Article published In:
Journal of Second Language PronunciationVol. 9:2 (2023) ► pp.167–191
Effects of orthography and cognate status on second language Spanish lexical encoding
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.
Keywords: lexical encoding, cognates, orthography, Spanish, lexical decision
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Literature review
- 3.Research questions & predictions
- 4.Method
- 4.1Participants
- 4.2Materials
- 4.2.1Stimuli for lexical tasks
- 4.2.2Standard Lexical Decision (SLD) task
- 4.2.3Forced Choice Lexical Decision (FCLD) task
- 4.2.4Headphone check
- 4.2.5Background questionnaire
- 4.3Procedure
- 5.Results
- 5.1Standard Lexical Decision task
- 5.2Forced Choice Lexical Decision task
- 6.Discussion
- 7.Conclusion
- Data availability statement
- Notes
-
References
References (34)
Amengual, M. (2012). Interlingual influence in bilingual speech: Cognate status effect in a continuum of bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,
15
(3), 517–530. 
(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.
(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,
7
1, Article 617.
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,
6
1, Article 689470.
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.
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.
Brown, E. & Harper, D. (2009). Phonological evidence of interlingual exemplar connections. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics,
2
(2), 257–274.
Broersma, M., & Cutler, A. (2011). Competition dynamics of second-language listening. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
64
(1), 74–95.
Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and language use. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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,
7
1, Article 1345.
de Leeuw, J. R. (2015). jsPsych: A JavaScript library for creating behavioral experiments in a web browser. Behavior Research Methods,
47
(1), 1–12.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gor, K., Cook, S., Bordag, D., Chrabaszcz, A., & Opitz, A. (2021). Fuzzy lexical representations in adult second language speakers. Frontiers in Psychology,
12
1, Article 732030.
Hayes-Harb, R., & Barrios, S. (2021). The influence of orthography in second language phonological acquisition. Language Teaching,
54
(3), 297–326.
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.
Hualde, J. I. (2005). The sounds of Spanish. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kassambara, A. (2019). rstatix: Pipe-friendly framework for basic statistical tests. R package version 0.3.1. Retrieved from [URL]
Mair, P. (2019). WRS2: A collection of robust statistical methods. R package version 1.0-0. Retrieved from [URL]
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.
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.
Rafat, Y. (2016). Orthography-induced transfer in the production of English-speaking learners of Spanish. The Language Learning Journal,
44
(2), 197–213.
Ramus, F., Peperkamp, S., Christophe, A., Jacquemot, C., Kouider, S., & Dupoux, E. (2010). A psycholinguistic perspective on the acquisition of phonology. In C. 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.
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.
Showalter, C. E. (2018). Impact of Cyrillic on native English speakers’ phono-lexical acquisition of Russian. Language and Speech,
61
(4), 565–576.
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.
(2015). Native English speakers learning Arabic: The influence of novel orthographic information on second language phonological acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics,
36
(1), 23–42.
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.
Stanislaw, H., & Todorov, N. (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,
31
(1), 137–149.
Wilcox, R. (2012). Modern statistics for the social and behavioral sciences: A practical introduction. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
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.