languages

Article How Do Speakers of a Language with a Transparent Orthographic System Perceive the L2 Vowels of a Language with an Opaque Orthographic System? An Analysis through a Battery of Behavioral Tests

Georgios P. Georgiou

Department of Languages and Literature, University of Nicosia, Nicosia 2417, Cyprus; [email protected]

Abstract: Background: The present study aims to investigate the effect of the first language (L1) orthography on the perception of the second language (L2) vowel contrasts and whether orthographic effects occur at the sublexical level. Methods: Fourteen adult Greek learners of English participated in two AXB discrimination tests: one auditory and one orthography test. In the auditory test, participants listened to triads of auditory stimuli that targeted specific English vowel contrasts embedded in nonsense words and were asked to decide if the middle vowel was the same as the first or the third vowel by clicking on the corresponding labels. The orthography test followed the same procedure as the auditory test, but instead, the two labels contained grapheme representations of the



 target vowel contrasts. Results: All but one vowel contrast could be more accurately discriminated in the auditory than in the orthography test. The use of nonsense words in the elicitation task Citation: Georgiou, Georgios P. 2021. eradicated the possibility of a lexical effect of orthography on auditory processing, leaving space for How Do Speakers of a Language with the interpretation of this effect on a sublexical basis, primarily prelexical and secondarily postlexical. a Transparent Orthographic System Conclusions: L2 auditory processing is subject to L1 orthography influence. Speakers of languages Perceive the L2 Vowels of a Language with transparent orthographies such as Greek may rely on the grapheme–phoneme correspondence to with an Opaque Orthographic System? An Analysis through a decode orthographic representations of sounds coming from languages with an opaque orthographic Battery of Behavioral Tests. Languages system such as English. 6: 118. https://doi.org/10.3390/ languages6030118 Keywords: orthography; speech perception; deep; shallow

Academic Editors: Juana M. Liceras and Raquel Fernández Fuertes 1. Introduction Received: 22 April 2021 Each known spoken word is represented in the lexical memory, and it is activated Accepted: 7 July 2021 through the presentation of the corresponding acoustic signal (Taft et al. 2008). Upon the Published: 11 July 2021 learning of reading and writing, existing spoken word recognition is used by orthographic processes that demand reading through a recodification of orthography into phonology Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral (Rastle and Brysbaert 2006; Van Orden 1991). Evidence of the effect of orthographic with regard to jurisdictional claims in information on spoken word processing can be found in several studies. For example, published maps and institutional affil- Seidenberg and Tanenhaus(1979) investigated the role of orthography on rhyme detection. iations. Cue words were presented both aurally and visually to the listeners. The findings indicated that orthographically different rhymes (e.g., “rye-tie”) had longer detection latencies than orthographically similar rhymes (e.g., “pie-tie”). Frauenfelder et al.(1990), in a series of phoneme-monitoring experiments, examined the influence of lexical knowledge on the Copyright: © 2021 by the author. identification of French phonemes. The results showed that phonemes that are represented Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. with many different graphemes (e.g., /k/ is represented by and ) demonstrated This article is an open access article slower detection times than phonemes that have only one orthographic representation distributed under the terms and (e.g., a non-final /t/ is represented only by the grapheme in French). conditions of the Creative Commons Apart from the effect of orthography on the perception of native segmental contrasts, Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ other studies reveal the impact of orthography on the perception of non-native contrasts. 4.0/). In an eye-tracking study of Weber and Cutler(2004), Dutch listeners listened to English

Languages 2021, 6, 118. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6030118 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/languages Languages 2021, 6, 118 2 of 12

words and were instructed to click on the appropriate picture. It was found that when listeners were instructed to click on “panda”, they looked at “pencil” during the first spoken syllable, whereas English speakers acted reversely. In contrast, once they were told to click on “pencil”, Dutch listeners looked only at the labeling of pencil and not at the one of panda. The authors attributed this eye-tracking performance of Dutch listeners to the fact that both English vowels /æ/ [pæn.d@] and /ε/ [pεn.s@l] are perceived by Dutch speakers as instances of the Dutch /ε/; English /ε/ was perceived as being phonetically closer to the Dutch /ε/ than the English /æ/ was. However, this could also be explained as an effect of the listeners’ native orthographic system (Cutler et al. 2006). For Dutch speakers, the rendition of the grapheme is similar in both Dutch and English, while the rendition of is different in the two languages; in the first syllable of the Dutch word “panda”, represents a back vowel. The grapheme is perceived as representing a front central vowel. This provides a sensible explanation for the Dutch listeners’ attention to the first syllable of the label word “pencil”, when they were instructed to click on the label “panda” since the grapheme of the former word represents the vowel /æ/ for Dutch speakers, which corresponds to the first vowel of the word “panda”. Simon et al.(2010) examined the effect of orthographic representation during a training study on the ability of listeners to learn a non-native phonological contrast. In particular, they investigated whether the French phonological contrast /u/ - /y/ could be facilitated if learners were exposed to grapheme-to-phoneme correspondences. The study employed native speakers of American English who did not have any knowledge of French. The participants were divided into two groups: one sound-only group, which was provided with the pronunciation of nonword pairs, and one sound-spelling group, which was provided with the spelling of the aforementioned nonword pairs. All of them completed AXB discrimination tests. The findings indicated that there were no significant differences in the contrast discrimination scores between the two groups, and there was variation in the participants’ scores. Although access to orthographic information did not facilitate the perception of novel phonological contrasts, the authors offer several potential explanations for the lack of support for their initial hypothesis. The present study aims to examine the effect of L1 orthography on the discrimination of L2 vowel contrasts. Moreover, it aims to find evidence that supports a particular locus or loci with respect to the orthographic effects since previous studies suggested different levels of auditory processing, which depended on the orthographic transparencies of languages. First, it is important to define the terms sublexical, prelexical, and postlexical, which will be extensively used to describe the locus or loci of orthographic effects. Escudero and Wanrooij(2010) pointed out that the term sublexical refers to detailed processing units (i.e., phonemes and graphemes) without taking into consideration the chronological order of processing; therefore, such representations can be activated before, during, or after lexical access. By contrast, the terms prelexical and postlexical imply a specific chronological order for the activation of representations that can be before and after lexical access, respectively. There is no convergence with respect to the locus or loci for orthographic effects in the literature (Escudero and Wanrooij 2010). That is, it is still unknown if prelexical, lexical, or postlexical levels are activated in the phonological decoding process. Hallé et al.(2000) investigated the effect of orthography at the phoneme level, concluding that a lexical access mechanism was activated for word recognition. More specifically, English listeners detected the phoneme /b/ in English “bs/bt” words (e.g., “absurde”) rather than /p/ that depicts the words’ actual pronunciation (e.g., /apsyrd/). Moreover, in a word-guessing gating task, the /b/ responses overcame the /p/ responses for “bs/bt” words before the presentation of sufficient acoustic information for the word guessing. Ziegler and Ferrand(1998) concluded that orthography affects the perception of words at the lexical level. The researchers found that the lexical decision of words that could be inconsistently spelled was longer and more difficult in comparison to the lexical decision of words that had consistent spelling and that this consistency effect was absent from nonwords. The authors also observed effects at the prelexical level. Ventura et al.(2004) argued that lexical Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 12

researchers found that the lexical decision of words that could be inconsistently spelled Languageswas2021 longer, 6, 118 and more difficult in comparison to the lexical decision of words that had 3 of 12 consistent spelling and that this consistency effect was absent from nonwords. The authors also observed effects at the prelexical level. Ventura et al. (2004) argued that lexical influence emerging from orthographic knowledge damages spoken word influence emerging from orthographic knowledge damages spoken word recognition. recognition. In a shadowing task, which triggers lower processing levels, the previous In a shadowing task, which triggers lower processing levels, the previous orthographic orthographic consistency effect was not confirmed and, thus, such an effect could only be consistency effect was not confirmed and, thus, such an effect could only be lexical and not lexical and not sublexical. Effects on the postlexical level were found by some studies (e.g., sublexical. Effects on the postlexical level were found by some studies (e.g., Ganong 1980; Ganong 1980; Seidenberg et al. 1984). However, it is difficult to determine whether the Seidenberg et al. 1984). However, it is difficult to determine whether the processing takes processing takes place either on the prelexical or the postlexical level through a behavioral place either on the prelexical or the postlexical level through a behavioral task (Escudero task (for discussion, see Escuanddero Wanrooij and Wanrooij 2010). 2010). In contrast, some studies Inshow contrast, the effects some of studies orthography show the on effects auditory of orthographyprocessing at on auditory processing at the sublexical level. For example,the sublexical Taft etlevel. al. (2008) For example, investigated Taft etauditory al.(2008 primes) investigated that had auditory primes that had the same English orthographythe same as their English spoken orthography target words as their (e.g., spoken the pseudohomograph target words (e.g., the pseudohomograph /dri:d/, which has the same/dri:d/, spelling which as the has target the same word spelling “dread”), as the concluding target word that “dread”), they concluding that they were easier than primeswere which easier were than phonologically primes which wereequal phonologically to their target equal words to theirbut target words but differed differed in spelling (e.g.,in the spelling word /šri:d/ (e.g., the followed word /šri:d/by the followedspoken word by the “shred”). spoken wordThe “shred”). The authors authors carried out two auditorycarried outlexical two decisi auditoryon tasks, lexical which decision were tasks, created which in a were way createdthat in a way that they did they did not allow participantsnot allow to participantsbe aware of tothe be relationship aware of the between relationship phonology between and phonology and orthography. orthography. The orthographicThe orthographic facilitation facilitationrelied on sublexical relied on sublexicalinformation information enabled for enabled for the prime. The the prime. The authors addedauthors that added their thatfindings their findingscontradict contradict the findin thegs findings of Ventura of Ventura et al. et al.(2004) and Ziegler (2004) and Ziegler and Ferrandand Ferrand (1998) (since1998 )the since latter the authors latter authors employed employed real words real wordsin their in their studies, implying studies, implying that thethat orthographic the orthographic effect occurred effect occurred at a lexical at arather lexical than rather a sublexical than a sublexical level. Escudero level. Escudero and Wanrooijand Wanrooij (2010) (examin2010) examineded the effect the effectof L1 of orthography L1 orthography on onthe the perception of Dutch perception of Dutch vowelsvowels by Peruvian-Spanish by Peruvian-Spanish listeners listeners by employing by employing a categorization a categorization task and two directly task and two directly comparablecomparable tasks: tasks: an anauditory auditory XAB XAB task task and and an an orthography orthography XAB XAB task. The results showed task. The results showedthat that orthography orthography affected affected the the discrimination discrimination accuracy accuracy of theof the Dutch contrasts since there Dutch contrasts since therewere were significant significant differences differences in in accuracy accuracy between between the the auditory auditory and the orthography task. and the orthography task.For For instance, instance, the the Dutch Dutch /a/-/ /a/-/ɑ/ contrasts contrasts could could be be discriminated discriminated better in the orthography better in the orthographytask task than than in the in auditory the auditory task since task the since orthographic the orthographic representation of the Dutch /a/, representation of the Dutchnamely /a/, ,namely helped , listenershelped listeners to understand to understand that the Dutchthat the /a/ has a longer duration Dutch /a/ has a longer duthanration the than Dutch the / Dutch/. Another /ɑ/. Another important important conclusion conclusion that emerged that from the study is that emerged from the studyorthographic is that orthographic effects on effects speech on perception speech perception might have might occurred have at a sublexical level. occurred at a sublexical level. This study aims (a) to investigate the effect of L1 orthography on the discrimination This study aims (a) toof investigate English vowel the effect contrasts of L1 by orthography Greek learners on the of discrimination L2 English, and (b) to assess whether of English vowel contraststhere by Greek are L1 learners orthography of L2 English, effects and on (b) L2 to auditory assess whether processing there at the sublexical level. It are L1 orthography effectsemploys on L2 auditory a similar proc behavioralessing at protocol the sublexical to the onelevel. used It employs by Escudero a and Wanrooij(2010). similar behavioral protocolHowever, to the one it differsused by from Escudero this study and inWanrooij that it examines(2010). However, a new set of languages, namely, it differs from this study Greekin that and it examines English. a To new our set knowledge, of languages, no othernamely, studies Greek have and investigated the effect of English. To our knowledge,L1 Greek no other orthography studies have on theinvestigat perceptioned the of L2effect English of L1 vowelGreek contrasts. Moreover, the orthography on the perceptionmethodological of L2 protocol English is quitevowel different contrasts. as the Moreover, stimuli of thisthe study consist of nonsense methodological protocol words.is quite Finally,different the as speakers the stimuli ofthis of this study study were consist not involved of nonsense in any categorization test (i.e., words. Finally, the speakersinvolving of this study the mapping were not of involved non-native in any sounds categorization onto native test sounds), (i.e., but they completed two involving the mapping ofAXB non-native discrimination sounds onto tests, native an auditory sounds), test but and they an completed orthography two test to determine whether AXB discrimination tests,there an auditory are differences test and in an the orthography discrimination test ofto particulardetermine Englishwhether contrasts between the two there are differences in thetests discrimination (i.e., the interaction of particular of contrast English and contrasts test). The between effect ofthe contrast two on the discrimination tests (i.e., the interaction ofscores contrast in each and test test). will The also effect be investigated of contrast toonreveal the discrimination how different types of L2 contrasts are LanguagesLanguagesscores 2021 2021, 6 ,, in6x, FOR xeach FOR PEER PEERtest REVIEW willREVIEW also affected be investigated by L1 orthography. to reveal Furtherhow different predictions types about of L2 the contrasts discrimination of English4 of4 vowel of12 12 pairs in the two tests will follow in the next section after describing the phonological and are affected by L1 orthography. Further predictions about the discrimination of English orthographic system of both Greek and English. vowel pairs in the two tests will follow in the next section after describing the phonological and orthographicGreekGreekGreek and and and systEnglish English Englishem ofPhonological Phonological both Phonological Greek and and and Orthographical OrthographicalEnglish. Orthographical Systems Systems Systems

TheTheThe Greek Greek Greek vowel vowel vowel system system system consists consists consists of of offive five five pure pure pure vowels vowels vowels /i /ie /i ea e ao a ou/, o u/, u/,and and and there there there are are areno no no vowelvowelvowel duration duration duration distinctions; distinctions; distinctions; however, however, however, vowel vowel vowel duration duration duration is isaffected is affected affected by by bystress stress stress (Georgiou (Georgiou (Georgiou and and and Themistocleous,Themistocleous,Themistocleous 2021). 2021). 2021 The). The The vowel vowel vowel system system system of of English of English English (Received (Received (Received Pronunciation) Pronunciation) Pronunciation) is ismore is more more complexcomplexcomplex than than than the the the Greek Greek Greek system system system consisting consisting of ofof 11 1111 main mainmain vowel vowel vowel monophthongs monophthongs monophthongs that that cancan can bebe be lax laxlax/ /ɪ /ʊɪ ʊe æe æ ʌ ɒʌ/ ɒ or/ or or tense tense tense /i/ ː/i uː ːu ɜːː ɜːɔː ɔːɑː ɑː/ (Roach,/(/ (Roach,Roach 2004). 2004).2004 This). This This study study study will will will focus focus focus on on onspecific specific specific English English English vowelvowelvowel pairs pairs pairs that that that are are arepredicted predicted predicted to to be to be difficult be difficult difficult to to discriminate to discriminate discriminate by by byGreek Greek Greek speakers speakers speakers since since since both both both membersmembers of of the the contrasts contrasts are are not not present present in in the the Greek Greek phonological phonological system. system. Specifically, Specifically, thethe English English vowel vowel contrasts contrasts are are the the following: following: /ɪ // ɪ-/ /i- ː/i/,ː /,/ɑː /ɑː/ -/ /-ʌ //,ʌ /,/ɑː /ɑː/ -/ /æ/,- /æ/, and and /ɔː //ɔː -/ /-ɒ //.ɒ /. TheThe Perceptual Perceptual Assimilation Assimilation Model Model (Best (Best 1995; 1995; Best Best and and Tyler Tyler 2007) 2007) predicts predicts the the discriminationdiscrimination of of non-native non-native sound sound contrasts contrasts on on the the basis basis of of the the assimilation assimilation of of each each contrastcontrast member member to to the the phonological phonological categori categorieses of of the the listeners’ listeners’ L1. L1. In In particular, particular, it it proposesproposes six six assimilation assimilation types types that that determ determineine the the discrimination discrimination of of non-native non-native sound sound contrasts.contrasts. According According to to the the model, model, much much discrimination discrimination difficulty difficulty is ispredicted predicted in in the the Single Single CategoryCategory assimilation assimilation where where both both members members of of a soa soundund contrast contrast are are assimilated assimilated to to the the same same L1L1 phonological phonological category, category, with with both both members members constituting constituting equally equally g oodgood or or bad bad exemplars exemplars ofof that that category. category. Better Better discriminati discriminationon accuracy accuracy is isexpected expected in in the the Category Category Goodness Goodness differencedifference assimilation assimilation in in whic which htwo two non-native non-native sound sound contrast contrasts ares are assimilated assimilated to to a singlea single L1L1 phonological phonological category category with with one one member member cons constitutingtituting a gooda good exemplar exemplar of of that that category category whilewhile the the other other constitutes constitutes a adeviant deviant one. one. Moreover, Moreover, the the newly newly introduced introduced Universal Universal PerceptualPerceptual Model Model (UPM; (UPM; Georgiou Georgiou 2021b) 2021b) predicts predicts that that completely completely overlapping overlapping contrasts contrasts (those(those sharing sharing the the same same above-chance above-chance responses; responses; i.e., i.e., L1 L1 responses responses for for given given L2 L2 categories categories thatthat significantly significantly differ differ from from a apredeter predeterminedmined chance chance score) score) might might receive receive poor poor discriminationdiscrimination unless unless listeners listeners perceive perceive some some phonetic phonetic distance distance between between the the L2 L2 sounds; sounds; inin the the latter latter scenario, scenario, the the goodness-of-fit goodness-of-fit ratings ratings of of the the above-chance above-chance responses responses significantlysignificantly differ differ with with each each other. other. Consid Consideringering the the phonetic phonetic distance distance between between the the Greek Greek andand English English vowels vowels (see (see Figure Figure 1) 1) and and the the categorization categorization of of English English vowels vowels by by Greek Greek speakersspeakers in in previous previous studies studies (see (see Georgiou Georgiou 2019), 2019), it itis ispredicted predicted that that in in the the auditory auditory discriminationdiscrimination test, test, learners learners will will assimilate assimilate both both members members of of the the English English vowel vowel contrasts contrasts /ɔː//ɔː -/ /-ɒ //,ɒ /,/ɑː /ɑː/ -/ /æ/,- /æ/, and and /ɑː /ɑː/ -/ /-ʌ //ʌ to/ to a asingle single Greek Greek phonological phonological category, category, struggling struggling to to perceiveperceive much much phonetic phonetic distance distance between between the the two two contrast contrast members. members. Alternatively, Alternatively, accordingaccording to to UPM, UPM, these these contrasts contrasts will will receiv receive epoor poor discrimination discrimination since since they they will will be be classifiedclassified as as above above chance chance responses responses in in the the same same set set of of L1 L1 phonetic phonetic categories. categories. In In contrast, contrast, thethe discrimination discrimination accuracy accuracy of of the the English English /ɪ // ɪ-/ /i - ː/i/ ːvowel/ vowel contrast contrast will will range range from from moderate moderate toto good good since since Greek Greek learners learners may may be be able able to to perceive perceive within within category category acoustic acoustic differences differences betweenbetween the the members members of of the the contrast contrast (see (see Georgiou Georgiou 2019); 2019); therefore, therefore, this this contrast contrast will will be be moremore accurately accurately discriminated discriminated than than the the previous previous contrasts. contrasts.

LanguagesLanguagesLanguages 2021, 6 2021, 2021x FOR, ,6 6, ,xPEER x FOR FOR REVIEW PEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW 4 of 12 44 of of 12 12

Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 12

Greek GreekandGreek English and and English English Phonological Phonological Phonological and Orthographical and and Orthographical Orthographical Systems Systems Systems Greek and English Phonological and OrthographicalThe GreekTheThe Systems GreekGreek vowel vowel vowel system systemsystem consists consistsconsists of five ofof pure fivefive purevowelspure vowelsvowels /i e a /io/i eu/,e aa oando u/,u/, there andand therearethere no areare nono vowelvowel duration duration distinctions; distinctions; however, however, vowel vowel duration duration is affected is affected by stress by stress(Georgiou (Georgiou and and The Greek vowel system consists vowelof five duration pure vowels distinctions; /i e a o however,u/, and there vowel are duration no is affected by stress (Georgiou and Themistocleous,Themistocleous, 2021). 2021).The vowel The vowel system system of English of English (Received (Received Pronunciation) Pronunciation) is more is more vowel duration distinctions; however, vowelThemistocleous, duration is 2021).affected The by vowel stress (Georgiousystem of andEnglish (Received Pronunciation) is more complexcomplex than the than Greek the Greek system system consisting consisting of 11 mainof 11 vowelmain vowel monophthongs monophthongs that can that be can be Themistocleous, 2021). The vowel systemcomplex of English than the (Received Greek system Pronunciation) consisting is of more 11 main vowel monophthongs that can be Languages 2021, 6, 118 lax /ɪ ʊlax e æ /ɪɪ ʊʌ ʊ ɒ e/ æorʌ ʌ tenseɒ ɒ/ or /itenseː uː ɜː /i ːɔːː u ɑːːːɜː /ɜː (Roach,ɔː ɔːɑː ɑː/ (Roach, 2004). 2004).This4 of 12 study This studywill focus will onfocus specific on specific English English complex than the Greek system consistinglax / of e11 æ main / or vowel tense monophthongs/i u / (Roach, that 2004).can be This study will focus on specific English vowelvowel pairs thatpairs are that predicted are predicted to be difficult to be difficult to discriminate to discriminate by Greek by Greek speakers speakers since bothsince both lax /ɪ ʊ e æ ʌ ɒ/ or tense /iː uː ɜː ɔː ɑː/ (Roach,vowel 2004). pairs This that study are predicted will focus to on be specific difficult English to discriminate by Greek speakers since both membersmembers of the ofcontrasts the contrasts are not are present not present in the inGreek the Greekphonological phonological system. system. Specifically, Specifically, vowel pairs that are predicted to be difficultmembers to discriminate of the contrasts by Greek are not speakers present since in the both Greek phonological system. Specifically, the Englishthethe English English vowel vowel vowel contrasts contrasts contrasts are the are are following: the the following: following: /ɪ/ - /i ː/ /,/ɪɪ/ / /- ɑː- /i /i/ː ː/,-/, // ʌ/ɑːɑː/,/ / /- ɑː- / /ʌ/ʌ /,-/, /æ/,/ /ɑːɑː// - and- /æ/, /æ/, / ɔːand and/ - // ɒ/ɔːɔː/./ / - - / /ɒɒ/./. members of the contrasts are not present in the Greek phonological system. Specifically, Specifically, The PerceptualTheThe PerceptualPerceptual Assimilation AssimilationAssimilation Model Model Model(Best (Best(Best1995; 1995;1995;Best andBestBest Tylerandand TylerTyler2007) 2007)2007)predicts predictspredicts the thethe the English vowel contrasts are thethe following:following: /ɪ/ - /iː/, /ɑː/ - /ʌ/, /ɑː/ - /æ/, and /ɔː/ - /ɒ/.. discriminationdiscriminationdiscrimination of non-native ofof non-nativenon-native sound soundsound contrasts contrastscontrasts on the onon basis thethe basisofbasis the ofof assimilation thethe assimilationassimilation of each ofof eacheach The PerceptualPerceptual AssimilationAssimilation ModelModel( Best(Best 1995 1995;; Best Best and and Tyler Tyler 2007 2007)) predicts predicts the dis-the contrastcontrastcontrast member membermember to the toto phonological thethe phonologicalphonological categori categoricategories of esesthe ofof listeners’ thethe listeners’listeners’ L1. In L1.L1. particular, InIn particular,particular, it itit discriminationcrimination of non-nativeof non-native sound sound contrasts contrasts on the on basis the ofbasis the assimilationof the assimilation of each contrastof each proposesproposesproposes six assimilation sixsix assimilationassimilation types typestypesthat determ thatthat determdetermine theineine discrimination thethe discriminationdiscrimination of non-native ofof non-nativenon-native sound soundsound contrastmember tomember the phonological to the phonological categories categori of the listeners’es of the L1. listeners’ In particular, L1. In it particular, proposes six it contrasts.contrasts.contrasts. According According According to the to model,to the the model, model, much much muchdiscrimination discrimination discrimination difficulty difficulty difficulty is predicted is is predicted predicted in the in Singlein the the Single Single proposesassimilation six typesassimilation that determine types that the determ discriminationine the discrimination of non-native soundof non-native contrasts. sound Ac- CategoryCategoryCategory assimilation assimilation assimilation where where where both membersboth both members members of a so of ofund a a so so contrastundund contrast contrast are assimilated are are assimilated assimilated to the to tosame the the same same contrasts.cording to According the model, to muchthe model, discrimination much discrimination difficulty is difficulty predicted is predicted in the Single in the Category Single L1 phonologicalL1L1 phonological phonological category, category, category, with bothwith with membersboth both members members constituting constituting constituting equally equally equally good g orgoodood bad or or exemplars bad bad exemplars exemplars Categoryassimilation assimilation where both where members both members of a sound of contrast a sound are contrast assimilated are assimilated to the same to L1 the phono- same of thatof category.that category. Better Betterdiscriminati discrimination accuracyon accuracy is expected is expected in the in Category the Category Goodness Goodness L1logical phonological category, category, with both with members both members constitutingof that constituting category. equally Better goodequally ordiscriminati g badood exemplars or badon exemplars accuracy of that is expected in the Category Goodness differencedifference assimilation assimilation in whic inh whic two hnon-native two non-native sound sound contrast contrasts are assimilateds are assimilated to a single to a single ofcategory. that category. Better discrimination Better discriminati accuracyondifference accuracy is expected assimilation is expected in the Category in in whic the Goodnessh Categorytwo non-nativedifference Goodness sound contrasts are assimilated to a single L1 phonologicalL1 phonological category category with one with member one member constituting constituting a good a exemplargood exemplar of that of category that category differenceassimilation assimilation in which two in whic non-nativeh two non-native soundL1 phonological contrasts sound are contrast category assimilateds are with assimilated to one a single member L1to a phono- conssingletituting a good exemplar of that category while whilethe other the otherconstitutes constitutes a deviant a deviant one. Moreover,one. Moreover, the newly the newly introduced introduced Universal Universal L1logical phonological category withcategory one memberwith one constituting memberwhile cons the a goodtituting other exemplar constitutesa good exemplar of that a deviant category of that one. while category Moreover, the the newly introduced Universal PerceptualPerceptual Model Model(UPM; (UPM; Georgiou Georgiou 2021b) 2021b) predicts predicts that completely that completely overlapping overlapping contrasts contrasts whileother constitutesthe other aconstitutes deviant one. a deviant Moreover, Perceptualone. the Moreover, newly Model introduced (UPM;the newly GeorgiouUniversal introduced Perceptual2021b) Universal predicts Model that completely overlapping contrasts (those(those sharing sharing the same the above-chancesame above-chance responses; responses; i.e., L1 i.e., responses L1 responses for given for givenL2 categories L2 categories (UPM;Perceptual Georgiou Model (UPM;2021b) predictsGeorgiou that 2021b) completely(those predicts sharing overlapping that the completely same contrasts above-chance overlapping (those responses; sharing contrasts the i.e., L1 responses for given L2 categories that significantlythat significantly differ differfrom froma predeter a predeterminedmined chance chance score) score)might mightreceive receive poor poor (thosesame above-chance sharing the same responses; above-chance i.e., L1 responses; responsesthat significantly fori.e., given L1 responses L2differ categories from for given thata predeter L2 significantly categoriesmined chance score) might receive poor discriminationdiscrimination unless unless listeners listeners perceive perceive some phoneticsome phonetic distance distance between between the L2 the sounds; L2 sounds; thatdiffer significantly from a predetermined differ from chance a predeter score)discrimination mightmined receive chance unless poor score) listeners discrimination might perceive receive unlesssome poor phonetic lis- distance between the L2 sounds; in thein latterthe latterscenario, scenario, the goodness-of-fitthe goodness-of-fit ratings ratings of the of above-chancethe above-chance responses responses discriminationteners perceive unless some phoneticlisteners distanceperceivein betweensome the phoneticlatter theL2 scenario, sounds;distance inthebetween the goodness-of-fit latter the scenario, L2 sounds; theratings of the above-chance responses significantlysignificantly differ differwith each with other. each other.Consid Considering theering phonetic the phonetic distance distance between between the Greek the Greek ingoodness-of-fit the latter scenario, ratings of the above-chancegoodness-of-fitsignificantly responses ratings differ significantlyof withthe eachabove-chance differ other. with Consid eachresponsesering other. the phonetic distance between the Greek and Englishand English vowels vowels (see Figure (see Figure 1) and 1) the and categorization the categorization of English of English vowels vowels by Greek by Greek significantlyConsidering differ the phonetic with each distance other. betweenConsidandering English the Greekthe phoneticvowels and English(see distance Figure vowels between 1) and (see the Figurethe Greek categorization1) of English vowels by Greek speakersspeakers in previous in previous studies studies (see Georgiou (see Georgiou 2019), 2019),it is predicted it is predicted that in that the in auditory the auditory and theEnglish categorization vowels (see of EnglishFigure vowels1) andspeakers bythe Greek categorization in speakers previous inof previousstudies English (see studiesvowels Georgiou ( Georgiouby Greek 2019), it is predicted that in the auditory discriminationdiscrimination test, learners test, learners will assimilate will assimilate both members both members of the ofEnglish the English vowel vowel contrasts contrasts speakers2019), it is in predicted previous that studies in the (see auditory Georgioudiscrimination discrimination 2019), it test,is test, predicted learners learners willthat will assimilate in assimilate the auditory both both members of the English vowel contrasts /ɔː/ - //ɔːɒɔː/,/ /-ɑː /ɒ/ɒ /,- /æ/,/ɑːɑː/ -and /æ/, / ɑːand/ - //ɑːʌɑː/ /to - /ʌaʌ /single to a singleGreek Greek phonological phonological category, category, struggling struggling to to discriminationmembers of the test, English learners vowel will contrasts assimilate/ / -both / /, /members/ - /æ/, ofandand the / English/ - / / to tovowel aa singlesingle contrasts Greek Greek phonological category, struggling to perceiveperceive much muchphonetic phonetic distance distance between between the two the contrasttwo contrast members. members. Alternatively, Alternatively, phonological/ɔː/ - /ɒ/, /ɑː/ - category, /æ/, and struggling/ɑː/ - /ʌ/ to to a perceivesingleperceive Greek much much phonological phonetic phonetic distance distancecategory, between betweenstruggling the the two to two contrast members. Alternatively, accordingaccording to UPM, to UPM,these thesecontrasts contrasts will receiv will ereceiv poore discriminationpoor discrimination since theysince willthey be will be perceivecontrast members.much phonetic Alternatively, distance accordingbetweenaccording the to UPM, twoto UPM, contrast these these contrasts members. contrasts will Alternatively,will receive receiv poore poor discrimination since they will be classifiedclassified as above as abovechance chance responses responses in the insame the setsame of L1set phoneticof L1 phonetic categories. categories. In contrast, In contrast, accordingdiscrimination to UPM, since theythese will contrasts be classified willclassified receiv as abovee aspoor chanceabove discrimination chance responses responses in since the same inthey the set willsame of L1be set of L1 phonetic categories. In contrast, the discriminationthe discrimination accuracy accuracy of the Englishof the English /ɪ/ - /iː //ɪ ɪvowel/ - /iːː/ vowel contrast contrast will range will rangefrom moderate from moderate phoneticclassified categories.as above chance In contrast, responses the discriminationin the discriminationsame set accuracyof L1 phoneticaccuracy of the categories.of English the English In contrast, / /vowel - /i / vowel contrast will range from moderate to goodto sincegood Greeksince Greek learners learners may be may able be to able perceive to perceive within within category category acoustic acoustic differences differences thecontrast discrimination will range accuracy from moderate of the English to goodto good/ɪ/ since- /i ːsince/ vowel Greek Greek contrast learners learners will may rangemay be ablebe from able to moderate perceiveto perceive within category acoustic differences betweenbetween the members the members of the ofcontrast the contrast (see Georgiou (see Georgiou 2019); 2019);therefore, therefore, this contrast this contrast will be will be withinto good category since Greek acoustic learners differences may be betweenablebetween to perceive the the members members within of category theof the contrast contrast acoustic (see (see differences Georgiou Georgiou 2019); therefore, this contrast will be Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW2019 ); therefore, this contrast willmore be more moreaccuratelymore accuratelyaccurately accurately discriminated discriminateddiscriminated than thethan thanthan previous the the previous previous previous contrasts.5 of 12 contrasts. contrasts. between the members of the contrast (see Georgiou 2019); therefore, this contrast will be contrasts. more accurately discriminated than the previous contrasts.

F2 2800 2600 2400 2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 100 iː uː 200 ɔː 300 i ɪ ʊ u ɜː ɒ 400 e o 500 e ɑː F1 ʌ 600 700

a 800 Greek æ 900 English 1000

.

Figure 1. F1 × F2F2 ofof the the (Cypriot) (Cypriot) Greek Greek and and English English (Timberlake (Timberlake 2004)2004) vowels vowels as as produced produced by by their their respective respective adult native speakers. speakers. Greek and English have two fundamentally different orthographic systems. Although the correspondence of grapheme–phoneme is often violated in Greek with a plethora of letters/digraphs for every single vowel (e.g., the Greek phoneme /i/ can be written as <ι>, <η>, <υ>, <οι>, <ει>, or <υι>), each orthographic grapheme (i.e., letter) is only read in one manner (Coutsougera 2007). Therefore, the Greek orthographic system can be described as shallow (or transparent). In contrast, the English orthographic system allows a grapheme to represent more than one phoneme; e.g., grapheme can stand for either phoneme /æ/ such as in or phoneme /ɑː/ such as in . Thus, the English orthographic system can be described as deep (or opaque). According to the Orthographic Depth Hypothesis (ODH), shallow orthographies allow new readers (i.e., children) to decode the written words easier, being able to read them with fewer problems since these words are recognized with respect to the phonology of the language. On the contrary, deep orthographies create difficulties for new readers by decreasing their reading tempo since the word recognition process relies on the words’ morphology via the printed visual orthographic structure of the word (Frost et al. 1987; Katz and Frost 1992). Therefore, ODH supports that shallow orthographic systems might force speakers to lean on prelexical decoding by identifying at first glance one by one the phonemes of a word, while deep orthographic systems might cause speakers to rely on lexical decoding without breaking the word into smaller parts (Escudero and Wanrooij 2010). The results of Erdener and Burnham (2005) suggest that speakers with transparent L1 orthographies cannot easily learn new L2 words when there is not a straightforward relationship between orthography and phonology, as in the case of languages with an opaque orthographic system. Escudero et al. (2014) argued that the effect of L1 orthography depends on the similarity of the L1–L2 grapheme–phoneme correspondences. For example, when the grapheme–phoneme correspondences between Spanish and Dutch were congruent, Spanish learners of Dutch were facilitated in the learning of Dutch words, whereas when the grapheme–phoneme correspondences were incongruent, the learning of Dutch words was hindered. This shows that learners of native languages with transparent orthographies do not always have difficulties in the acquisition of sounds from opaque L2 orthographic systems since this ability is

Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 12

F2 2800 2600 2400 2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 100 iː uː 200 ɔː 300 i ɪ ʊ u ɜː ɒ 400 e o 500 e ɑː F1 ʌ 600 700

a 800 Greek æ 900 English 1000

. Languages 2021, 6, 118 5 of 12 Figure 1. F1 × F2 of the (Cypriot) Greek and English (Timberlake 2004) vowels as produced by their respective adult native speakers.

Greek and EnglishGreek have and Englishtwo fundamentally have two fundamentally different differentorthographic orthographic systems. systems. Although Although the correspondencethe correspondence of grapheme–pho of grapheme–phonemeneme is often is violated often violated in Greek in Greekwith a with a plethora of plethora of letters/digraphsletters/digraphs for every for every single single vowel vowel (e.g., (e.g., the theGreek Greek phoneme phoneme /i/ /i/can can be be written as <ι>, written as <ι>, <η>,< η<>,υ>, < <υοι>,>, ,>, ,υι or>), < eachυι>), orthographic each orthographic grapheme grapheme (i.e., letter) (i.e., letter) is only is only read in one read in one mannermanner (Coutsougera (Coutsougera 2007). 2007 Theref). Therefore,ore, the Greek the Greek orthographic orthographic system system can be can be described as described as shallowshallow (or transparent).(or transparent). In contrast, In contrast, the theEnglish English orthographic orthographic system system allows allows a grapheme to a grapheme to representrepresent more more than than one one phonem phoneme;e; e.g., e.g., grapheme grapheme can can stand stand for foreither either phoneme /æ/ phoneme /æ/ suchsuch as asin in or or phoneme phoneme /ɑː/ suchsuch asas in in . . Thus, Thus, the the English English orthographic system orthographic systemcan becan described be described as deep as (ordeep opaque). (or opaque). According According to the Orthographicto the Orthographic Depth Hypothesis (ODH), Depth Hypothesis shallow(ODH), orthographiesshallow orthographies allow new readersallow new (i.e., readers children) (i.e., to decode children) the writtento words easier, decode the writtenbeing words able easier, to read being them able with to fewerread them problems with sincefewer these problems words since are recognized these with respect words are recognizedto the with phonology respect of to the the language. phonology On of the the contrary, language. deep On orthographies the contrary, create difficulties deep orthographiesfor create new readersdifficulties by decreasingfor new readers their by reading decreasing tempo their since reading the word tempo recognition process since the word recognitionrelies on process the words’ relies morphology on the words’ via morphology the printed via visual the printed orthographic visual structure of the orthographic structureword of (Frost the word et al. (Frost 1987 ;et Katz al. 1987; and Katz Frost and 1992 Frost). Therefore,1992). Therefore, ODH ODH supports that shallow supports that shalloworthographic orthographic systems syst mightems forcemight speakers force speakers to lean onto prelexicallean on decodingprelexical by identifying at decoding by identifyingfirst glance at first one glance by one one the by phonemes one the ofphonemes a word, whileof a word, deep while orthographic deep systems might orthographic systemscause might speakers cause to speakers rely on lexical to relydecoding on lexical without decoding breaking without the breaking word into smaller parts the word into smaller(Escudero parts (Escudero and Wanrooij and 2010 Wanrooij). 2010). The results of ErdenerThe results and Burnham of Erdener (2005) and suggest Burnham that(2005 speakers) suggest with that transparent speakers with transparent L1 orthographies L1cannot orthographies easily learn cannot new L2 easily words learn when new there L2 words is not when a straightforward there is not a straightforward relationship betweenrelationship orthography between and orthographyphonology, as and in phonology,the case of aslanguages in the case with of an languages with an opaque orthographicopaque system. orthographic Escudero system. et al. Escudero (2014) argued et al.(2014 that) argued the effect that theof effectL1 of L1 orthog- orthography dependsraphy dependson the on thesimilari similarityty of of thethe L1–L2 L1–L2 grapheme–phoneme grapheme–phoneme correspondences. For correspondences. example,For example, when when the grapheme–phonemethe grapheme–phoneme correspondences correspondences between between Spanish and Dutch Spanish and Dutchwere were congruent, congruent, Spanish Spanish learners learners of Dutch of Dutch were facilitatedwere facilitated in the learningin the of Dutch words, learning of Dutchwhereas words, whereas when the when grapheme–phoneme the grapheme–phoneme correspondences correspondences were incongruent, were the learning incongruent, the learningof Dutch of words Dutch waswords hindered. was hindered. This shows This shows that learners that learners of native of native languages with trans- languages with parenttransparent orthographies orthographies do not do always not havealways difficulties have difficulties in the acquisition in the of sounds from acquisition of soundsopaque from L2 orthographic opaque L2 systemsorthographic since thissystems ability since is determined this ability by theis similarity of the correspondence of graphemes and phonemes between the two languages. A well-known debate regarding the development of reading is the grain size of the orthography–phonology correspondences that are important for the learning of reading. It was suggested that children employ both small-size (i.e., grapheme–phoneme mappings) and large-size correspondences (i.e., rhyme and whole word recognition) in reading; this depends on several factors such as reading task type, the type of words, etc. (Goswami and East 2000; Perry and Ziegler 2000). Small unit correspondences are difficult to be read by children with orthographically inconsistent languages (e.g., English), whereas larger units are phonologically easier to process, and thus they are developed from the beginning of reading. In contrast, children with orthographically consistent languages (e.g., Greek, Italian, Spanish) develop orthographic representations that code phonology at the smallest grain size from the beginning of reading (Goswami et al. 2003). An interesting finding provided by Goswami et al.(2003) is that English-speaking children developed more than one recoding strategy in an effort to cope with the challenge of decoding the opaque orthography of English. It was found that they develop both “small grain” and “large grain” size strategies at the same time, confirming the flexible-unit-size hypothesis (Goswami et al. 2003). Several studies demonstrate that L2 is subject to L1 influence at the phonological and phonetic level (Best and Strange 1992; Georgiou et al. 2020; Georgiou 2021a). Non-native acoustic information is filtered through the listeners’ L1 resulting in deficient L2 speech perception and production patterns. In this line, it is predicted that Greek speakers will attempt to decode English words using patterns of their L1, and more specifically, processes of shallow orthography (i.e., decode one by one the phonemes of a given word) rather than processes of deep orthography for the decoding of English words. Thus, we expect that LanguagesLanguages Languages2021, 6 2021, x FOR 2021, 6, xPEER, 6FOR, x FOR REVIEWPEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW 6 of 126 of 612 of 12

Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 12

determineddetermineddetermined by the by similarity theby the similarity similarity of the of correspondence the of the correspondence correspondence of graphemes of graphemes of graphemes and phonemes and and phonemes phonemes between between between the twothe languages.the two two languages. languages. A well-known debate regarding the development of reading is the grain size of the A well-knownAF2 well-known debate regarding debate regarding the development the development of reading of readingis the grain is the size grain of the size of the orthography–phonologyorthography–phonologyorthography–phonology correspondences correspondences correspondences that arthate thatimportant are ar importante important for the for learning forthe the learning learning of reading. of reading.of reading. 2800 2600 2400 2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 It wasIt suggested wasIt was suggested suggested that children that that children children employ employ bothemploy small-sizeboth both small-size small-size (i.e., grapheme–phoneme (i.e., (i.e., grapheme–phoneme grapheme–phoneme mappings) mappings) mappings) 100 and large-sizeandand large-size large-size correspondences correspondences correspondences (i.e., rhyme(i.e., (i.e., rhyme and rhyme wholeand and whole word whole word recognition) word recognition) recognition) in reading; in reading;in reading; this this this iː dependsdependsdepends on several onuː onseveral factorsseveral factors suchfactors suchas suchreading as readingas readingtask type,task ta type,sk200the type, type the the typeof words,type of words,of etc.words, (Goswami etc. etc. (Goswami (Goswami and Eastandand 2000;East East 2000;Perry 2000; Perry and Perry Ziegler and and Ziegler 2000). Ziegler 2000). Small 2000). Small un Smallit correspondences un itun correspondencesit correspondences are difficult are are difficult difficultto be toread be to readbe read i ɪby childrenby bychildren children with withorthographically with orthographically ʊorthographically inconsistent inconsistent inconsistentɔː languages languages300 languages (e.g., (e.g.,English), (e.g., English), English), whereas whereas whereas larger larger larger units are phonologicallyu easier to process, and thus they are developed from the beginning units areunits phonologically are phonologically easier to easier process,ɒ to process,and thus and they thus400 are theydeveloped are developed from the from beginning the beginning of reading. In contrast,ɜː children with orthographically consistent languages (e.g., Greek, ofe reading.of reading. In contrast, In contrast, childreno children with orthog withraphically orthographically consistent consistent languages languages (e.g., Greek, (e.g., Greek, Italian,Italian,e Italian,Spanish) Spanish) Spanish) develop develop developorthographic ɑːorthographic orthographic representations re presentationsrepresentations500 that thatcode that codephonology code phonology phonology at the at atthe the smallestsmallest smallestgrain grain size grain fromsize size fromthe from beginning the the beginning beginning of reading of readingof reading(Goswami (Goswami (GoswamiF1 et al. et2003). al.et al.2003). An 2003). interesting An An interesting interesting 600 findingfinding providedfinding provided provided by Goswami by byGoswamiʌ Goswami et al. et(2003) al.et al.(2003) is (2003) that is English-speaking thatis that English-speaking English-speaking children children children developed developed developed moremore thanmore thanone than recoding one one recoding recoding strategy strategy strategyin an in effort anin aneffort to effortcope to copewithto700 cope withthe with challenge the the challenge challenge of decoding of decodingof decoding the the the opaqueopaque orthographyopaque orthography orthography of English. of English.of English.It was It foundwas It was found that found theythat that developthey they develop developboth both“small both “small grain” “small grain” and grain” and and a 800 Greek “large“large grain”“large grain” size grain” strategiessizeæ size strategies strategies at the at same theat the same time, same time,confirming time, confirming confirming the flexible-unit-size the the flexible-unit-size flexible-unit-size hypothesis hypothesis hypothesis (Goswami(Goswami et al. et 2003).al. 2003). (Goswami et al. 2003). 900 English SeveralSeveral studiesSeveral studies demonstrate studies demonstrate demonstrate that L2 that is that subjecL2 isL2 subjec ist to subjec L1t toinfluencet L1 to influenceL1 influence at the at phonological the at the phonological phonological and and and phoneticphoneticphonetic level level(Best level (Bestand (Best Strange and and Strange Strange1992; 1992;Georgiou 1992; Georgiou Georgiou et al. et2020;1000 al. et 2020;al.Georgiou 2020; Georgiou Georgiou 2021a). 2021a). Non-native2021a). Non-native Non-native acousticacoustic acousticinformation information information is filtered is filtered is throughfiltered through throughthe li thesteners’ the listeners’ li steners’L1 resulting L1 L1resulting resulting in deficient in deficientin deficient L2 speech L2 L2speech speech Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 12 perceptionperceptionperception and productionand and production production patterns. patterns. patterns. In this In li thisInne, this itli ne,is li predicted ne,it is it predicted is predicted that Greekthat. that Greek speakers Greek speakers speakers will will will Languages 2021, 6, 118 6 of 12 Figure 1. F1 × F2 of the (Cypriot) Greekattempt andattempt English attemptto decode to (Timberlake todecode decodeEnglish English 2004) Englishwords vowels words usingwords as produced using patterns using patterns by patterns theirof their respectiveof oftheirL1, their and adultL1, L1,moreand native and more specifically, more specifically, specifically, speakers. processesprocessesprocesses of shallow of shallow of shalloworthography orthography orthography (i.e., decode(i.e., (i.e., decode onedecode by one one one by the oneby phonemesone the the phonemes phonemes of a given of a of given word)a given word) word) Greek and Englishrather Phonologicalrather thanrather thanprocesses thanand processes Orthographical processes of deep of deepoforthography deep Systems orthography orthography for the for decoding forthe the decoding decoding of English of Englishof Englishwords. words. Thus,words. Thus, we Thus, we we The GreekGreekexpect vowel expectand that expectsystem English learnersthat that learnersconsistslearners learnershavewill of willhavewilltwo five will have havebetter fundamentallypure havebetter better performancevowels better performance performance performance/i edifferent a ino u/,the in in and theauditory orthographicthein auditorytherethe auditory auditory testare test comparednotestsystems. comparedtest compared compared to the to to the theto orthography the vowel durationAlthoughorthography distinctions; theorthography correspondenceorthography test. however,test. Fortest. Fortest.instance, For ofvowel instance,For grapheme–phoinstance, instance, durationit is it predicted it is is predictedit is predicted is nemeaffected predicted that is that inbyoftenthat most instressthat in mostviolated mostincases, (Georgiou cases,most cases, therein cases, thereGreek thereandwill willthere bewithwill bea will selectionbe aa selection abe selection a selection of the English Themistocleous,plethoraof of2021).the ofletters/digraphs English theof The the English vowel Englishgraphemegrapheme grapheme systemfor grapheme every of instead insteadEnglishsingle instead ofinsteadvowel of (Received of (e.g.,whenof when Pronunciation)whenthe listeninglistening when Greek listening listening tophoneme to words isto more wordsto representing /i/words can representing berepresenting thethe English the the contrast complexwritten than Englishthe as , < contrastEnglishη>, system < υcontrast>, contrast, /i ,/ ɪ/i/ or ː-/ /ibecause of<ːυι/ 11becausethe>), the main eachlatter latter the orthographicthe vowellatter English English latter English monophthongs graphemeEnglish grapheme grapheme grapheme grapheme might might that (i.e., might be canbemight letter) associated associated bebe associated beis onlyassociated with with withthe the with the Greek the vowels lax /ɪ ʊ eread æ ʌ ɒin/ Greek orone tense mannerGreek vowels Greek/iː u vowelsː (Coutsougera ɜː /e/ vowels ɔː/e/ + ɑː /e/ /e// (Roach, + since +/e/ /e/ /e/ + since/e/the since2007). 2004). since learners’ the the Theref Thisthe learners’ learners’ learners’ studyL1ore, decodes the L1 L1will decodesL1Greek decodes focus decodesphonemes orthographic onphonemes phonemes specificphonemes one by Englishone system oneone. one by by For one.by can one. one.the For be ForEnglish For the the the English EnglishEnglish contrast vowel pairsdescribed thatcontrast are ascontrast predictedshallow contrast/ɑː/ - /æ/,(or/ɑː /to / transparent). -ɑːit /æ/,be /is - difficult/æ/,predicted it is it predicted is predicted toIn a discriminate contrast,preference a preference a a preference preferencethe for byEnglish the Greek for English for forthe orthographic speakers the theEnglish graphemeEnglish English sincegrapheme graphemesystem grapheme both instead allows instead of instead instead of of of as the membersa grapheme of theas contraststhe asto latter therepresentas the latterare English latter notlatter Englishmore present graphemeEnglish English than grapheme in graphemeone graphemethe might phonem Greek might be might mightphonologicalassocie; bee.g., associbe beated grapheme associ associated withated system.ated withthe withGreek theSpecifically,can thethe Greek stand vowels GreekGreek vowelsfor vowels /e/vowels either + /a/./e/ /e/ /e/+With /a/. + /a/. With With With respect the Englishphoneme vowelrespect /æ/ contrastsrespect suchtorespect the toasare Englishthetointo the thethe English following: English Englishcontrast or phonemecontrast contrast / contrastɪ//ɑː - //i ː-/, /ɑː/ /ɑːʌ ɑː//,/ /ɑː/ --/ itsuch-// /ʌ-ʌis/, /,/ ʌithypothesized/as/, itɑː is /isit in- hypothesizedhypothesized/æ/,is . hypothesized and / thatɔːThus,/ - that/learnersɒthat /. the that learners learners English learnerswill will mostlywill mostlywill mostly mostly associate both Theorthographic Perceptualassociateassociate Assimilationsystemassociate both canbothEnglishEnglish both beModel English described Englishtarget target (Best target phonemes phonemes targetas1995; deepphonemes phonemes Best(or with with opaque). and withthe Tylerwith grapheme theAccording the 2007)grapheme grapheme predicts to insteadinstead the Orthographic insteadthe ofofinstead of because because of because they because are heard as discriminationDepth Hypothesisthey of non-native arethey theyheard are (ODH), are heard as sound heardacoustic acoustic asshallow acoustic ascontrasts acousticinstancesinstances orthographies instances on instances of the the of basisGreek Greek the ofallow theGreekof /a/, /a/, Greekthenew which /a/, whichassimilation readers/a/, which is which transcripted is transcriptedis (i.e., transcripted isof transcripted children)each with with thewith to thewithEnglish the English the English English . Finally, contrastdecode member. the toFinally,written. the. Finally, phonological wordsinFinally, regardin in easier, regard regard in to regard the categoribeing to to English thethe to able the EnglishEnglishes contrast Englishtoof readthe contrastcontrast listeners’contrastthem/ɔː/ - / /withɒɔː/,/ / Greek -ɔː L1./ fewer/ɒ -/, /, GreekɒIn Greek /,learners Greekproblemsparticular, learners learners learnerswill since probably itwill will willthese probably probably probably mostly mostly mostly mostly select the proposeswords six assimilation selectare recognizedselect theselect English the types the English withEnglish graphemeEnglishthat respect graphemedeterm grapheme grapheme toine the instead the phonology insteaddiscrimination instead ofinstead , of of , ofsince ,the , of sincelanguage.these non-native sincesince these English thesethese On English sound EnglishvowelsEnglishthe contrary, vowels arevowelsvowels heard are areare heard as heardheard as asas acoustic contrasts.deep According orthographiesacousticacoustic to acoustic instancesthe model, createinstances instancesinstances of difficultiesmuch the of Greek ofdiscriminationtheof the the Greek for /o/ Greek Greek newwhich /o/ /o/ readers /o/which difficulty is whichwhich transcripted isby istranscripted is decreasingis transcripted transcriptedpredicted with theirwith thein with thewith English readingthe theSingle the English English English< tempoο>. Note< .ο >.< ο Note Notethat>. Note that that the English Categorysince assimilation thethe word Englishthe where recognitionthe English English both is members oftenprocess is oftenoften associatedis oftenrelies of associatedassociated a so associatedonund with the contrast words’ withthe with Greek the aremorphology the GreekGreek assimilated/u/ Greek due /u//u/ to /u/ duevia due its todue the to graphemicthe to its toprinted its same graphemicits graphemic graphemic visual similarity similarity similarity similarity to to to to the Greek L1 phonologicalorthographicthe category, Greekthe structurethe Greek digraph withGreek digraphof digraphboth the digraph<ου membersword>, < ,ου>, which >,constituting whichstands which et al. stands stands 1987;for stands /u/. equally Katzfor for Thus, for/u/. /u/. and /u/. gThus, ood aFrost Thus, Thus,negative or a 1992). bad anegative a negative negative exemplarseffect Therefore, effect of effect effectorthography ofODH of orthographyof orthography orthography is is is is predicted of that supportscategory.predicted that Betterpredicted shallowpredicted sincediscriminati since theorthographicsince since English the theon the English Englishaccuracy languageEnglish syst language languageems languageis has expectedmight a hasd haseep has forcea a d orthographic deepineepa d speakerstheeep orthographic orthographic orthographicCategory tosystem lean Goodness system with onsystem prelexical withone with grapheme one one grapheme grapheme to stand for differencedecoding assimilationto standbyto identifying tostand infor whicstand severalforhseveral two foratseveral first severalphonemes,non-native phonemes, glance phonemes, phonemes, one soundwhich which by which contrast one Greek Greekwhich the Greek s phonemesdoes areGreek assimilated does notnot doespossess. possess. notof anot possess.word, to We possess.aWe single believe while believeWe We deep thatbelieve believethat the discriminationthethat that the the of all L1 phonologicalorthographicdiscrimination categorydiscrimination systemsdiscrimination with might oneofcontrasts allmember ofcause ofcontrastsall will speakersall conscontrasts be contrasts difficult titutingwill to relywill sincebea goodwill on difficultbe the lexical exemplar be grapheme–phonemedifficult difficultdecodingsince of sincethat the sincewithout category thegrapheme–phoneme the correspondences breakinggrapheme–phoneme grapheme–phoneme between the two while thethe otherwordcorrespondences intoconstitutescorrespondences smallercorrespondences a parts languagesdeviant between (Escudero between one.between the are twoMoreover, incongruent.andthe the languages twoWanrooij two languages the languages We are2010).newly alsoincongruent. are predictintroducedare incongruent. incongruent. that We Universal there also We We willpredictalso also bepredict orthographicthatpredict therethat that there there effects at the Perceptual ModelThewill results(UPM; willbewill ofGeorgiouorthographicbe Erdener beorthographic sublexicalorthographic 2021b) and effectsBurnham levelpredicts effects (i.e.,effectsat (2005)that grapheme–phonemetheat completely atsuggestthesu blexicalthe su blexicalthatsu overlapping blexical levelspeakers correspondence). level (i.e.,level withcontrasts (i.e., grapheme–phoneme (i.e.,transparent grapheme–phoneme grapheme–phoneme However, we cannot specify L1 orthographiescorrespondence).correspondence). cannotwhether easily However, learn thisHowever, effect new we wouldL2 wecannot words cannot be specify either when specify on whetherthere the whether prelexicalis notthis thisa effect straightforwardor effect postlexical would would be leveleitherbe either due on toonthe the the nature of (thoseLanguages sharing 2021 correspondence).the,, 6,, xxsame FORFOR PEERPEER above-chance REVIEWREVIEW However, responses; we cannot i.e., L1specify responses whether for giventhis effect L2 categories would be either on the 7 of 12 Languages 2021,, 6,, xx FORFOR PEERPEER REVIEWREVIEWthe task. Table1 shows the English graphemes and phonemes and the possible association7 of 12 that significantlyrelationshipprelexical differprelexical betweenprelexical or from postlexical orthographyor apostlexicalor predeterpostlexical level and minedleveldue levelphonolo todue chance thedue to gy,na thetoture asscore)the na in ofturena the theturemight ofcase task. theof ofthe receivetask.Table languages task. Table 1 poorTableshows 1with shows 1 the shows an English the the English English discriminationopaquegraphemes unlessorthographicgraphemes listenersgraphemes and phonemes system.ofandperceive Englishand phonemes phonemesEscudero some and graphemes the andphonetic possibleand etthe withal.the possible distance possible(2014)a Greekssociation a ssociation phonemes.betweenargued association of English thatthe of English ofL2the graphemesEnglish sounds; effect graphemes graphemes of with L1 withGreek with Greek Greek in the orthographylatter phonemes.scenario,phonemes. phonemes.depends the goodness-of-fit on the similari ratingsty ofof thethe above-chance L1–L2 grapheme–phoneme responses TableTable 1. 1.Target Target English English graphemes graphemes and and phonemes phonemes and and possible possible association association of of English English graphemes graphemes significantlycorrespondences. differ with each For other.example,Table Consid 1.when Targetering the English the grapheme–phoneme phonetic graphemes distance and phonemes betweencorrespondences theand Greekpossible between association of English graphemes with Greek phonemes by the Greek learners of English. and EnglishSpanish vowels and Dutch(see Figure werewith with 1)congruent, Greekand Greek the phonemes phonemes categorizationSpanish by by thele thearners Greek Greekof English learnersof learners Dutch ofvowels of English.were English. facilitatedby Greek in the learning of Dutch words, whereas when the grapheme–phoneme correspondences were speakers in previous studies (see GeorgiouEnglishEnglish Grapheme Grapheme2019), it is predicted English Englishthat in Phoneme the auditory Possible Possible AssociationAssociation discriminationincongruent, test, learners the learning will ofassimilate Dutch words both - memberswas hindered. of the This English shows / ɪɪvowel/ -that /iːː/ learners contrasts of native /i/ - /ee/ - - /ɪɪ// -- /i/iːː// /i/ /i/ /i/ - -- /ee/ /ee//ee/ /ɔː/ - /ɒ/,languages /ɑː/ - /æ/, withand /ɑːtransparent/ - /ʌ/ to a singleorthographies Greek phonological do not always category, haveɑːː struggling difficulties to in the - - /ɑːː// --- /æ//æ//æ/ /ea/ /ea/ /ea/ - -- /a/ /a//a/ perceiveacquisition much phonetic of sounds distance from between opaque the L2 two orthographic contrast members. systemsɑ Alternatively,since this ability is - - /ɑːː// -/-- //ʌ// /a/ /a/ /a/- --/u/ /u//u/ according to UPM, these contrasts will receive poor discrimination since they will be - - /ɔː// - //ɒ// /u/ /u/ /u/- --/o/ /o//o/ classified as above chance responses in the same set of L1 phonetic categories. In contrast, the discrimination accuracy of the English /ɪ/ - /iː/ vowel contrast will range from moderate 2.2. Methodology Methodology to good since Greek learners may2. be Methodology able to perceive within category acoustic differences 2.1. Participants between the members of the contrast2.1.2.1. Participants Participants (see Georgiou 2019); therefore, this contrast will be more accurately discriminated than FourteentheFourteen previous Greek Greek contrasts. learners learners of of English English (8 (8 males, males, 6 females)6 females) participated participated in in the the study. study. The The EnglishEnglish learners learners were were recruited recruited from from universities universities in in Cyprus; Cyprus; specifically, specifically, they they were were BA, BA, MA,MA, or or PhD PhD students. students. First, First, a a questionnaire questionnaire was wa provideds provided to to the the participants participants to to obtain obtain informationinformationinformation about aboutabout their theirtheir characteristics characteristicscharacteristics such suchsuch asasas age,age,age, ageage of of EnglishEnglish learninglearning learning onset,onset, onset, etc.,etc., etc., asas aswell well as as information information about their proficiencyproficiency levellevel inin English. English. All All learners learners were were living living permanentlypermanently in in Cyprus, Cyprus, and and none none of of them them had had ever ever lived lived either either for for a shorta short or or a longa long period period ofof time time in in another another country. country. Their Their ages ages varied varied from from 21 21 to to 30 30 years years (M (ageMage= = 26.9), 26.9), and and the the of time in another country. Their ages varied from 21 to 30 years (Mageage = 26.9), and the mean onset of learning English was 8.9 years. Moreover, the questionnaire asked learners mean onset of learning English was 8.9 years. Moreover, the questionnaire asked learners to rate their speaking, writing, understanding, and reading skills in English on a 1–5 point toto raterate theirtheir speaking,speaking, writing,writing, understanding,understanding, andand readingreading skillsskills inin EnglishEnglish onon aa 1–51–5 pointpoint Likert scale (1 = very bad, 2 = bad, 3 = moderate, 4 = good, 5 = very good). According to Likert scale (1 = very bad, 2 = bad, 3 = moderate, 4 = good, 5 = very good). According to their mean ratings, they had moderate speaking and understanding skills (M = 3.2, M = 3.2) theirtheir meanmean ratings,ratings, theythey hadhad moderatemoderate speakingspeaking andand understandingunderstanding skillsskills ((M = 3.2, M = and good writing and reading skills (M = 4.1, M = 4.3) in English. All participants had 3.2) and good writing and reading skills (M = 4.1, MM = 4.3) in English. All participants had normal hearing and did not have any language disorders. normal hearing and did not have anyany languagelanguage disorders.disorders. 2.2. Stimuli 2.2. Stimuli TheThe stimuli stimuli consisted consisted of of four four English English vowel vowel contrasts: contrasts: /ɪɪ/ -- /iːː/,, /ɑː/ -- /æ/,/æ/, /ɑː/ - -//ʌ/, and/, and The- stimuli. The consisted English of vowels four English were recorded vowel contrasts: at a 44.1 /ɪɪ kHz// -- /i/iːː/,/, sample //ɑː// -- /æ/,/æ/, by // twoɑː// -- // adultʌ/,/, andand /ɔː/ - /ɒ/. The English vowels were recorded at a 44.1 kHz sample by two adult native native//ɔː// -- speakers//ɒ/./. TheThe ofEnglishEnglish English vowelsvowels (Received werewere Pronunciation); recordedrecorded atat aa 44.1 one44.1 femalekHzkHz samplesample and one byby male. twotwo Theadultadult native nativenative speakers of English (Received Pronunciation); one female and one male. The native speakersspeakers were of English asked to (Received produce atPronunciatio a normal speakingn); one ratefemale carrier and phrases one male. that The included native speakers were asked to produce at a normal speaking rate carrier phrases that included monosyllable nonsense words, which targeted thethe membersmembers ofof thethe vowelvowel contrastscontrasts inin thethe

frame of /CVC/. The nonsense words corresponded to the phonotactics of real words and were of low probability (for the calculation of word probability, see Vitevitch and Luce 2004). The carrier phrase was “I said /CVC/ to some friends” (following Levy and Strange, 2008). Two different acoustic versions of the same vowels emerged from the productions of the two English speakers. The /CVC/ words were detached from the carrier phrases in Praat speech processing software (Boersma and Weenink 2020) and transferred to the script.

2.3. Procedure 2.3.1. Auditory Test The participants of the study completed an auditory AXB discrimination test (Best et al., 2001) in which they listened in a random order to a triad of tokens that targeted the English vowel contrasts, and they were asked toto decidedecide whetherwhether thethe secondsecond vowelvowel (X)(X) waswas thethe samesame asas thethe firstfirst (A)(A) oror thethe thirdthird (B)(B) vowel.vowel. WordsWords werewere presentedpresented inin fourfour possiblepossible trialtrial types:types: AAB,AAB, ABB,ABB, BAA,BAA, andand BBA.BBA. ParticipantsParticipants werewere askedasked toto decidedecide byby clickingclicking onon thethe appropriate response that was visually provided through the PC script. The learners saw twotwo boxesboxes withwith thethe labellabel “first”“first” forfor thethe firstfirst vowelvowel andand “third”“third” forfor thethe thirdthird vowel;vowel; theythey discriminated a total of 96 items each (4 contrasts × 4 trials × 3 vowels × 2 repetitions) in four different AXB tests (one for each contrast). The interstimulus interval was set at 1 s. To prevent solely auditory discrimination ofof thethe tokens,tokens, thethe AA andand BB tokenstokens werewere produced by a single female voice, whereas the X tokens were produced by all female and male English speakers (following Escudero and Wanrooij 2010).

Languages 2021, 6, 118 7 of 12 Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 12

monosyllable nonsense words, which targeted the members of the vowel contrasts in the frame of /CVC/. The nonsense words corresponded to the phonotactics of real words and were of low probabilityF2 (for the calculation of word probability, see Vitevitch and Luce 2800 2600 240020042200). The2000 carrier1800 phrase1600 was1400 “I said1200 /CVC/1000 to800 some600 friends”400 (following Levy and Strange 2008). Two different acoustic versions of the same vowels emerged100 from the productions of the two English speakers. The /CVC/ words were detached from the carrier phrases 200 iniː Praat speech processinguː software (Boersma and Weenink 2020) and transferred to the script. ɔː 300 i ɪ ʊ u 2.3. Procedure ɜː ɒ 400 2.3.1. Auditorye Test o 500 The participantse of the study completedɑː an auditory AXB discriminationF1 test (Best et al. 2001) in which they listened inʌ a random order to a triad600 of tokens that targeted the English vowel contrasts, and they were asked to decide whether the second vowel (X) was the same as the first (A) or the third (B) vowel. Words were presented700 in four possible trial types: AAB, ABB, BAA,a and BBA. Participants were asked to800 decide by clicking on the Greek appropriate response thatæ was visually provided through the PC script. The learners saw two boxes with the label “first” for the first vowel and “third”900 for the third vowel; they English discriminated a total of 96 items each (4 contrasts × 4 trials × 3 vowels × 2 repetitions) in four different AXB tests (one for each contrast). The interstimulus1000 interval was set at 1 s. To prevent solely auditory discrimination of the tokens, the A and B tokens were produced by Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW . 4 of 12 a single female voice, whereas the X tokens were produced by all female and male English Figure 1. F1 × F2 of the (Cypriot)Languages Greek and 2021 English, 6, x FOR (Timberlake PEER REVIEW 2004) vowels as produced by their respective adult native 7 of 12 speakers (following Escudero and Wanrooij 2010). speakers. 2.3.2.Greek Orthography and English Test Phonological and Orthographical Systems Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW GreekTheThe participants andGreek English vowel also systemhave completed Tabletwo consists an1.fundamentally Target orthography of five English pure graphemes AXBdifferentvowels discrimination /i andorthographice a phonemeso u/, and test andthere thatsystems.7 possibleof was are12 no association of English graphemes

Althoughidenticalvowel todurationthe the correspondence auditory distinctions; test. Only of however,with grapheme–pho the Greek response vowel phonemes labelsdurationneme by differed.is the oftenis Greek affected violated Instead learners by stress of inof presenting English.Greek (Georgiou with the a and plethoralabelsThemistocleous, “first” of letters/digraphs and “third” 2021). for The thefor vowel firstevery and singlesystem the third vowel of English vowel, (e.g., respectively, (Receivedthe Greek Pronunciation)phoneme the labels /i/ contained can is bemore written as <ι>, <η>, <υ>, <οι>, <ει>, or ), each Grapheme orthographic grapheme English (i.e., Phoneme letter) is only Possible Association Tablethecomplex orthographic1. Target than English the representation graphemes Greek system and of phonemes Englishconsisting vowels. and of possible11 main Because association vowel an Englishmonophthongs of English phoneme graphemes that might can be Table 1. Target English graphemes and phonemes and- possible association of English /ɪ/ - /i ːgraphemes/ /i/ - /ee/ withreadhave laxGreek in several / oneɪ ʊ phonemes e manneræ orthographic ʌ ɒ/ or by (Coutsougera tense the Greek representations,/iː uː ɜːlearners ɔː 2007). ɑː/ (Roach, of Theref English. we selected 2004).ore, the This English Greek study orthographic graphemes will focus that on system specific would can haveEnglish be describeda highvowel chance pairsas shallow of that being are(orperceived predictedtransparent). asto correspondencesbe In difficult contrast, - to the discriminate English of the wrong orthographic by Greek phonemes /ɑ speakersː/ system- /æ/ rather sinceallows than both /ea/ - /a/ athe graphemeEnglishmembers actual ones Graphemeto of represent duethe contrasts to the more effect are than of English not L1 one present orthography; phonem Phoneme in - thee; e.g., this Greek grapheme would phonological Possible allow us can Association to/system.ɑ ːstand investigate/ - /ʌ/ for Specifically, either any /a/ - /u/ phonemeorthographicthe English /æ/ - effects.such vowel as Specifically,contrasts in areor the thephoneme / ɪfollowing:/ - /iː/ , /ɑː - / /-suchɪ/ /æ/, - /i ː/,as / ɑːin/-/ -. /ʌ/, / andɑː /i// --Thus, /æ/, //ee/ɔː/ - and /theɒ/ contrasts/ ɔːEnglish/ - /ɒ/. /u/ - /o/ orthographicwere representedThe -Perceptualsystem by can the Assimilation be graphemes described Model /ɑ asː/ -deep - /æ/ ,(Best (or opaque).1995; - ,Best According and -Tyler , /ea/ to - andthe/a/2007) Orthographic predicts - , the Depthrespectively.discrimination Hypothesis - All participants (ODH), of non-native shallow performed2. sound Methodologyorthographies /ɑː/ the contrasts- /ʌ orthography/ allowon the testnew basis after readers of thethe /a/ auditory -(i.e.,assimilation /u/ children) test. of toeach decodecontrast the written member - words to the easier, phonological 2.1.being Participants /ɔː able/ - / ɒcategorito/ read themes of withthe fewerlisteners’ /u/problems - L1./o/ In since particular, these it words3. Resultsproposes are recognized six assimilation with respect types tothat the determ phonologyine the of discrimination the language. ofOn non-native the contrary, sound Fourteen Greek learners of English (8 males, 6 females) participated in the study. The deepcontrasts. Theorthographies results According of the create auditory to difficultiesthe model, test demonstrated muchfor new discrimination readers that theby decreasing participants’ difficulty istheir performancepredicted reading in tempo the in the Single 2. Methodology English learners were recruited from universities in Cyprus; specifically, they were BA, sincediscriminationCategory the word assimilation recognition of contrasts where process in nonsense both relies members L2on wordsthe of words’ a wassound poor,morphology contrast ranging are via fromassimilated the 57% printed to to 69%. visual the Insame 2.1. Participants MA, or PhD students. First, a questionnaire was provided to the participants to obtain orthographictheL1 orthography phonological structure test, category, their of the discrimination word with both(Frost members et performance al. 1987; constituting Katz was and evenFrost equally worse1992). good comparedTherefore, or bad exemplars toODH the Fourteen Greek learners of Englishinformation (8 males, about 6 females) their characteristics participated in such the study.as age, Theage of English learning onset, etc., as supportsauditoryof that test,that category. rangingshallow Better fromorthographic 42%discriminati to 65%. syst Tableonems accuracy 2might shows force is the expected meanspeakers discrimination in to the lean Category on accuracyprelexical Goodness English learners were recruited fromwell universities as information in Cyprus; about specifically,their proficiency they werelevel BA,in English. All learners were living decodingof Englishdifference by vowel identifying assimilation contrasts at in byfirst whic Greek glanceh two learners onenon-native by in one both soundthe the phonemes auditory contrast s andof are a theassimilatedword, discrimination while to deep a single MA, or PhD students. First, a questionnairepermanently wa ins Cyprus,provided and to nonethe participants of them had toev obtainer lived either for a short or a long period orthographictest.L1 Figure phonological2 illustratessystems category might the boxplots causewith one speakers of member discrimination to relycons ontituting accuracy.lexical a gooddecoding exemplar without of thatbreaking category information about their characteristicsof time such in asanother age, age country. of English Their learning ages varied onset, from etc., 21as to 30 years (Mage = 26.9), and the the whilewordA two-way intothe smallerother repeated constitutes parts measures (Escudero ANOVA a deviant andwith Wanrooijone.Scores Moreover,as the2010). dependent the newly variable introduced (percentages Universal of well as information about their proficiencymean onset oflevel learning in English. English All was learners 8.9 years. were Moreover, living the questionnaire asked learners correctPerceptualThe responses), results Model of and Erdener (UPM;Test (two Georgiouand levels) Burnham 2021b) and Contrast(2005) predicts suggest(four that levels) that completely asspeakers the within-subject overlapping with transparent factorscontrasts permanently in Cyprus, and none ofto themrate their had speaking,ever lived writing,either for understanding, a short or a long and period reading skills in English on a 1–5 point L1was orthographies(those used. sharing The results cannottherevealed same easily above-chance a significantlearn new effectresponses; L2 words of Test i.e.,when(F(3, L1 13) thereresponses = 8.33, is notp th e same vowels emerged from the productions of the two English speakers. The /CVC/ words were detached from the carrier phrases in Praat speech processing software2.3. (Boersma Procedure and Weenink 2020) and transferred to the script. 2.3.1. Auditory Test The participants of the study completed an auditory AXB discrimination test (Best et 2.3. Procedure al., 2001) in which they listened in a random order to a triad of tokens that targeted the 2.3.1. Auditory Test English vowel contrasts, and they were asked to decide whether the second vowel (X) was The participants of the study thecompleted same as an the auditory first (A) AXBor the discrimination third (B) vowel. test Words (Best etwere presented in four possible trial al., 2001) in which they listened intypes: a random AAB, or ABB,der toBAA, a triad and of BBA. tokens Participants that targeted were the asked to decide by clicking on the English vowel contrasts, and they wereappropriate asked to response decide whether that was the visually second provided vowel (X) through was the PC script. The learners saw the same as the first (A) or the thirdtwo (B) boxesvowel. with Words the were label presented “first” for in the four first possible vowel trialand “third” for the third vowel; they types: AAB, ABB, BAA, and BBA.discriminated Participants werea total asked of 96 toitems decide each by (4 clicking contrasts on × the4 trials × 3 vowels × 2 repetitions) in appropriate response that was visuallyfour different provided AXB through tests the(one PC for script. each Thecontrast). learners The saw interstimulus interval was set at 1 s. two boxes with the label “first” forTo the prevent first vowel solely and auditory “third” discriminationfor the third vowel; of the they tokens, the A and B tokens were discriminated a total of 96 items eachproduced (4 contrasts by a single × 4 trials female × 3 voice, vowels whereas × 2 repetitions) the X tokens in were produced by all female and four different AXB tests (one for eachmale contrast). English speakers The interstimulus (following interval Escudero was and set Wanrooij at 1 s. 2010). To prevent solely auditory discrimination of the tokens, the A and B tokens were produced by a single female voice, whereas the X tokens were produced by all female and male English speakers (following Escudero and Wanrooij 2010).

Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 12

F2 2800 2600 2400 2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 100 iː uː 200 ɔː 300 i ɪ ʊ u ɜː ɒ 400 e o 500 e ɑː F1 ʌ 600 700

a 800 Greek æ 900 English 1000

Languages 2021, 6, 118 . 8 of 12 Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 12 Figure 1. F1 × F2 of the (Cypriot) Greek and English (Timberlake 2004) vowels as produced by their respective adult native speakers. Languages 2021,, 6,, xx FORFOR PEERPEER REVIEWREVIEW 7 of 12 Languages 2021,, 6,, xx FORFOR PEERPEER REVIEWREVIEW Table 2. Mean discrimination accuracy (%) and Standard7 Deviations of 12 (SD) of English contrasts by

Greek and EnglishGreek Phonological and English and Orthographicalhave two fundamentallyGreek Systems learners anddifferent significant orthographic difference for systems. the discrimination accuracy between auditory and TheAlthough Greek vowel the correspondence system consists of of grapheme–pho five orthographypure vowelsneme tests. /i eis aoften o u/, violatedand there in areGreek no with a vowel durationplethoraTable distinctions;of letters/digraphs 1. Target however, English for graphemes vowel every duration single and phonemes vowel is affected (e.g., and by thepossible stress Greek association(Georgiou phoneme of and /i/English can begraphemes Table 1. Target English graphemes and phonemes and possible association of English graphemes Significance of Themistocleous,written aswith 2021). <ι >,Greek <η The>, phonemes<υ vowel>, <οι>, system by<ει the>, or Greek of<υι English>), learners each (Receivedorthographic of English. Pronunciation) graphemeAuditory (i.e., is Test letter)more is only Orthography Test with Greek phonemes by the Greek learners of English. Difference complexread than in the one Greek manner system (Coutsougera consisting 2007). of 11 Theref main ore,vowel the monophthongs Greek orthographic that cansystem be can be English Grapheme English Phoneme Possible Association lax /ɪ ʊ edescribed æ ʌ ɒ/ or tenseasEnglish shallow /iː uː ɜː(orGrapheme ɔː transparent). ɑː/ (Roach, 2004). In contrast, EnglishThis Contraststudy thePhoneme willEnglish focus orthographic on specific Mean Possible (English SDsystem) Association allows Mean (SD) p Value - /ɪɪ/ - /iːː/ /i/ - /ee/ vowel pairsa grapheme that are topredicted represent - to more be difficult than one to discriminatephonem /ɪɪe;// - -e.g., /i/i byːː// graphemeGreek speakers 69can since (6.6) stand both /i/ /i/ -for- /ee//ee/ either 65 (4.6) >0.05 ɑːː membersphoneme of the contrasts /æ/ such are as -not in present or in phoneme the Greek / /ɑː ɑphonologicalːː/// ---such /æ//æ//æ/ as in system.. Specifically, 66Thus, (6) /ea/ /ea/the --English /a//a/ 46 (9.4) <0.05 ɑ the Englishorthographic vowel contrasts system are can- the be following:described as/ɪ/ -deep /iː/, (or/ ɑːɑːː /opaque). -/- /ʌ//, /ɑː/ According- /æ/, and /57 ɔːto/ (4.9) the- /ɒ /.Orthographic /a/ - /u/ 38 (5.3) <0.05 Languages 2021 -, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW / // -- // // /a/ /a/ -- /u//u/ 9 of 12 TheDepth Perceptual Hypothesis Assimilation (ODH), - Modelshallow (Best orthographies 1995; Best /ɔː// -allowand //ɒ// Tyler new 2007)readers predicts59 (i.e., (10) children) /u/ /u/the -- /o//o/ to 42 (6) <0.05 discriminationdecode theof non-nativewritten words sound easier, contrasts being able on theto read basis them of thewith assimilation fewer problems of each since these contrastwords member are2. Methodology torecognized the phonological with respect categori to thees phonologyof the listeners’ of the L1.language. In particular, On the contrary,it proposesdeep six orthographiesassimilation types create that difficulties determine for thenew discrimination readers by decreasing of non-native their reading sound tempo 2.1. Participants contrasts.since According the word to recognition the model, muchprocess discrimination relies on the words’ difficulty morphology is predicted via in the the printed Single visual Fourteen Greek learners of English (8 males, 6 females) participated in the study. The Categoryorthographic assimilationEnglish structurewhere learners both of were themembers word recruited (Frost of a so from etund al. universities1987;contrast Katz are and assimilatedin FrostCyprus; 1992). specifically,to theTherefore, same they ODH were BA, L1 phonologicalsupportsEnglish category,that shallow learners with orthographicboth were members recruited syst constituting fromems universitiesmight equally force ingspeakersood Cyprus; or bad to specifically, exemplarslean on prelexical they were BA, MA, or PhD students. First, a questionnaire was provided to the participants to obtain of that decodingcategory.information byBetter identifying discriminati about at their firston characteristicsglance accuracy one isby expected suchone the as age,phonemesin theage Categoryof Englishof a word, Goodness learning while onset,deep etc., as differenceorthographic assimilationinformationinformation systems in whic aboutabout mighth two theirtheir non-nativecause characteristicscharacteristics speakers sound to contrastsuchsuchrely on asas slexicalage,age, are ageassimilatedage decoding ofof EnglishEnglish withoutto a learninglearning single breaking onset,onset, etc.,etc., asas well as information about their proficiency level in English. All learners were living L1 phonologicalthe wordpermanently category into smaller with in parts oneCyprus, member(Escudero and consnone andtituting of Wanrooij them a had good 2010). ev exemplarer lived either of that for category a short or a long period while the otherThepermanently resultsconstitutes of Erdener ina deviantCyprus, and andone.Burnham none Moreover, of (2005) them the suggesthad newly ever that lived introduced speakers either for withUniversal a sh transparentort or a long period of time in another country. Their ages varied from 21 to 30 years (Mage = 26.9), and the PerceptualL1 Modelorthographiesof (UPM; time in Georgiou cannotanother easily 2021b)country. learn predicts Their new agesL2that words completelyvaried when from thereoverlapping 21 to is 30 not years a contrastsstraightforward (Mageage = 26.9), and the mean onset of learning English was 8.9 years. Moreover, the questionnaire asked learners (those sharingrelationship theto ratesame between their above-chance speaking, orthography writing, responses; and understanding, phonolo i.e., L1 responsesgy, as and in the readingfor casegiven skillsof L2 languages categories in English with on aan 1–5 point that significantlyopaque totoorthographic rateratediffer theirtheir from speaking,speaking, system. a predeter writing,writing, Escuderomined understanding,understanding, etchance al. (2014) score) andand argued readingreading might that skillsskillsreceive the inin EnglishEnglish effectpoor onofon aaL1 1–51–5 pointpoint Likert scale (1 = very bad, 2 = bad, 3 = moderate, 4 = good, 5 = very good). According to discriminationorthography unlesstheir mean listenersdepends ratings, perceiveon they the hadsome similarimoderate phoneticty speaking distanceof the betweenandL1–L2 understanding thegrapheme–phoneme L2 sounds; skills (M = 3.2, M = in the correspondences.latter scenario,theirtheir meanmean Forthe ratings,ratings, example,goodness-of-fit theythey when hadhad moderatemoderate theratings grapheme–phoneme speakingspeakingof the above-chance andand understandingunderstanding correspondences responses skillsskills between ((M = 3.2, M = 3.2) and good writing and reading skills (M = 4.1, MM = 4.3) in English. All participants had significantlySpanish differnormal and with Dutch hearing each were other. and congruent, Considdid notering have Spanish the anyany phonetic languagelanguage learners distance disorders.disorders.of Dutch between were thefacilitated Greek in the and Englishlearning vowelsnormal of Dutch (see hearing Figurewords, and 1)whereas didand not the when have categorization thanyanye grapheme–phoneme languagelanguage of Englishdisorders.disorders. vowels correspondences by Greek were speakersincongruent, in previous2.2. Stimuli the studies learning (see of DutchGeorgiou words 2019), was it hi isndered. predicted This showsthat in that the learnersauditory of native discriminationlanguages test,2.2. with Stimulilearners transparent will assimilate orthographies both members do not of the always English have vowel difficulties contrasts in the The stimuli consisted of four English vowel contrasts: /ɪɪ/ - /iːː/, /ɑː/ - /æ/, /ɑː/ - /ʌ/, and /ɔː/ - /ɒ/,acquisition /ɑː/ - /æ/, andofThe sounds /stimuliɑː/ - / ʌ /fromconsisted to a singleopaque of fourGreek L2 English orthographicphonological vowel contrasts: category,systems / ɪɪsince/struggling/ -- /i/iːː/, /, this//ɑː// - - toability/æ/,/æ/, //ɑː //is -- //ʌ/,/, andand /ɔː/ - /ɒ/. The English vowels were recorded at a 44.1 kHz sample by two adult native perceive much //ɔːphonetic// -- //ɒ/./. TheThe distance EnglishEnglish between vowelsvowels thewerewere two recordedrecorded contrast atat members.aa 44.144.1 kHzkHz Alternatively, samplesample byby twotwo adultadult nativenative speakers of English (Received Pronunciation); one female and one male. The native according to UPM,speakers these of contrasts English will(Received receiv ePronunciatio poor discriminationn); one female since theyand willone bemale. The native speakers were asked to produce at a normal speaking rate carrier phrases that included classified as abovespeakers chance wereFigure responses asked 2. Boxplot into theproduce representing same setat a of normal the L1 discrimination phonetic speaking categories. ofrate English carrier Invowel contrast, phrases contrasts that in included the auditory and orthography test. monosyllableFigure nonsense 2. Boxplot words, representing which targetedthe discriminati thethe membersmemberson of English ofof thethe vowel vowelvowel contrasts contrastscontrasts in the inin auditory thethe and orthography test. the discriminationmonosyllable accuracy of nonsense the English words, /ɪ/ - /i whichː/ vowel targeted contrast thethe will membersmembers range from ofof thethe moderate vowelvowel contrastscontrasts inin thethe frame of /CVC/. The nonsense words corresponded to the phonotactics of real words and to good since Greekframe learners of /CVC/. may The be nonsense able to perceive wordsTwo corresponwithinone-way categoryded repeated to acousticthe measures phonotactics differences ANOVA of realwere words conducted and to determine differences in the were of low probability (for the4. calculation Discussion of word probability, see Vitevitch and Luce between the memberswere of of low the probability contrast (see (for Georgiou thediscriminability calculation 2019); therefore, of word of each probability,this contrast contrast in see will the Vitevitch twobe tests. andScores Lucewas the dependent variable, and 2004). The carrier phrase was “I said /CVC/ to some friends” (following Levy and Strange, more accurately2004). discriminated The carrier than phrase the previouswas “I Contrastsaid contrasts. /CVC/Thewas present to the some independent friends”study aimed (following variable. to investigateLevy The findings and Strange, the showed effect that of thereorthography was a significant on the 2008). Two different acoustic versionseffectdiscrimination of ofContrast the same of(F (3,vowelsEnglish 13) = 6.13,emergedvowelp < contrasts 0.05) from in the the byproductions auditory Greek test.learners Follow of upEnglish. Bonferroni Moreover, posthoc it of the two English speakers. Thetestsaimed /CVC/ indicated to words examine significantwere the detached locus differences or fromloci for the betweenorthogra carrier phrasesphic- effects- in -/ on/, speech- perception.- - , To-/æ/ this Praat speech processing software-end, (Boersma-/ the/, participants and and -/æ/Weenink completed - 2020)- two. and Moreover, differen transferredt the ABX findings to tests: the one showed auditory-oriented a significant effecttest and of script. Contrastone orthography-oriented(F(3, 13) = 9.54, p test.< 0.05) in the orthography test. The Bonferroni posthoc test revealedThe significantfindings showed differences that all between vowel thecontrasts- underand theinvestigation other vowel except contrasts, for /ɪ/ and- /iː/ 2.3. Procedure betweencould be discriminated- /æ/ and better-/ in/. the auditory than in the orthography test. Therefore, there We employed paired sample t-tests to investigate differences between the auditory and 2.3.1. Auditory Test is an obvious interference of the speakers’ L1 orthographic system with the discrimination theof non-native orthography sounds. test for This each is consistent contrast. with The findingsthe findings showed of several that therestudies were (e.g., significant Escudero The participants of the study completed an auditory AXB discrimination test (Best et differenceset al. 2014), between which indicate the auditory that speakers and the of orthography languages with test forshallow the contrasts orthographies- /æ/ use al., 2001) in which they listened in a random order to a triad of tokens that targeted the (theirt(13) =L1 5.12, orthographicp < 0.05), patterns-/ /( tot(13) decode = 5.77, inpup 0.05). thethe samesame asas thethe firstfirst (A)(A) oror thethe thirdthird (B)(B) vowel.vowel. WordsWords werewere presentedpresented inin fourfour possiblepossible trialtrial orthographic system in which a grapheme stands for a single phoneme, while English, types:types: AAB,AAB, ABB,ABB, BAA,BAA, andand BBA.BBA. ParticipantsParticipants werewere askedasked toto decidedecide byby clickingclicking onon thethe 4.which Discussion is the learners’ L2, has an opaque orthographic system in which a grapheme can appropriate response that was visually provided through the PC script. The learners saw standThe for present various study phonemes. aimed toNevertheless, investigate the the effect /ɪ/ - /i ofː/ orthographycontrast was on discriminated the discrimination in the twotwo boxesboxes withwith thethe labellabel “first”“first” forfor thethe firstfirst vowelvowel andand “third”“third” forfor thethe thirdthird vowel;vowel; theythey ofsame English manner vowel in contrastsboth tests. by We Greek assume learners that of English.learners Moreover,might have it aimedknown to that examine the long the discriminated a total of 96 items each (4 contrasts × 4 trials × 3 vowels × 2 repetitions) in locusduration or loci of /i/ for is orthographicassociated with effects the English on speech digraph perception. rather To this than end, , the and participants thus upon four different AXB tests (one for each contrast). The interstimulus interval was set at 1 s. hearing a vowel that was perceived as long, they associated it with the aforementioned L2 To prevent solely auditory discrimination ofof thethe tokens,tokens, thethe AA andand BB tokenstokens werewere digraph. Therefore, orthography did not affect the responses of learners since they mostly produced by a single female voice, whereas the X tokens were produced by all female and concentrated on the acoustic properties of vowels. male English speakers (following Escudero and Wanrooij 2010). Another important finding is the variation in the discrimination scores of the vowel contrasts in both the auditory and the orthography test. For the auditory test, this is justified by the different acoustic characteristics of each English vowel and their perceived similarity with Greek vowels, considering that L1 and L2 vowels are located in a shared phonological space and affect each other (Best and Tyler 2007; Flege 1995). For the orthography test, we can conclude that L1 orthography exercises different effects in each L2 vowel contrast. This might be explained through the learners’ interlanguage and the frequency in which a phoneme is represented by a specific grapheme. For example, it is rare for to represent /ɪ/, but it is very common for it to represent /iː/. To that end, learners will be able to better discriminate the /ɪ/ - /iː/ contrast in the orthography test in

Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 12

Languages 2021, 6, 118 9 of 12

Table 1. Target English graphemes and phonemes and possible association of English graphemes with Greek phonemes by the Greek learners of English. completed two different ABX tests: one auditory-oriented test and one orthography- oriented test. English Grapheme English Phoneme Possible Association The findings showed that all vowel contrasts under - investigation except for /ɪ/ - /iː/ /i/ - /ee/ could be discriminated better in the auditory than in the orthography - test. Therefore, /ɑː/ there - /æ/ /ea/ - /a/ is an obvious interference of the speakers’ L1 orthographic - system with the discrimination /ɑː/ - /ʌ/ /a/ - /u/ of non-native sounds. This is consistent with the findings of- several studies (e.g., Escudero /ɔː/ - /ɒ/ /u/ - /o/ et al. 2014), which indicate that speakers of languages with shallow orthographies use their L1 orthographic patterns to decode input2. Methodology from languages with a deep orthographic system. Specifically, Greek, which is the learners’ L1 in this study, has a transparent 2.1. Participants orthographic system in which a grapheme stands for a single phoneme, while English, which is the learners’ L2, has an opaque orthographicFourteen system Greek inlearners which of a graphemeEnglish (8 males, can 6 females) participated in the study. The stand for various phonemes. Nevertheless,English the -learnerscontrast were was recruited discriminated from universities in the in Cyprus; specifically, they were BA, same manner in both tests. We assume thatMA, learners or PhD might students. have First, known a questionnaire that the long was provided to the participants to obtain duration of /i/ is associated with the Englishinformation digraph about rather their than characteristics , and thus such upon as age, age of English learning onset, etc., as hearing a vowel that was perceived as long,well they as associated information it with about the aforementionedtheir proficiency L2 level in English. All learners were living digraph. Therefore, orthography did not affectpermanently the responses in Cyprus, of learners and none since of they them mostly had ever lived either for a short or a long period LanguagesLanguages 20212021,, 66,, xx FORFOR PEERPEER REVIEWREVIEWof time in another country. Their ages varied from 21 to 30 years (Mage = 26.9), and77 ofof the 1212 concentrated on the acoustic properties of vowels. Another important finding is the variationmean in onset the discriminationof learning English scores was of 8.9 the years. vowel Moreover, the questionnaire asked learners contrasts in both the auditory and the orthographyto rate test.theirFor speaking, the auditory writing, test, understanding, this is justified and reading skills in English on a 1–5 point by the different acoustic characteristics of eachTableTableLikert English 1.1. scale TargetTarget vowel (1 English English= very and graphemes theirgraphemesbad, perceived2 = bad, andand 3 phonemesphonemes similarity= moderate, andand 4possiblepossible = good, associationassociation 5 = very ofgood).of EnglishEnglish According graphemesgraphemes to with Greek vowels, considering that L1 andwithwiththeir L2 vowels GreekGreek mean phonemesphonemesare ratings, located bytheyby in thethe ahad Greek sharedGreek moderate learnerslearners phonological ofspeakingof English.English. and understanding skills (M = 3.2, M = space and affect each other (Best and Tyler3.2) 2007 and; Flege good 1995writing). For and the reading orthography skills (M test, = 4.1, M = 4.3) in English. All participants had EnglishEnglish GraphemeGrapheme English English PhonemePhoneme Possible Possible AssociationAssociation we can conclude that L1 orthography exercisesnormal different hearing effects and indid each not L2have vowel any contrast.language disorders. This might be explained through the learners’ interlanguage -- and the frequency in which/ /ɪɪ// -- /i/iːː// a /i/ /i/ -- /ee//ee/ phoneme is represented by a specific grapheme.2.2. Stimuli For example, -- it is rare for to represent / /ɑɑːː// -- /æ//æ/ /ea/ /ea/ -- /a//a/ ɑɑːː ʌʌ , but it is very common for it to represent .The To that stimuli end, -- consisted learners will of four be able English to/ / better// --vowel // // contrasts: /ɪ/ - /iː/, /ɑː /a/ /a// - -/æ/,- /u//u/ /ɑː/ - /ʌ/, and discriminate the - contrast in the orthography/ɔː/ - /ɒ/. The test --English in comparison vowels were to the recorded / /ɔːɔː// --- //ɒɒ/ / at a 44.1 kHz sample /u/by /u/ -two- /o//o/ adult native contrast since the vowels of the latter contrastspeakers are commonly of English represented (Received either Pronunciatio by or n); one female and one male. The native (e.g., for ‘call’ , but also for ‘wash’ 2.,2.speakers and MethodologyMethodology forwere ‘port’ asked ,to but produce also for at ‘cost’ a normal). speaking rate carrier phrases that included A crucial question that this study aimed2.1.2.1.monosyllable ParticipantsParticipants to answer nonsense was the locuswords, or which loci for targeted ortho- the members of the vowel contrasts in the graphic effects. The present study showed an orthographic influence on the phonological frameFourteenFourteen of /CVC/. GreekGreek The learners learnersnonsense ofof words EnglishEnglish correspon (8(8 males,males,ded 66 females)females) to the phonotactics participatedparticipated of inin real thethe study.study.words The Theand discrimination of non-native contrasts and, therefore, a sublexical level is activated during EnglishEnglishwere of learners learnerslow probability werewere recruitedrecruited (for the fromfrom calculation universitiesuniversities of word inin Cyprus; Cyprus;probability, specifically,specifically, see Vitevitch theythey were wereand Luce BA,BA, the decoding of L2 input. What is already known is that there were no orthographic effects MA,MA,2004). oror The PhDPhD carrier students.students. phrase First,First, was aa “I questionnairequestionnaire said /CVC/ to wa wasomess providedprovided friends” toto(following thethe participantsparticipants Levy and toto Strange, obtainobtain on a lexical level since we elicited phonological discrimination accuracy by using nonsense informationinformation2008). Two different aboutabout theirtheir acoustic characteristicscharacteristics versions suchofsuch th e asas same age,age, vowels ageage ofof EnglishEnglishemerged learninglearning from the onset,onset, productions etc.,etc., asas words. Therefore, orthography effects occurred at either a prelexical or a postlexical level. wellwellof the asas two informationinformation English speakers. aboutabout theirtheir The proficiency/CVC/proficiency words levellevel were inin detached English.English. from AllAll learnerslearnersthe carrier werewere phrases livingliving in These findings corroborate earlier findings in the literature, which demonstrate a prelexical permanentlypermanentlyPraat speech inin processing Cyprus,Cyprus, andand software nonenone ofof (Boersma themthem hadhad andeveverer Weenink livedlived eithereither 2020) forfor aaand shshortort transferred oror aa longlong periodperiod to the (e.g., Taft et al. 2008) or even both a prelexical and postlexical effect of orthography on script. auditory processing (Escudero and Wanrooijofof 2010 timetime). in Onein anotheranother critical country.country. point which TheirTheir has agesages to be variedvaried taken fromfrom 2121 toto 3030 yearsyears ((MMageage == 26.9),26.9), andand thethe into consideration is that we are not ablemeanmean to know onsetonset the ofof chronological learninglearning EnglishEnglish order waswas of 8.98.9 activation years.years. Moreover,Moreover, thethe questionnairequestionnaire askedasked learnerslearners 2.3. Procedure in such a type of behavioral test (e.g., ifto ato prelexical raterate theirtheir speaking,speaking, effect took writing,writing, place first;understanding,understanding, c.f., Norris andand readingreading skillsskills inin EnglishEnglish onon aa 1–51–5 pointpoint et al. 2000). This is because the effects on thisLikertLikert2.3.1. lower-processing Auditoryscalescale (1(1 == Test veryvery level bad,bad, might 22 == bad,bad, have 33 == occurred moderate,moderate, 44 == good,good, 55 == veryvery good).good). AccordingAccording toto initially to a postlexical level and, at a later stage,theirtheir this meanThemean level participants ratings,ratings, might theythey have of thehadhad yielded study moderatemoderate the completed activation speakingspeaking an auditory andand understandingunderstanding AXB discrimination skillsskills ((MM test == 3.2,3.2, (Best MM =et= of prelexical cues (Escudero and Wanrooij 20103.2)3.2)al., ). and2001)and goodgood in which writingwriting they andand listened readingreading in skillsskills a random ((MM == 4.1,4.1, or der MM = =to 4.3)4.3) a triad inin English.English. of tokens AllAll participantsthatparticipants targeted hadhad the Nevertheless, the nature of the behavioralnormalnormalEnglish tasks hearinghearing vowel used contrasts, inandand this diddid study notnot and havehave allows they anyany were us languagelanguage to asked avoid to disorders.disorders. decide whether the second vowel (X) was to some extent the reflection of metalinguisticthe knowledge. same as the Specifically, first (A) or the we usedthird two(B) vowel. forced- Words were presented in four possible trial choice discrimination tasks rather than phoneme2.2.2.2.types: StimuliStimuli monitoring AAB, ABB, (Dijkstra BAA, and et al. BBA. 1995 ),Participants phoneme were asked to decide by clicking on the counting (Treiman and Cassar 1997), and phonemeappropriateTheThe deletionstimulistimuli response consistedconsisted (Castles that et ofofwas al. fourfour 2003visually EnglishEnglish) tasks provided vowelvowel that contrasts:contrasts: through the //ɪɪ// - - PC /i/iːː/,/, script. //ɑːɑː// -- /æ/, /æ/,The / /ɑːlearnersɑː// -- //ʌʌ/,/, and andsaw reflect metalinguistic knowledge. This lets//ɔːtwoɔː us// - conclude- boxes//ɒɒ/./. TheThe with thatEnglishEnglish the L1 label orthographic vowelsvowels “first” werewere for effects recordedrecordedthe first took vowel atat aa 44.144.1 and kHzkHz “third” samplesample for thebyby twothirdtwo adultadult vowel; nativenative they place at a prelexical level, but such a claim shouldspeakersspeakersdiscriminated be treated ofof EnglishEnglish a with total caution(Received (Receivedof 96 items (see PronunciatioPronunciatio alsoeach Escudero (4 contrastsn);n); oneone × 4femalefemale trials × and and3 vowels oneone male. male.× 2 repetitions) TheThe nativenative in and Wanrooij 2010). speakersspeakersfour different werewere AXBaskedasked tests toto produceproduce (one for at ateach aa normalnormal contrast). speakingspeaking The interstimulus raterate carriercarrier phrasesphrasesinterval thatthatwas includedincludedset at 1 s. Nonsense words are not directly associatedmonosyllablemonosyllableTo prevent with singlesolely nonsensenonsense lexicalauditory words,words, units discrimination whichwhich since targetedtargeted they do of thethe the membersmembers tokens, of ofthe thethe A vowelvowel and contrastscontrastsB tokens in inwere thethe not carry meaning. In the absence of strongframeframeproduced lexical ofof /CVC/./CVC/. competitionby a single TheThe nonsensenonsense female effects, voice, wordswords representations whereas corresponcorrespon theded dedX tokens toto thethe were phonotacticsphonotactics produced ofof by realreal all words wordsfemale and andand may be activated at the sublexical level, aswerewere previouslymale ofofEnglish lowlow mentioned. probabilityprobability speakers Nevertheless,(following (for(for thethe calculationcalculation Escudero nonsense andofof wordword Wanrooij probability,probability, 2010). seesee VitevitchVitevitch andand LuceLuce words are not completely empty of lexical competition2004).2004). TheThe carriercarrier since phonotactics phrasephrase waswas “I“I may saidsaid facilitate /CVC//CVC/ toto the somesome friends”friends” (following(following LevyLevy andand Strange,Strange, 2008).2008). TwoTwo differentdifferent acousticacoustic versionsversions ofof ththee samesame vowelsvowels emergedemerged fromfrom thethe productionsproductions ofof thethe twotwo EnglishEnglish speakers.speakers. TheThe /CVC//CVC/ wordswords werewere detacheddetached fromfrom thethe carriercarrier phrasesphrases inin

PraatPraat speechspeech processingprocessing softwaresoftware (Boersma(Boersma andand WeeninkWeenink 2020)2020) andand transferredtransferred toto thethe script.script.

2.3.2.3. ProcedureProcedure 2.3.1.2.3.1. AuditoryAuditory TestTest TheThe participantsparticipants ofof thethe studystudy completedcompleted anan auditoryauditory AXBAXB discriminationdiscrimination testtest (Best(Best etet al.,al., 2001)2001) inin whichwhich theythey listenedlistened inin aa randomrandom ororderder toto aa triadtriad ofof tokenstokens thatthat targetedtargeted thethe EnglishEnglish vowelvowel contrasts,contrasts, andand theythey werewere askedasked toto decidedecide whetherwhether thethe secondsecond vowelvowel (X)(X) waswas thethe samesame asas thethe firstfirst (A)(A) oror thethe thirdthird (B)(B) vowel.vowel. WordsWords werewere presentedpresented inin fourfour possiblepossible trialtrial types:types: AAB,AAB, ABB,ABB, BAA,BAA, andand BBA.BBA. ParticipantsParticipants werewere askedasked toto decidedecide byby clickingclicking onon thethe appropriateappropriate responseresponse thatthat waswas visuallyvisually providedprovided throughthrough thethe PCPC script.script. TheThe learnerslearners sawsaw twotwo boxesboxes withwith thethe labellabel “first”“first” forfor thethe firstfirst vowelvowel andand “third”“third” forfor thethe thirdthird vowel;vowel; theythey discriminateddiscriminated aa totaltotal ofof 9696 itemsitems eacheach (4(4 contrastscontrasts ×× 44 trialstrials ×× 33 vowelsvowels ×× 22 repetitions)repetitions) inin fourfour differentdifferent AXBAXB teststests (one(one forfor eacheach contrast).contrast). TheThe interstimulusinterstimulus intervalinterval waswas setset atat 11 s.s. ToTo preventprevent solelysolely auditoryauditory discriminationdiscrimination ofof thethe tokens,tokens, thethe AA andand BB tokenstokens werewere producedproduced byby aa singlesingle femalefemale voice,voice, whereaswhereas thethe XX tokenstokens werewere producedproduced byby allall femalefemale andand malemale EnglishEnglish speakersspeakers (following(following EscuderoEscudero andand WanrooijWanrooij 2010).2010).

Languages 2021, 6, 118 10 of 12

recognition of spoken words (Vitevitch and Luce 1999). The likelihood of a lexical effect even in the presence of nonsense words in this study was minimized by the inclusion of low-probability nonsense words. Previous evidence showed that phonotactic probability influenced the ratings of the word-likeness of nonwords, such that speakers rated high- probability nonwords as being more similar to English words compared to low-probability nonwords (Vitevitch et al. 1997, 2000). Thus, the lexical level had minimal involvement in this study.

5. Conclusions The present study indicated that the effects of L1 orthography could be transferred to L2 speech perception. Moreover, the results are consistent with our initial prediction since the effects of L1 orthography emerged at a sublexical level. The findings of this study can be important for language teachers, who should pay attention to the fact that speakers of languages with transparent orthographies (e.g., Greek) may experience difficulties in accurately perceiving the sounds of a non-native language with an opaque orthographic system (e.g., English). Therefore, they should dedicate some time to teaching the corre- spondences between graphemes and phonemes. Although we tried to control the effect of sociolinguistic factors (e.g., age of English learning onset) and linguistic factors (e.g., L1), we are aware that other factors such as learners’ cognitive functions (e.g., phonological short-term memory, intelligence) may determine the influence of L1 orthography on L2 speech perception; these functions can be taken into consideration in a future study. Finally, the addition of a control group of native L2 speakers in a future extension of the study would render the claims much stronger.

Funding: This research received no external funding. APC was covered by the University of Nicosia. Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethics approval was not required for this study. Informed Consent Statement: All participants gave their written consent for participation in the experiments according to the Declaration of Helsinki. Data Availability Statement: There is no data available for this paper. Acknowledgments: We would like to thank all individuals for their participation in the experiments. Moreover, we would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments. Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References Best, Catherine T. 1995. A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception: New Directions in Research and Theory. In Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Edited by Winifred Strange. Baltimore: York Press, pp. 171–204. Best, Catherine T., and Michael D. Tyler. 2007. Non-native and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complemen- tarities. In Second Language Speech Learning: In Honor of James Emil Flege. Edited by Ocke-Schwen Bohn and Murray J. Munro. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 13–34. Best, Catherine T., and Winifred Strange. 1992. Effects of phonological and phonetic factors on cross-language perception of approximants. Journal of Phonetics 20: 305–30. [CrossRef] Best, Catherine T., Gerald W. McRoberts, and Elizabeth Goodell. 2001. Discrimination of non-native consonant contrasts varying in perceptual assimilation to the listener’s native phonological system. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 109: 775–94. [CrossRef] Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink. 2020. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [Computer Program]. Available online: http: //www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/ (accessed on 14 March 2020). Castles, Anne, Virginia M. Holmes, Joanna Neath, and Sachiko Kinoshita. 2003. How does orthographic knowledge influence performance on phonological awareness tasks? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 56A: 445–67. Coutsougera, Photini. 2007. The impact of orthography on the acquisition of L2 phonology: Inferring the wrong phonology from print. In Proceedings of the Phonetics Teaching and Learning Conference 2007. London: University College London, pp. 1–5. Cutler, Anne, Andrea Weber, and Takashi Otake. 2006. Asymmetric mapping from phonetic to lexical representations in second- language listening. Journal of Phonetics 34: 269–84. [CrossRef] Languages 2021, 6, 118 11 of 12

Dijkstra, Ton, Ardi Roelofs, and Steffen Fieuws. 1995. Orthographic effects on phoneme monitoring. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 49: 264–71. [CrossRef][PubMed] Erdener, V. Dogu,ˇ and Denis K. Burnham. 2005. The role of audiovisual speech and orthographic information in nonnative speech production. Language Learning 55: 191–228. [CrossRef] Escudero, Paola, and Karin Wanrooij. 2010. The effect of L1 orthography on non-native and L2 vowel perception. Language and Speech 53: 343–65. [CrossRef][PubMed] Escudero, Paola, Ellen Simon, and Karen E. Mulak. 2014. Learning words in a new language: Orthography doesn’t always help. Bilingualism-Language and Cognition 17: 384–95. [CrossRef] Flege, James E. 1995. Second language speech learning: Theory, findings and problems. In Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Edited by Winfield Strange. Baltimore: York Press, pp. 233–77. Frauenfelder, Uli H., Juan Segui, and Ton Dijkstra. 1990. Lexical effects in phonemic processing: Facilitatory or inhibitory? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 16: 77–91. [CrossRef] Frost, Ram, Leonard Katz, and Shlomo Bentin. 1987. Strategies for visual word recognition and orthographical depth: A multilingual comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 13: 104–15. [CrossRef] Ganong, William F. 1980. Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 6: 110. [CrossRef] Georgiou, Georgios P. 2019. ‘Bit’ and ‘beat’ are heard as the same: Mapping the vowel perceptual patterns of Greek-English bilingual children. Language Sciences 72: 1–12. [CrossRef] Georgiou, Georgios P. 2021a. Effects of phonetic training on the discrimination of second language sounds by learners with naturalistic access to the second language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 50: 707–21. [CrossRef] Georgiou, Georgios P. 2021b. Toward a new model for speech perception: The Universal Perceptual Model (UPM) of Second Language. Cognitive Processing 22: 277–89. [CrossRef] Georgiou, Georgios P., Natalia Perfilieva, and Maria Tenizi. 2020. Vocabulary size leads to better attunement to L2 phonetic differences: Clues from Russian learners of English. Language Learning and Development 16: 382–98. [CrossRef] Georgiou, Georgios P., and Charalambos Themistocleous. 2021. Vowel Learning in Diglossic Settings: Evidence from Arabic-Greek Learners. International Journal of Bilingualism 25: 135–50. [CrossRef] Goswami, Usha, and Martin East. 2000. Rhyme and analogy in beginning reading: Conceptual and methodological issues. Applied Psycholinguistics 21: 63–93. [CrossRef] Goswami, Usha, Johannes C. Ziegler, Louise Dalton, and Wolfgang Schneider. 2003. Nonword reading across orthographies: How flexible is the choice of reading units? Applied Psycholinguistics 24: 235–47. [CrossRef] Hallé, Pierre A., Céline Chéreau, and Juan Segui. 2000. Where is the /b/ in “absurde” [apsyrd]? It is in French listeners’ minds. Journal of Memory & Language 43: 618–39. Katz, Leonard, and Ram Frost. 1992. The reading process is different for different orthographies: The orthographic depth hypothesis. In Orthography, Phonology, Morphology, and Meaning. Edited by Ram Frost and Leonard Katz. Amsterdam: Elsevier North Holland Press, pp. 67–84. Levy, Erika S., and Winifred Strange. 2008. Perception of French vowels by American English adults with and without French language experience. Journal of Phonetics 36: 141–57. [CrossRef] Norris, Dennis, James M. McQueen, and Anne Cutler. 2000. Merging information in speech recognition: Feedback is never necessary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23: 299–370. [CrossRef] Perry, Conrad, and Johannes C. Ziegler. 2000. Linguistic difficulties in childhood constrain adult reading. Memory and Cognition 28: 739–45. [CrossRef] Rastle, Kathleen, and Marc Brysbaert. 2006. Masked phonological priming effects in English: A critical review and two decisive experiments. Cognitive Psychology 53: 97–145. [CrossRef] Roach, Peter. 2004. British English: Received Pronunciation. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 34: 239–45. [CrossRef] Seidenberg, Mark S., and Michael K. Tanenhaus. 1979. Orthographic effects on rhyme monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 5: 546–54. [CrossRef] Seidenberg, Mark S., Gloria S. Waters, Michael Sanders, and Pearl Langer. 1984. Pre-and postlexical loci of contextual effects on word recognition. Memory & Cognition 12: 315–28. Simon, Ellen, Della Chambless, and Ubiratã Kickhöfel Alves. 2010. Understanding the role of orthography in the acquisition of a non-native vowel contrast. Language Sciences 32: 380–94. [CrossRef] Taft, Marcus, Anne Castles, Chris Davis, Goran Lazendic, and Minh Nguyen-Hoan. 2008. Automatic activation of orthography in spoken word recognition: Pseudohomograph priming. Journal of Memory and Language 58: 366–79. [CrossRef] Timberlake, Alan. 2004. Sounds. A Reference Grammar of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Treiman, Rebecca, and Marie Cassar. 1997. Can children and adults focus on sound as opposed to spelling in a phoneme counting task. Developmental Psychology 33: 771–80. [CrossRef][PubMed] Van Orden, Guy C. 1991. Phonologic mediation is fundamental to reading. In Basic Processes in Reading: Visual Word Recognition. Edited by Derek Besner and Glyn W. Humphreys. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, pp. 77–103. Ventura, Paulo, José Morais, Chotiga Pattamadilok, and Régine Kolinsky. 2004. The locus of the orthographic consistency effect in auditory word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes 19: 57–95. [CrossRef] Languages 2021, 6, 118 12 of 12

Vitevitch, Michael S., and Paul A. Luce. 1999. Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 40: 374–408. [CrossRef] Vitevitch, Michael S., David B. Pisoni, Karen Iler Kirk, Marcia Hay-McCutcheon, and Stacey L. Yount. 2000. Effects of Phonotactic Probabilities on the Processing of Spoken Words and Nonwords by Postlingually Deafened Adults with Cochlear Implants. Volta Review 102: 283–302. Vitevitch, Michael S., Paul A. Luce, Jan Charles-Luce, and David Kemmerer. 1997. Phonotactics and syllable stress: Implications for the processing of spoken nonsense words. Language and Speech 40: 47–62. [CrossRef] Vitevitch, Michael S., and Paul A. Luce. 2004. A web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 36: 481–87. Weber, Andrea, and Anne Cutler. 2004. Lexical competition in non-native spoken-word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 50: 1–25. [CrossRef] Ziegler, Johannes C., and Ludovic Ferrand. 1998. Orthography shapes the perception of speech: The consistency effect in auditory word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 5: 683–89.