Orthographic Input and the Acquisition of German Final Devoicing by Native Speakers of English

Abstract

We present an artificial lexicon study designed to test the hypothesis that native English speakers experience interference from written input when acquiring surface voicing in German words. Native English speakers were exposed to German-like words (e.g., /ʃtɑit/ and /ʃtɑid/, both pronounced [ʃtɑit]) along with pictured meanings, and in some cases, their written forms (e.g., <Steit> and <Steid>). At test, participants whose input included the written forms were more likely to produce final voiced obstruents when naming the pictures, indicating that access to the written forms in the input interfered with their acquisition of target-like surface forms. In a separate experiment, we attempted to moderate this negative impact of the written input by explicitly telling participants about the misleading nature of the words' written forms, with no beneficial effect on their pronunciation accuracy. Together these findings indicate a powerful influence of orthographic input on second language lexical-phonological development that is not readily overcome by a simple intervention.

Second language learning of phonological alternations with and without orthographic input: Evidence from the acquisition of a German-like voicing alternation

“…In particular, our follow-up analyses suggest that the No Orthography group, but not the Orthography group, showed evidence of having acquired the final devoicing process. Moreover, a comparison of the two word learning groups revealed that learners who had been exposed to written forms erroneously produced more underlyingly voiced stops as voiced word-finally (i.e., in the singular) than those who did not see written forms, corroborating past findings (Hayes-Harb et al, 2018). However, the Orthography group correctly produced more underlyingly voiced obstruents as voiced in the plural than did participants in the No Orthography group.…”

“…In addition, the Orthography group again produced significantly more voiced productions (non-targetlike surface forms) for the underlyingly voiced singulars than did the No Orthography group in this condition, replicating Experiment 1. It is worth noting that results for the so-called singular condition exhibit the pattern previously reported in Hayes-Harb et al (2018).…”

“…We observed a significant three-way interaction of word learning condition, underlying voicing, and morphological condition, suggesting differential acquisition of the final devoicing process and providing evidence that access to words' written forms interfered with participants' ability to learn the alternation. We have thus provided evidence of an effect of orthographic input on the acquisition of the final devoicing process, building on earlier findings reported by Hayes-Harb et al (2018).…”

“…This phenomenon has been attributed to the relative "unmarkedness" of final devoicing, with relevant predictions formalized in the markedness differential hypothesis (Eckman, 1977). Nonetheless, studies that have investigated the acquisition of German final devoicing by adult L2 learners have typically reported non-target-like mastery (e.g., Hayes-Harb et al, 2018;Smith & Peterson, 2012;Young-Scholten, 2002). Smith and Peterson (2012) investigated the acquisition of German final devoicing by native English adult learners of German as a L2.…”

“…Moreover, as van de Vijver and Baer-Henney (2014) note, knowledge of phonological processes, such as German final devoicing, involves not only knowledge of both the words that alternate (and those that do not) but also productive knowledge of the process that extends to novel words. The present study thus represents a logical next step in advancing our understanding of the role of orthographic input in the acquisition of German final devoicing by adult L2 learners by focusing not on the ability to remember a trained set of (non-alternating) surface forms (as in Hayes-Harb et al, 2018) but rather on the ability to remember a set of alternating surface forms (Experiment 1) and on the ability to apply the devoicing process to new word forms (i.e., generalization; Experiment 2).…”