Letter-Sound Correspondence Acquisition in First Semester Russian

Comer, William J.; Murphy-Lee, Meghan

doi:10.1080/00085006.2004.11092344

Cited by 4 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Comer and Murphy-Lee (2004) provides evidence that native English-speaking learners can experience difficulties with Russian GPCs; however, the relevance of Comer and Murphy-Lee’s (2004) findings to those of the present study may be limited. Comer and Murphy-Lee (2004) were interested in the relationship between learners’ ability to pronounce sounds represented by graphemes and ultimate success in a language learning classroom, whereas the present study is focused upon the ability to learn the phonological forms of new words. Minimally, Comer and Murphy-Lee (2004) provide evidence that knowledge of GPCs is correlated with other kinds of success in a language learning classroom.…”

Section: Introductioncontrasting

confidence: 73%

“…To the best of our knowledge, there are few studies that investigate the acquisition of L2 Russian words in relation to OI (and, additionally, in instructed learners). Comer and Murphy-Lee (2004) provides a foundation, investigating the effects of GPCs on reading and writing accuracy in native English speakers in their first semester of Russian. Comer and Murphy-Lee questioned whether certain Cyrillic letters (and GPCs) would be consistently problematic or whether learners would be able to acquire targetlike Russian GPCs by the end of the first semester.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Common difficulties with pronunciation included letters differing only in diacritics (e.g., <ё> and <e>), new words or unknown letters (which were either ignored or substituted with a different word), and letters that looked like the Roman alphabet but map to a different sound (e.g., <в>-Russian [v], English [b]). The findings of Comer and Murphy-Lee (2004) suggest that some GPCs are difficult for Russian learners, and that the inability to accurately map sounds and letters early can negatively impact language learning success.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Comer and Murphy-Lee (2004) were interested in the relationship between learners’ ability to pronounce sounds represented by graphemes and ultimate success in a language learning classroom, whereas the present study is focused upon the ability to learn the phonological forms of new words. Minimally, Comer and Murphy-Lee (2004) provide evidence that knowledge of GPCs is correlated with other kinds of success in a language learning classroom.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Russian Phono-Lexical Acquisition and Orthographic Input

Showalter

2019

Stud Second Lang Acquis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated how grapheme familiarity and grapheme-phoneme correspondence (GPC) congruence affect adult learners’ ability to make use of orthographic input (OI) during phono-lexical acquisition. Native English speakers, with no Russian experience (naïve) or learners of Russian, heard auditory forms, saw pictured meanings, and saw written input either in a No Orthography condition or an Orthography condition for words that contained unfamiliar Cyrillic graphemes, familiar graphemes and congruent GPCs, and familiar graphemes and incongruent GPCs. Naïve participants evidenced incongruent GPC interference effects. Experienced learners acquired targetlike GPCs, although beginner learners did not. In a separate experiment, naïve learners were exposed to an intervention to mitigate effects of OI; the interventions did not improve test accuracy. Results support previous findings that incongruent GPCs interfere with phono-lexical acquisition. We also found evidence that target language experience mitigates negative effects of OI, but interventions may not sufficiently aid naïve learners’ phono-lexical acquisition.

show abstract

Section: Introductioncontrasting

confidence: 73%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Russian Phono-Lexical Acquisition and Orthographic Input

Showalter

2019

Stud Second Lang Acquis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Written forms present voiced consonants (e.g., <Rad>), interfering with learner knowledge that final obstruents are devoiced (e.g., <Rad>-/rɑt/). Using an out-loud sentence reading task, Comer and Murphy-Lee (2004) found that native English speakers in a Russian language class tended to mispronounce unfamiliar and incongruent graphemes (e.g., <Ц> <B>) at 12 weeks of instruction. Future research should investigate whether OI's contribution to learning word forms can be moderated by instruction, and which interventions are most effective.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Cyrillic on Native English Speakers’ Phono-lexical Acquisition of Russian

Showalter

2018

Lang Speech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the influence of grapheme familiarity and native language grapheme-phoneme correspondences during second language lexical learning. Native English speakers learned Russian-like words via auditory presentations containing only familiar first language phones, pictured meanings, and exposure to either Cyrillic orthographic forms (Orthography condition) or the sequence (No Orthography condition). Orthography participants saw three types of written forms: familiar-congruent (e.g., -[kom]), familiar-incongruent (e.g., -[rɑt]), and unfamiliar (e.g., <ФИЛ>-[fil]). At test, participants determined whether pictures and words matched according to what they saw during word learning. All participants performed near ceiling in all stimulus conditions, except for Orthography participants on words containing incongruent grapheme-phoneme correspondences. These results suggest that first language grapheme-phoneme correspondences can cause interference during second language phono-lexical acquisition. In addition, these results suggest that orthographic input effects are robust enough to interfere even when the input does not contain novel phones.

show abstract

Monolingual and Bilingual Reading Processes in Russian: An Exploratory Scanpath Analysis

Parshina

Sekerina

Lopukhina

et al. 2021

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present study, we used a scanpath approach to investigate reading processes and factors that can shape them in monolingual Russian‐speaking adults, 8‐year‐old children, and bilingual Russian‐speaking readers. We found that monolingual adults’ eye movement patterns exhibited a fluent scanpath reading process, representing effortless processing of the written material: They read straight from left to right at a fast pace, skipped words, and regressed rarely. Both high‐proficiency heritage‐language speakers’ and second graders’ eye movement patterns exhibited an intermediate scanpath reading process, characterized by a slower pace, longer fixations, an absence of word skipping, and short regressive saccades. Second‐language learners and low‐proficiency heritage‐language speakers exhibited a beginner reading process that involved the slowest pace, even longer fixations, no word skipping, and frequent rereading of the whole sentence and of particular words. We suggest that unlike intermediate readers who use the respective process to resolve local processing difficulties (e.g., word recognition failure), beginner readers, in addition, experience global‐level challenges in semantic and morphosyntactic information integration. Proficiency in Russian for heritage‐language speakers and comprehension scores for second‐language learners were the only individual difference factors predictive of the scanpath reading process adopted by bilingual speakers. Overall, the scanpath analysis revealed qualitative differences in scanpath reading processes among various groups of readers and thus adds a qualitative dimension to the conventional quantitative evaluation of word‐level eye‐tracking measures.

show abstract

Letter-Sound Correspondence Acquisition in First Semester Russian

Cited by 4 publications

References 3 publications

Russian Phono-Lexical Acquisition and Orthographic Input

Russian Phono-Lexical Acquisition and Orthographic Input

Impact of Cyrillic on Native English Speakers’ Phono-lexical Acquisition of Russian

Monolingual and Bilingual Reading Processes in Russian: An Exploratory Scanpath Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About