Learning words in a third language: Effects of vowel inventory and language proficiency

Abstract

This study examines the effect of L2 and L3 proficiency on L3 word learning. Native speakers of Spanish with different proficiencies in L2 English and L3 Dutch and a control group of Dutch native speakers participated in a Dutch word learning task involving minimal and non-minimal word pairs. The minimal word pairs were divided into 'minimal-easy' and 'minimal-difficult' pairs on the basis of whether or not they are known to pose perceptual problems for L1 Spanish learners. Spanish speakers' proficiency in Dutch and English was independently established by their scores on general language comprehension tests. All participants were trained and subsequently tested on the mapping between pseudo-words and non-objects. The results revealed that, first, both native and non-native speakers produced more errors and longer reaction times for minimal than for non-minimal word pairs, and secondly, Spanish learners had more errors and longer reaction times for minimal-difficult than for minimal-easy pairs. The latter finding suggests that there is a strong continuity between sound perception and L3 word recognition. With respect to proficiency, only the learner's proficiency in their L2, namely English, predicted their accuracy on L3 minimal pairs. This shows that learning an L2 with a larger vowel inventory than the L1 is also beneficial for word learning in an L3 with a similarly large vowel inventory.3

Cross‐Situational Learning of Minimal Word Pairs

“…Previous work on minimal pairs has found that novel word learning performance is lower for words that share segments for native and non‐native listeners (e.g., Escudero et al., ; Escudero, Simon, et al., , ; Papagno & Vallar, ). While our results revealed that accuracy for vowel minimal pairs was lower than for non‐minimal pairs, there was no difference in performance between consonant minimal pairs and non‐minimal pairs.…”

“…In explicit word learning tasks, adults have some difficulty distinguishing minimal word pairs (Escudero, Broersma, & Simon, ; Escudero, Simon, & Mulak, ; Papagno & Vallar, ). For instance, Escudero et al.…”

“…For instance, Escudero et al. () presented Dutch listeners with a word learning task in which they were explicitly taught 12 pseudowords and their corresponding novel visual referents. At test, listeners made more errors for words presented in a minimal pair (e.g., PAX–PIX) than for words presented in a non‐minimal pair (e.g., BEEPTOE–PIX).…”

“…In explicit word learning tasks, adults have some difficulty distinguishing minimal word pairs (Escudero, Broersma, & Simon, 2013;Escudero, Simon, & Mulak, 2014;Papagno & Vallar, 1992). For instance, Escudero et al (2013) presented Dutch listeners with a word learning task in which they were explicitly taught 12 pseudowords and their corresponding novel visual referents. At test, listeners made more errors for words presented in a minimal pair (e.g., PAX-PIX) than for words presented in a non-minimal pair (e.g., BEEPTOE-PIX).…”

Lexical Adaptation to a Novel Accent in German: A Comparison Between German, Swedish, and Finnish Listeners

“…This would suggest that, all else being equal, Finnish learners of German might accept fewer words spoken in a novel German accent than Swedish learners. b) In addition to native language background, knowledge of additional L2 languages with larger vowel inventories than the L1 may be beneficial for word recognition in an L2 with a similarly large vowel inventory [27]. Swedish is the second official language in Finland and a compulsory language taught at schools.…”