and limits of the auditory lexical decision task for understanding the locus of difficulty. Frontiers in Communication6: 689470.
4.
BassettiB (2006) Orthographic input and phonological representations in learners of Chinese as a foreign language. Written Language and Literacy9: 95–114.
5.
BassettiB (2017) Orthography affects second language speech: Double letters and geminate production in English. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition43: 1835–42.
6.
BassettiBMairanoPMastersonJCerniT (2020) Effects of orthographic forms on L2 speech production and phonological awareness, with consideration of speaker-level predictors. Language Learning70: 1218–56.
7.
BassettiBMastersonJCerniTMairanoP (2021) Orthographic forms affect speech perception in a second language: Consonant and vowel length in L2 English. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance47: 1583–1603.
8.
BassettiBSokolović-PerovićMMairanoPCerniT (2018) Orthography-induced length contrasts in the second language phonological systems of experienced speakers of English as a Second Language: Evidence from minimal pairs. Language and Speech61: 577–98.
9.
BatesDMaechlerMBolkerBWalkerS (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software67: 1–48.
10.
BertinettoPM (1981) Strutture prosodiche dell’Italiano [Prosodic structures of Italian]. Florence: Accademia della Crusca.
11.
BertinettoPMDell’AglioMAgonigiM (2008) Quali fattori influenzano maggiormente la durata vocalica e consonantica in italiano? Un’indagine mediante l’algoritmo di decisione C&RT [What factors most influence vowel and consonant duration in Italian? An investigation using the C&RT decision algorithm]. In: PettorinoMGianniniAValloneMSavyR (eds) La comunicazione parlata. Naples: Liguori, pp. 13–28.
12.
BertinettoPMVivaldaE (1978) Recherches sur la perception des oppositions de quantité en italien [Research on the perception of quantity oppositions in Italian]. Journal of Italian Linguistics3: 97–115.
13.
BestCTTylerMD (2007) Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In: MunroMJBohnO-S (eds) Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–34.
14.
BlevinsJ (2005) The typology of geminate inventories: Historical explanations for recurrent sound patterns. In: Seoul Linguistics Forum 2005. Seoul: Seoul National University, pp. 121–37.
15.
BoersmaPWeeninkD (2019). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer: Version 6.2 [computer program]. Available at: http://www.praat.org (accessed December 2024).
16.
BürkiAWelbyPClémentMSpinelliE (2019) Orthography and second language word learning: Moving beyond ‘friend or foe?’ Journal of the Acoustical Society of America145: EL265–71.
17.
CanepariL (2009) Dizionario di pronuncia italiana: Il DiPI [Italian pronunciation dictionary: The DiPI]. Bologna: Zanichelli.
18.
CorderoDRuiz-PeñaESierraEStevensonRRafatY (2017) Second dialect and second language imitation of geminates by Colombian Spanish speakers. In: BabatsouliE (ed) Proceedings of the International Symposium on Monolingual and Bilingual Speech. Chania: Institute of Monolingual and Bilingual Speech, pp. 99–106.
19.
CutlerAEisnerFMcQueenJMNorrisD (2010) How abstract phonemic categories are necessary for coping with speaker-related variation. In: FougeronCKühnertBd’ImperioMValléeN (eds) Papers in laboratory phonology: Volume 10. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 91–111.
20.
CutlerAWeberAOtakeT (2006) Asymmetric mapping from phonetic to lexical representations in second-language listening. Journal of Phonetics34: 269–84.
21.
DarcyIDaidoneDKojimaC (2015) Asymmetric lexical access and fuzzy lexical representations in second language learners. The Mental Lexicon8: 372–420.
22.
D’ApolitoSFivelaBG (2019) L2 pronunciation accuracy and context: A pilot study on the realization of geminates in Italian as L2 by French learners. In: Proceedings of Interspeech 2019. Interspeech, pp. 1706–10.
23.
De ClercqBSimonECroccoC (2014) Rosa versus rossa: The acquisition of Italian geminates by native speakers of Dutch. Phrasis: Studies in Language and Literature2: 3–29.
24.
DeteySNespoulousJL (2008) Can orthography influence second language syllabic segmentation?Lingua118: 66–81.
25.
Di BenedettoMGDe NardisL (2021a) Consonant gemination in Italian: The nasal and liquid case. Speech Communication133: 62–80.
26.
Di BenedettoMGDe NardisL (2021b) Consonant gemination in Italian: The affricate and fricative case. Speech Communication134: 86–108.
27.
Di CristoAF (2016) Les musiques du français parlé [The music of spoken French]. Berlin: De Gruyter.
28.
DijkstraTvan HeuvenWJB (1998) The BIA model and bilingual word recognition. In: GraingerJJacobsAM (eds) Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 189–225.
29.
DufourSChuangY-YNguyenN (2019) The processing of dialectal variants: Further insight from French. Applied Psycholinguistics40: 351–72.
30.
EckmanFR (2008) Typological markedness and second language phonology. Phonology and Second Language Acquisition36: 95–115.
EscuderoPHayes-HarbRMittererH (2008) Novel second-language words and asymmetric lexical access. Journal of Phonetics36: 345–60.
33.
EspositoADi BenedettoMG (1999) Acoustical and perceptual study of gemination in Italian stops. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America106: 2051–2062.
34.
FarnetaniEKoriS (1986) Effects of syllable and word structure on segmental durations in spoken Italian. Speech Communication5: 17–34.
35.
FengQBusàMG (2022) Mandarin Chinese-speaking learners’ acquisition of Italian consonant length contrast. System111: 102938.
36.
FlegeJE (1995) Second language speech learning: Theory, findings and problems. In: StrangeW (ed.) Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research. Timonium, MD: York Press, pp. 233–77.
37.
FlegeJEBohnOS (2021) The revised Speech Learning Model (SLM-r). In: WaylandR (ed.), Second language speech learning: Theoretical and empirical progress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–83.
38.
GiordanoRSavyR (2012) Sulla standardizzazione del consonantismo dell’italiano: Consonanti geminate, rafforzate e fricative alveolari in contesto intervocalico [On the standardization of Italian consonantism: Geminate consonants, strengthened consonants and alveolar fricatives in intervocalic context]. In: Atti dell’XI Congresso SILFI Società Internazionale di Linguistica e Filologia Italiana. Florence: Franco Cesati, pp. 431–45.
39.
HamannSColomboIE (2017) A formal account of the interaction of orthography and perception: English intervocalic consonants borrowed into Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory35: 683–714.
40.
Hayes-HarbRBarriosS (2021) The influence of orthography in second language phonological acquisition. Language Teaching54: 297–326.
41.
JiangN (2000) Lexical representation and development in a second language. Applied Linguistics21: 47–77.
42.
JunSAFougeronC (2002) Realizations of accentual phrase in French intonation. Probus14: 147–72.
43.
KabakBReckziegelTBraunB (2011) Timing of second language singletons and geminates. In: Proceedings of the XVII International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. London: International Phonetic Association, pp. 994–97.
44.
KraljicTSamuelAG (2006) Generalization in perceptual learning for speech. Psychonomic bulletin & review13: 262–268.
45.
KrollJFStewartE (1994) Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language33: 149–74.
46.
KrullDTraunmüllerHBertinettoPM (2006) Local speaking rate and perceived quantity: An experiment with Italian listeners. In: AmbrazaitisGSchötzS (eds) Proceedings of Fonetik 2006. Lund: Lund University Publications, pp. 81–84.
47.
KuznetsovaABrockhoffPBChristensenRHB (2017) lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software82: 1–26.
48.
LenthR (2023) emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means: R package version 1.8.6. Available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans (accessed December 2024).
49.
LevyESLawFF (2010) Production of French vowels by American-English learners of French: Language experience, consonantal context, and the perception-production relationship. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America128: 1290–1305.
50.
LüdeckeD (2018) ggeffects: Tidy data frames of marginal effects from regression models. Journal of Open Source Software3: Article 772.
51.
MairanoPDe IacovoV (2020. Gemination in northern versus central and southern varieties of Italian: A corpus-based investigation. Language and Speech63: 608–34.
52.
MairanoPSantiagoF (2023) L1 phonotactic constraints mediate phonological awareness of non native gemination. In: Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. International Phonetic Association, pp. 2770–74.
53.
MairanoPSantiagoFDelais-RoussarieE (2018) Gémination non-native en français d’apprenants italophones [Non-native gemination in French of Italian-speaking learners]. In: Actes des XXXIIème Journées d’Études sur la Parole, pp. 657–65.
54.
Marslen-WilsonWD (1987) Functional parallelism in spoken word recognition. Cognition25: 71–102.
55.
Marslen-WilsonWD (1989) Access and integration: Projecting sound onto meaning. In: Marslen-WilsonWD (ed.) Lexical representation and process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 3–24.
56.
Marslen-WilsonWDWelshA (1978) Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology10: 29–63.
57.
MasonJ (2021) Essays on immigrant mental health: A look at health reporting, model identification, and policy changes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Canada.
58.
McClellandJLElmanJL (1986) The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology23: 1–44.
59.
MittererH (2021) The role of orthography in learning a second language: Evidence from Maltese English. Xjenza Online: Science Journal of the Malta Chamber of Scientists9: 162–72.
60.
NawaflehA (2022) L’interférence de la gémination dans la prononciation des étudiants arabophones apprenant le français [Gemination interference in the pronunciation of Arabic-speaking students learning French]. Estudios de Fonética Experimental31: 67–79.
61.
NewBPallierCFerrandL (2005) Manuel de Lexique 3. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers36: 516–24.
62.
NimzKKhattabG (2019) On the role of orthography in L2 vowel production: The case of Polish learners of German. Second Language Research36: 623–52.
63.
NorrisDMcQueenJMCutlerA (2003) Perceptual learning in speech. Cognitive Psychology47: 204–38.
64.
PayneEM (2005) Phonetic variation in Italian consonant gemination. Journal of the International Phonetic Association35: 153–81.
65.
PeirceJGrayJRSimpsonS, et al. (2019) PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods51: 195–203.
66.
PickettERBlumsteinSEBurtonMW (1999) Effects of speaking rate on the singleton/geminate consonant contrast in Italian. Phonetica56: 135–57.
67.
PytlykC (2017) Are orthographic effects language specific? The influence of second language orthography on second language phoneme awareness. Applied Psycholinguistics38: 233–62.
68.
ReinischEWeberAMittererH (2013) Listeners retune phoneme categories across languages. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance39: 75–86.
69.
RochetLBRochetAP (1995) The perception of the single-geminate consonant contrast by native speakers of Italian and Anglophones. In: Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, pp. 616–19.
70.
SchertzJChoTLottoAWarnerN (2016) Individual differences in perceptual adaptability of foreign sound categories. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics78: 355–67.
71.
ShowalterCEHayes-HarbR (2013) Unfamiliar orthographic information and second language word learning: A novel lexicon study. Second Language Research29: 185–200.
72.
SimonEChamblessDKickhöfel AlvesU (2010) Understanding the role of orthography in the acquisition of a non-native vowel contrast. Language Sciences32: 380–94
73.
Sokolović-PerovićMBassettiBDillonS (2020) English orthographic forms affect L2 English speech production in native users of a non-alphabetic writing system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition23: 591–601.
74.
SorianelloP (2014) Italian geminate consonants in L2 acquisition. In: CostamagnaLCelataC (eds) Consonant gemination in first and second language acquisition. Pisa: Pacini Editore, pp. 25–46.
75.
SpiveyMJMarianV (1999) Cross talk between native and second languages: Partial activation of an irrelevant lexicon. Psychological Science10: 281–84.
76.
VeivoOJärvikiviJ (2013) Proficiency modulates early orthographic and phonological processing in L2 spoken word recognition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition16: 864–83.
77.
VeivoOJärvikiviJPorrettaVJHyonaJ (2016) Orthographic activation in L2 spoken word recognition depends on proficiency: Evidence from eye-tracking. Frontiers in Psychology7: Article 1120.
78.
VeivoOPorrettaVHyonaJJärvikiviJ (2018) Spoken second language words activate native language orthographic information in late second language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics39: 1011–32.
79.
VokicG (2011) When alphabets collide: Alphabetic first-language speakers’ approach to speech production in an alphabetic second language. Second Language Research27: 391–417.
80.
WeberADi BettaAMMcQueenJM (2014) Treack or trit: Adaptation to genuine and arbitrary foreign accents by monolingual and bilingual listeners. Journal of phonetics46: 34–51.
81.
WelbyPSpinelliEBürkiA (2022) Spelling provides a precise (but sometimes misplaced) phonological target: Orthography and acoustic variability in second language word learning. Journal of Phonetics94: 101172.
82.
Young-ScholtenMLangerM. (2015) The role of orthographic input in L2 German: Evidence from naturalistic adult learners’ production. Applied Psycholinguistics36: 93–114.
