Recent research indicates that knowledge of words’ spellings can influence knowledge of the phonological forms of second language (L2) words when the first and second languages use the same orthographic symbols. It is yet unknown whether learners can make similar use of unfamiliar orthographic symbols. In this study we investigate whether native English speakers use orthographic tone marks to help them associate lexical tone with new L2 words? Native English speakers with no knowledge of Mandarin were assigned to ‘Tone Marks’ or ‘No Tone Marks’ word learning groups. During a word learning phase, they learned to associate Mandarin nonwords varying in lexical tone with orthographic forms (written in pinyin with/without tone marks) and pictured ‘meanings’. In Experiment 1, participants were asked whether a picture associated with, for example, tone 1 matched an auditory form containing tone 2. Tone Marks participants outperformed No Tone Marks participants, suggesting that the availability of unfamiliar orthographic symbols helped them associate lexical tone with the new words. In Experiment 2, the test involved matching an orthographic representation and an auditory word. Tone Marks participants performed above chance, while No Tone Marks participants did not, indicating that Tone Marks participants learned the correspondences between auditory tones and tone marks to some extent. We conclude that the presence of a novel orthographic feature (in this case, tone marks) can support native English speakers’ ability to associate a novel phonological feature (in this case, lexical tone) with newly-learned lexical items.

Recent research has indicated that learners exposed to second language words' orthographic forms of words can often use this information to make inferences about the words' phonological forms. Here we asked, do learners benefit even when the orthography is unfamiliar? We taught native English speakers minimal nonword pairs differentiated by the Arabic velar-uvular contrast (e.g., [kubu], [qubu]) and manipulated the quality of orthographic input. We found that participants were consistently unable to associate the novel phonemes with novel words. Results are discussed in terms of (a) the role of orthographic input in second language word form learning, (b) the influence of orthographic familiarity in moderating the role of orthographic input, and (c) the issue of talker variability in word learning.

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.

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.