A note on versions:The version presented here may differ from the published version or, version of record, if you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the 'permanent WRAP url' above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription.For more information, please contact the WRAP Team at: wrap@warwick.ac.uk Bassetti, Sokolović-Perović, Mairano, & Cerni (2018, online first) Orthography-induced length contrasts in the second language phonological systems of L2 speakers of English: Evidence from minimal pairs. Language and Speech. DOI: 10. Abstract Research shows that the orthographic forms ('spellings') of second language (L2) words affect speech production in L2 speakers. The present 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 English L2 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. Bassetti, Sokolović-Perović, Mairano, & Cerni (2018, online first) Orthography-induced length contrasts in the second language phonological systems of L2 speakers of English: Evidence from minimal pairs. Language and Speech. DOI: 10.1177/002383091878014 2 Unlike native languages, second languages are often acquired through a mixture of spoken and written input. Recent research shows that the orthographic forms, or spellings, of second language (L2) sounds and words affect L2 speech production (Bassetti, Hayes-Harb, & Escudero, 2015), and there have been claims that L2 orthographic forms may lead L2 speakers to establish phonological contrasts that do not exist in the target language (Bassetti, 2017). The present paper therefore aims to investigate the...

Orthographic forms (spellings) can affect pronunciation in a second language (L2); however, it is not known whether the same orthographic form can affect both L2 pronunciation and metalinguistic awareness. To test this, we asked 260 speakers of English—first‐language (L1) English speakers, L1 Italian and L2 English sequential bilinguals, and L1 Italian learners of L2 English—to perform word repetition tasks and rhyme judgment tasks for word pairs containing the same consonant or vowel spelled with a letter or a digraph. L1 Italian speakers established a long–short contrast and used consonant and vowel length contrastively in their L2 English, both in production and in an awareness task. This provides evidence for a direct link between the effects of the same orthographic phenomenon on speech production and on metalinguistic awareness. Results were strengthened by combining experimental and qualitative data in the study of orthographic effects. Finally, the results show that proficiency predicts orthographic effects, and that orthographic effect predictors vary in naturalistic and instructed contexts.

The orthographic forms of words (spellings) can affect word production in speakers of second languages. This study tested whether presenting orthographic forms during L2 word learning can lead speakers to learn non-nativelike phonological forms of L2 words, as reflected in production and metalinguistic awareness. Italian L1 learners of English as a Second Language (English L2) were exposed to English L2 novel spoken words (pseudowords) and real words in association with pictures either from auditory input only (Phonology group), or from both auditory and orthographic input (Phonology & Orthography group, both groups n = 24). Pseudowords and words were designed to obtain 30 semi-minimal pairs, each consisting of a word and a pseudoword that contained the same target consonant, spelled with one letter or with double letters. In Italian double consonant letters represent a long consonant, whereas the English language does not contrast short and long consonants. After the learning phase, participants performed a production task (picture naming), a metalinguistic awareness task (rhyme judgment) and a spelling task. Results showed that the Phonology & Orthography group produced the same consonant as longer in double-letter than in single-letter lexical items, while this was not the case for the Phonology group. The former group also rejected spoken rhymes that contained the same consonant spelled with a single letter in one word and double letters in the other, because they considered these as two different phonological categories. Finally, the Phonology & Orthography group learned more novel words than the Phonology group, showing that orthographic input results in more word learning, in line with previous findings from native speakers.

This study aimed to investigate the interaction between linguistic and peripheral-motor processes in written production. Past research has focused on this topic by analyzing how handwriting and, more recently, typing execution were influenced by lexical and sublexical variables. We took a step further in this study by directly comparing handwriting and typing, examining if different motor executions allow for different flows of linguistic processing. Participants typed and handwrote a set of Italian stimuli in which we manipulated lexicality (words vs. pseudowords), orthographic complexity (stimuli with vs. without multiletter graphemes), and length (short vs. long stimuli). We measured and analyzed latency (response times [RTs]), the difference between RTs and the acoustic duration (AD) of the stimuli (RT-AD), mean length of interletter intervals (ILIs), and whole response duration (WRD). We further explored the effects of the position of the orthographic complexity on RTs, RT-AD, ILIs, and WRD. Results suggested a cascaded, continuous processing flow for handwriting and a mixed mechanism involving both serial and parallel modes of processing for typing. The differences in linguistic processing during handwriting and typing suggest different mechanisms in segmenting, maintaining, and retrieving the orthographic representation during motor execution. Public Significance StatementThis study suggests that handwriting and typing allow for different processing of linguistic information during their execution. Linguistic information, such as length, orthographic complexity, and lexicality, affect handwriting movements. During typing, the length of the stimulus has a strong influence, while most of the lexicality and orthographic complexity processing is moved up at the beginning of the stimulus execution (before typing starts and during first key presses). The differences in linguistic processing during handwriting and typing production suggest differences in preparing and maintaining in memory the to-be-written sequence.

No abstract