The influence of the Pinyin and Zhuyin writing systems on the acquisition of Mandarin word forms by native English speakers

The role of written input in second language (L2) phonological and lexical acquisition has received increased attention in recent years. Here we investigated the influence of two factors that may moderate the influence of orthography on L2 word form learning: (i) whether the writing system is shared by the native language and the L2, and (ii) if the writing system is shared, whether the relevant grapheme-phoneme correspondences are also shared. The acquisition of Mandarin via the Pinyin and Zhuyin writing systems provides an ecologically valid opportunity to explore these factors.

ORIGINALRESEARCH published: 03June2016 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00785 FrontiersinPsychology|www.frontiersin.org 1 June 2016|Volume7|Article785 Editedby: Annie Tremblay, UniversityofKansas,USA Reviewedby: Karen ElizabethMulak, UniversityofWesternSydney, Australia Peggy Mok, The ChineseUniversityofHongKong, China Min Wang, UniversityofMaryland,USA *Correspondence: Rachel Hayes-Harb [e-mail] Specialtysection: This articlewassubmittedto Language Sciences, a sectionofthejournal Frontiers inPsychology Received: 31 December2015 Accepted: 10 May2016 Published: 03 June2016 Citation: Hayes-HarbRandChengH-W(2016) The InfluenceofthePinyinandZhuyin Writing SystemsontheAcquisitionof Mandarin WordFormsbyNative English Speakers. Front. Psychol.7:785. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00785 TheInfluenceofthePinyinandZhuyinWritingSystemsontheAcquisitionofMandarinWordFormsbyNativeEnglishSpeakers Rachel Hayes-Harb* and Hui-WenCheng DepartmentofLinguistics,UniversityofUtah,SaltLakeCity,UT,USA Theroleofwritteninputinsecondlanguage(L2)phonologicalandlexicalacquisitionhasreceivedincreasedattentioninrecentyears.HereweinvestigatedtheinfluenceoftwofactorsthatmaymoderatetheinfluenceoforthographyonL2wordformlearning:(i)whetherthewritingsystemissharedbythenativelanguageandtheL2,and(ii)ifthewritingsystemisshared,whethertherelevantgrapheme-phonemecorrespondencesarealsoshared.TheacquisitionofMandarinviathePinyinandZhuyinwritingsystemsprovidesanecologicallyvalidopportunitytoexplorethesefactors.WefirstaskedwhetherthereisadifferenceinnativeEnglishspeakers'abilitytolearnPinyinandZhuyingrapheme-phonemecorrespondences.InExperiment1,nativeEnglishspeakersassignedtoeitherPinyinorZhuyingroupswereexposedtoMandarinwordsbelongingtooneoftwoconditions:inthe"congruent"condition,thePinyinformsarepossibleEnglishspellingsfortheauditorywords(e.g.,<nai>for[nai]);inthe"incongruent"condition,thePinyinformsinvolveafamiliargraphemerepresentinganovelphoneme(e.g.,<xiu>for[Ciou]).Attest,participantswereaskedtoindicatewhetherauditoryandwrittenformsmatched;inthecrucialtrials,thewrittenformsfromtraining(e.g.,<xiu>)werepairedwithpossibleEnglishpronunciationsofthePinyinwrittenforms(e.g.,[ziou]).Experiment2wasidenticaltoExperiment1exceptthatparticipantsadditionallysawpicturesdepictingwordmeaningsduringtheexposurephase,andattestwereaskedtomatchauditoryformswiththepictures.InbothexperimentstheZhuyingroupoutperformedthePinyingroupduetothePinyingroup'sdifficultywith"incongruent"items.AthirdexperimentconfirmedthatthegroupsdidnotdifferintheirabilitytoperceptuallydistinguishtherelevantMandarinconsonants(e.g.,[C])fromthefoils(e.g.,[z]),suggestingthatthefindingsofExperiments1and2canbeattributedtotheeffectsoforthographicinput.WethusconcludethatdespitethefamiliarityofPinyingraphemestonativeEnglishspeakers,theneedtosuppressnativelanguagegrapheme-phonemecorrespondencesinfavorofnewonescanleadtolesstarget-likeknowledgeofnewlylearnedwords'formsthandoeslearningZhuyin'sentirelynovelgraphemes. Keywords:secondlanguageacquisition(SLA),mandarin, Pinyin, Zhuyin, orthographicinput,secondlanguage phonology,secondlanguagewordlearningHayes-HarbandCheng OrthographicInputinL2Mandarin INTRODUCTION Adultsecondlanguage(L2)learnerscanexploittheavailability oforthographicinputinlearningthephonologicalformsof L2words(e.g., Escuderoetal.,2008).However,wehavealso seenthattherearelimitstotheutilityoforthographicinput insupportinglearners'target-likeacquisitionofwords'forms- theliteratureprovidescaseswherewritteninputeitherhadno beneficialeffect(Simonetal.,2010;Hayes-HarbandHacking, 2015;ShowalterandHayes-Harb,2015) orinfactinterfered withthetarget-likeacquisitionofL2wordforms(e.g., Hayes- Harbetal.,2010;Young-ScholtenandLanger,2015).Two factorsthathaveemergedaspossiblyassociatedwithwhether ornotorthographicinputsupportsorinterfereswithwordform learningare(i)whetherthewritingsystemissharedbythenative languageandtheL2,and(ii)ifthewritingsystemisshared, whethertherelevantgrapheme-phonemecorrespondencesare alsoshared.ThecaseofnativeEnglishspeakerslearning Mandarinviathe Zhuyin and Pinyin writingsystemsprovides anecologicallyvalidopportunitytoexploretherelativeimpact ofthesetwofactorsonL2wordformlearning. Pinyin uses theRomanalphabet,sharedwithEnglish,while Zhuyin usesan entirelydifferentsetofgraphemes.Eachwritingsystemposes itsownsetofchallengestonativeEnglishlearners: Zhuyin requireslearnerstoacquireanentirelynovelgraphemeset; Pinyin, ontheotherhand,involvesonlyfamiliargraphemes,but learnersmustsuppressanumberofEnglishgrapheme-phoneme correspondencesinfavorofnewones(e.g.,inMandarin, Pinyin <x> 1 mapsto/C/).Inthepresentstudyweexploredthe consequencesofthesecharacteristicsof Pinyin and Zhuyin for nativeEnglishspeakers'abilitytolearnthephonologicalformsof a setofMandarinwords,withthegoalofelucidatingtherelative difficultyassociatedwitheachwritingsystem. ORTHOGRAPHICINPUTANDL2 PHONOLOGICALACQUISITION TheroleoforthographicinputinL2phonologicalandlexical acquisitionhasreceivedincreasedattentioninrecentyears (Bassetti,2008;Bassettietal.,2015).Whileanumberofstudies havedemonstratedafacilitativeeffectoforthographicinput forL2learners(e.g., Escuderoetal.,2008;Showalterand Hayes-Harb,2013),othershavefoundlimitedornoeffect oforthographicinput(e.g., Simonetal.,2010;Pytlyk,2011; Escudero,2015;Hayes-HarbandHacking,2015;Showalter andHayes-Harb,2015).Indeed,therearealsocircumstances whereorthographicinputcaninterferewithL2phonological andlexicalacquisition(Bassetti,2006;EscuderoandWanrooij, 2010;Hayes-Harbetal.,2010;Mathieu,2016).Webeginby reviewingstudiesontheinfluenceoforthographicinputin L2wordformlearning,followedbyadiscussionofthesmall numberofstudiesthathaveconsideredtheinfluenceof Zhuyin and Pinyin inputonL2Mandarinphonologicalandlexical acquisition. 1"< >" denotesawrittenform. OrthographicInputandL2WordForm Learning IncaseswhereorthographicinputfacilitatesL2word formlearning,learnersmaybenefitfromfamiliarityofthe graphemesinadditiontofamiliarityofthegrapheme-phoneme correspondences.Forexample,nativeDutchspeakerswho sawwrittenformsduringanEnglishwordlearningtask(e.g., <tandek> and <tenzer>) weremorelikelytohaveestablished lexicalrepresentationsthatdistinguishbetweenEnglish/æ/ and /E/ (correspondingtotheletters <a> and <e>) thanthosewho didnothaveaccesstowrittenforms(Escuderoetal.,2008). Inthiscase,theL2Englishgraphemeswerefamiliartothe nativeDutchlearners,andadditionally,whiletheparticular grapheme-vowelmappingsdifferbetweenDutchandEnglish, thegraphemes <a> and <e> captureaphonologicalcontrast inbothlanguages,presumablyallowingparticipantstoinferthe Englishphonologicalcontrastfromthedifferentialspellings. Morerecentstudies,however,haveprovidedevidenceof thelimitationsofwritteninputinfacilitatingsecondlanguage wordlearning.Forexample,anumberofstudieshavefoundno effectoforthographicinputinsomecaseswherethegraphemes and/orgrapheme-phonemecorrespondencesareunfamiliar(e.g., Simonetal.,2010;ShowalterandHayes-Harb,2013).Othershave evenfounddetrimentaleffectswhenthegrapheme-phoneme correspondencesoftheL1andL2differ(Young-Scholten, 2002;Hayes-Harbetal.,2010; Hayes-Harbetal.,submitted), orwhentheorthographyisentirelyunfamiliar(e.g., Mathieu, 2016).Forexample, Hayes-Harbetal.(2010) demonstrated thatusingafamiliarorthographywithunfamiliargrapheme- phonemecorrespondencescanleadlearnerstomisremember thephonologicalformsofnewlylearnedwords.Inthisstudy, nativeEnglishspeakersweretaughtasetofauditoryEnglish non-wordsalongwithpicturedmeanings,andwerelatertested ontheirabilitytomatchauditoryformstothepictures.Inthe "congruent"condition,participantsalwayssawwrittenforms (presentedimmediatelybelowthepicture)thatwerespelled accordingtoEnglishgrapheme-phonemecorrespondences(e.g., theauditoryform[faza]wasaccompaniedbythewrittenform <faza>).Inthe"incongruent"condition,participantssawsome writtenformsdidnotconformtoEnglishgrapheme-phoneme correspondences(e.g.,theauditoryform[faza]wasaccompanied by <fasha>).Inthecontrolcondition,participantssaw <xxx> insteadofwrittenforms.Attest,participantsintheincongruent conditionweremorelikelythanparticipantsintheothertwo conditionstomisrememberthephonologicalformsofthewords inwaysthatreflectedthe(incongruent)spellings(e.g.,accept [far a]asapossiblepronunciationoftheword[faza]).Inthis way,theincongruentspellingsofthenewlylearnedwords appeartohaveinterferedwithparticipants'abilitytocorrectly rememberthewords'phonologicalformsattest.Hayes-Harb etal.(submitted),followinguponearlierstudiessuchasthoseof Young-Scholten(2002) and Young-ScholtenandLanger(2015), demonstratedthataccesstospelledformsintheL2inputcan interferewithnativeEnglishspeakers'acquisitionofGerman finalobstruentdevoicing.Hayes-Harbetal.(submitted)taught nativeEnglishspeakersGermannonwordsintwoconditions: FrontiersinPsychology|www.frontiersin.org 2 June2016|Volume7|Article785Hayes-HarbandCheng OrthographicInputinL2Mandarin inonecondition,participantssawspelledforms(e.g.,hear [krAt];see <krad>);intheothercondition,participantsdidnot seespelledforms.Attest,participantswhohadseen <krad> duringthewordlearningphaseweremorelikelythanthose inthenospelledformsconditiontopronounceitas[krAd]. Theyconcludethatincaseswhereauditoryformsandwritten formsconflict,inferencesaboutthepronunciationofwords fromwritteninputmayoverridetheauditoryinput. Escudero etal.(2014) provideadditionalevidencethat"congruency" betweenthegrapheme-phonemecorrespondencesoftheL1and L2influencetheeffectofwritteninputonL2wordformlearning. TheytaughtnativeSpanishspeakersauditoryDutchnonwords andpicturedmeaningsintwoconditions(onewithandone withoutwrittenforms),andlatertestedthemontheirability todistinguishbetweenminimalpairsoftestwords.Inthis study,"congruency"wasdefinedsomewhatdifferentlythanin otherstudiesmentionedhereinthatitrelatedtowhetheror notagraphemiccontrastsignalsaphonemiccontrastinboth theL1andL2,nottothegrapheme-phonemecorrespondences themselves.Somepairsoftestwordswere"congruent"in thesensethatthecorrespondingorthographicformssignala phonemiccontrastinbothSpanishandEnglish(e.g.,Dutch <i> − <uu> = /I/ − /y/andSpanish <i> − <u> = /i/ − /u/),whileotherswere"incongruent"inthattheorthographic formssignalaphonemiccontrastinDutchbutnotinSpanish (e.g.,Dutch: <u> − <uu> = /Y/ − /y/;Spanish: <u> = /u/).ThenativeSpanishparticipantsperformedmoreaccurately attestoncongruentthanincongruentitems. Escuderoetal. (2014) thusfoundfurtherevidencethatL2learnersexperiencea benefitassociatedwithcongruencybetweentheL1andL2writing systemswhenlearningnewwords. Whyshouldauditoryandorthographicinputinteractin thesewaysinsecondlanguagewordlearning?Theinfluenceof orthographyonspokenwordrecognitioniswelldocumented. Forexample, ZieglerandFerrand(1998) demonstratedthat nativeFrenchspeakersrespondfasterinan auditory lexical decisiontasktowordswhoserimeshaveasinglepossiblespelling (e.g., <age> forfortherime/A ź/)thantowordswhoserimescan bespelledvariously(e.g., <omb> or <om> fortherime/om/). Inaddition,theeffectoforthographyonphonologicalprocessing beginsinchildhoodalongwithearlyliteracy.Forexample, Racine etal.(2014) foundthatnativeFrenchreaders(9-10yearsold) showevidencefortheinfluenceofwords'spelledformsontheir auditoryprocessingofFrenchproductionvariantsresulting from schwadeletion,whilenativeFrenchpre-readers(5-6yearolds) donot. Asnotedby VeivoandJarvikivi(2013), a"consequenceof manyL2learnersbeingliterateisthattheteachingandthe learningofL2areoftenbasedonwrittenlanguagetoasignificant degree"(p.866).ThusL2learners'(alphabetic)literacy, presumablyincludingtheirknowledgeofspecificgrapheme- phonemecorrespondencesand/ortheexpectationthatwritten inputwillprovidephonologicallyrelevantinformationabout theformsofL2words,mayexertaninfluencebeginningwith theirearliestexposuretoL2words.Inlightofthevastliterature documentinglearners'propensityfortransferringaspectsof their L1intoL2acquisition(see,e.g., EckmanandIverson,2013),it maybeunsurprisingthatlearnersappeartotransfertheirL1 grapheme-phonemecorrespondencestoL2learning. Relativetothenumberofstudiesthathaveconsideredthe impactoforthographiccongruencyonL2wordformlearning, veryfewhaveinvestigatedtheeffectofunfamiliarorthographies. Hayes-HarbandHacking(2015) investigatedtheinfluenceof diacriticstressmarksonRussianwrittenwordsonnativeEnglish speakers'abilitytolearnRussianlexicalstress.Theysecondarily askedwhethertheeffectofstressmarksdiffereddependingon whetherthewordswerewritteninCyrillicorRomanletters.They foundnobeneficialeffectofthediacriticstressmarks,andno differenceinperformanceassociatedwiththeCyrillicvs.Roman lettercondition,suggestingataminimumthatthefamiliarityof thegraphemesdidnotinfluencewordformlearning. Showalter andHayes-Harb(2015) similarlydidnotfindadifferencein wordlearningperformancebetweengroupsofnaïvenative EnglishspeakersexposedtoArabicvs.Romanwrittenforms whenlearningArabicwordsminimallydistinguishedbythe difficultvelar/k/-uvular/q/contrast.Whilethesetwostudies donotindicateawordlearningdisadvantageassociatedwith novelorthographiesvs.familiarones,itisworthnotingthat the measureoflearninginbothofthesestudiesinvolvedperceptually discriminatingdifficultnovelphonologicalcontrasts.Inthe presentstudy,wefocusnotontheroleoforthographicinputin learners'abilitytodifferentiatewordscontainingdifficult novel contrasts,butratherontheissuesoforthographiccongruency andfamiliarityandtheireffectsonL2wordformlearning. Insummary,thegrowingliteratureontheinfluenceof orthographicinputinL2wordformlearninghashighlighted twofactorsthatmaybeassociatedwithwhetherwritteninput supportsorinterfereswithwordformlearning:(1)whether thewritingsystemissharedbythenativelanguageandthe L2,and(2)ifthewritingsystemisshared,whetherthe relevantgrapheme-phonemecorrespondencesaresharedbythe twolanguages.TheacquisitionofL2Mandarinprovidesan opportunitytoexplorethesefactors,giventhatthe Pinyin writing systeminvolvesfamiliargraphemeswithanumberofnovel grapheme-phonemecorrespondences,and Zhuyin involvesan entirelynewsetofgraphemes.Thefollowingsectionreviews the smallnumberofstudiesthathaveconsideredtheinfluenceof thesetwowritingsystemsonL2Mandarinacquisition. OrthographicInputandtheAcquisitionof L2Mandarin Chinesecharactersareknownfortheiropacityinterms ofgrapheme-phonemecorrespondences.Indeed,thephonetic componentofaChinesecharacterprovidesreliablecuesto thepronunciationofthecharacter <30%ofthetime(Cheng, 2012).TofacilitatethelearningofChinesecharacters,aphonetic scriptthattransparentlypresentsthephonologicalformsof Chinesewordsisusuallyintroducedtobeginninglearners (includingbothL1andL2learners). Pinyin and Zhuyin are thescriptsthataremostcommonlyusedforthispurpose. Pinyin (formallyknownas HanyuPinyin) isaRomanization systemusedinChinaandSingapore,andhasbeenadopted bytheInternationalOrganizationforStandardizationfor the FrontiersinPsychology|www.frontiersin.org 3 June2016|Volume7|Article785Hayes-HarbandCheng OrthographicInputinL2Mandarin RomanizationofChinese ISO(2015). Zhuyin (alsocalled Zhuyin fuhao or Bopomofo) consistsofcomponentsofancientChinese characters,andiswidelyusedinTaiwan.Cruciallyforthepresent purposes,whilebotharetransparentphonographicwriting systems, Pinyin and Zhuyin differfromoneanotherinthe graphemestheyemploy.Therearealsoorganizationaldifferences betweenPinyin,whichisanalphabet,andZhuyin,whichisa semi-syllabary,oracombinationofanalphabetandasyllabary; (TaylorandTaylor,2014).Hereweexplorethedifferentialeffects ofthetwowritingsystemsontheacquisitionofMandarin wordformsbynativeEnglishspeakers.Inparticular,weask whethertheorthographicdifferencesbetween Pinyin and Zhuyin influenceMandarinwordlearning.Thisquestionisparticularly intriguinginthecontextofadultL2Mandarinacquisition, becausetheselearnersareequippedwiththeknowledgeoftheir L1writingsystem,whichmayinteractwiththecharacteristics of Pinyin and Zhuyin. Forexample,nativeEnglish-speaking learners,whoseL1employstheRomanalphabet,mayfind Pinyin lessdifficultthan Zhuyin initiallygiventhefamiliarityofthe Pinyin symbols,whichformasubsetoftheEnglishalphabet. However,forasubsetof Pinyin graphemes,thegrapheme- phonemecorrespondencesdifferfromthoseofEnglish.For example,inChinesethe Pinyin grapheme <x> mapstothe voicelessalveopalatalfricative/C/,aphonemethatdoesnotexist inEnglish;thesamegraphememapsto/ks/asin"tax"or /z/asin"xylophone"inEnglish.ThusnativeEnglishspeakers learningMandarinwhoareexposedto Pinyin maybenefit fromthefamiliarityofthegraphemesbutexperiencedifficulty learningnovelgrapheme-phonemecorrespondences.Inother words,nativeEnglishspeakersmayshowevidenceofthenegative transferofEnglishgrapheme-phonemecorrespondenceswhen learningMandarinwith Pinyin. Ontheotherhand,nosuchopportunityfornegativetransfer isassociatedwith Zhuyin, whosegraphemesdonotoverlapwith Englishgraphemes.Forinstance,thevoicelessalveolaraffricate /ts/,whichiswritten <z> in Pinyin, iswritten < > in Zhuyin. Table1 providesexampleZhuyinandPinyingraphemes,along withtheircorrespondingphonemes. Zhuyin, however,presents itsownchallengefornativeEnglishspeakers-thatoflearning a newsetofgraphemes.Atpresentweareinterestedinthe relativedifficultyassociatedwithlearningnewgraphemesvs. learningnewgrapheme-phonemecorrespondencesonnative Englishspeakers'abilitytolearnthephonologicalformsofnew Mandarinwords. A smallnumberofstudieshavespecificallyinvestigatedthe influenceoforthographicinputontheacquisitionofMandarin bynativeEnglishspeakers(Bassetti,2006;Pytlyk,2011;Showalter andHayes-Harb,2013). Bassetti(2006) and Pytlyk(2011) specificallyexploredtheacquisitionofMandarinbynative Englishspeakersviathewrittenmediumof Pinyin, focusing onthepotentialforinterferenceduetothenegativetransfer ofnativeEnglishgrapheme-phonemecorrespondences. Bassetti (2006) investigatedwhether Pinyin spellingconventionsfor rimesinfluencesnativeEnglishspeakers'Mandarinphonological representations,focusingontheconfusiontheymaycausefor nativeEnglishspeakerswithrespecttothenumberofsegments containedintherimes.In Pinyin, rimesmaybespelleddifferently TABLE1|Example Pinyin and Zhuyin graphemesandtheircorresponding Mandarinphonemes. PinyinZhuyin Correspondingmandarinphoneme n Alveolarnasal/n/ s Voicelessalveolarfricative/s/ l Alveolarlateral/l/ m Bilabialnasal/m/ z Voicelessdentalaffricate/ts/ c Voicelessaspirateddentalaffricate/tsh/ q Voicelessaspiratedalveopalatalaffricate/tC h/ x Voicelessalveopalatalfricative/C/ dependingontheircontext,inparticularwithrespecttothe inclusionofaletterrepresentingwhatiscalledthe"mainvowel." Forexample,followingaconsonantalonset,therime/uei/is spelled <ui> (withoutalettercorrespondingtothemainvowel /e/),asin <kui>. Thesamerimeisspelled <wei> (withthe letter <e> representingthemainvowel)inonsetlesssyllables. Bassetti(2006) askednativeEnglishspeakerswhowerebeginning learnersofMandarintoperformtwophonologicaltasks.In thephonemecountingtask,participantswereaskedtoread (logographic)Chinesecharactersandtocountthenumberof "sounds"ineach.Inthephonemesegmentationtask,participants wereaskedtopronouncethecharacters'soundsone-by-one. Bassettifoundthatforsyllableswherethe Pinyin spellingsdo notrepresentthemainvowel,participantscountedonefewer vowelintherimethanwhenthe Pinyin spellingsrepresentthe mainvowel.Thesegmentationtaskconfirmedthatthevowel omittedbylearnerswasindeedthemainvowel,ortheone thatisnotrepresentedin Pinyin spellings.Bassetticoncluded thatthenativeEnglishspeakers'phonologicalrepresentationsfor Chinesesyllableswasaffectedbythe Pinyin spellingconventions withrespecttomainvowels. Pytlyk(2011) investigatedwhetherexposureto Pinyin, in particularincaseswhereEnglishandMandarinhavedifferent grapheme-phonemecorrespondences,negativelyinfluences nativeEnglishspeakers'abilitytoperceiveMandarinconsonants. PytlykpredictedthatwhilenativeEnglishspeakersmaybenefit fromthepositivetransferofknowledgeoftheRomanalphabet inlearningMandarinvia Pinyin (a"shared"orthography), theymayexperiencedifficultywherethegrapheme-phoneme correspondencesof Pinyin andtheEnglishalphabetdiffer. Specifically,thepredictionwasthat"learnerswholearn MandarinviaPinyin...willtendtoequateasimilarMandarin (L2)phonemewithitsEnglishcounterpartbecausetheshared orthographicsymbolswouldmakeperceivingthedifferences betweenthesimilarsoundsevenmoredifficult"(p.545).In contrast,itwaspredictedthatlearnergroupswhowereexposed to Zhuyin ortonowrittenformsatallwouldoutperformthe Pinyin learnersinMandarinconsonantperceptionbecause neitherofthesegroupswouldexperiencetheorthographic interferenceassociatedwith Pinyin. NativeEnglishspeakers withnopreviousChineselanguageexperienceparticipatedina languagetrainingphasefollowedbyaperceptiontest.During FrontiersinPsychology|www.frontiersin.org 4 June2016|Volume7|Article785Hayes-HarbandCheng OrthographicInputinL2Mandarin thelanguagetrainingphase,theyweretaughttheMandarin phonemeinventoryvia Pinyin, Zhuyin, ornowritteninput.At test,participantsperformedanodditiydiscriminationtask, in whichtheyheardthreestimuliandwereaskedtodetermine whichonedifferedfromtheothertwo.Therewerenosignificant differencesintestperformanceamongtheparticipantstrained via Pinyin, Zhuyin, ornowritteninput.While Pytlyk(2011) did notfindthepredicteddifferencesinperceptionperformance, thisstudynonethelesshighlightstheutilityofMandarinand its Pinyin and Zhuyin writingsystemsforaddressingquestions concerningtheroleoforthographictransferinsecondlanguage phonologicallearning. ResearchQuestions The Bassetti(2006) and Pytlyk(2011) studiesinvestigatedthe influenceoforthographicinputonphonologicalrepresentations ofMandarinsyllablesandontheabilityoflearnerstoperceive Mandarinphonologicalcontrasts,respectively.Infocusinthe presentworkistheinfluenceoforthographicinputinearly lexical-phonologicaldevelopment-specifically,theinfluence of Pinyin and Zhuyin onnativeEnglishspeakers'abilityto accuratelyrememberthephonologicalformsofnewlylearned Mandarinwords.Thebroadestquestionguidingourresearch isthus:Isthereadifferenceinthedifficultyassociatedwith learningthegrapheme-phonemecorrespondencesfornovel graphemes(asin Zhuyin) andlearningnewgrapheme-phoneme correspondencesforfamiliargraphemes(asin Pinyin)?The firstresearchquestionthatthisstudyisdesignedtoanswer is whetherthereisadifferenceinnativeEnglishspeakers'ability tolearn Pinyin vs. Zhuyin grapheme-phonemecorrespondences, specificallywhethernativeEnglishspeakersexposedto Pinyin experienceparticulardifficultywith"incongruent"grapheme- phonemecorrespondences.Thisquestionisaddressedin Experiment1.Oursecondresearchquestioniswhetherthere isadifferenceinnativeEnglishspeakers'abilitytolearnthe phonologicalformsofnewwordswhenexposedto Pinyin vs. Zhuyin, specificallywhethernativeEnglishspeakersexposedto Pinyin experienceparticulardifficultylearningthephonological formsofwordswith"incongruent"spellings(Experiment2).Our finalresearchquestion,addressedinExperiment3,iswhether participantsexposedto Pinyin vs. Zhuyin differintheirability toperceiveMandarinconsonantcontrasts. EXPERIMENTS ThisstudywascarriedoutwithapprovalfromtheUniversity ofUtahInstitutionalReviewBoardandwithwritteninformed consentfromallparticipants. Participants ThirtymonolingualnativeEnglishspeakerswererecruitedfrom theUniversityofUtahcommunityandreceivedcoursecredit forparticipatinginthestudy.Allparticipatedinallthree experimentsinthesameorder.Abackgroundquestionnaire confirmedthatnoneoftheparticipantshadpreviouslystudied Chinese,andnonereportedspeech,language,hearing,or neurologicaldisorders.Theparticipantswererandomlyassigned tothe Pinyin grouporthe Zhuyin group(n = 15each). Eachgroupconsistedof5malesand10females.Themeanage inthe Pinyin groupwas23.7yearsold(SD = 4.7),andthe meanageinthe Zhuyin groupwas25.7yearsold(SD = 8.7). Participantsassignedtothe Pinyin groupreportedexperience withSpanish(8participants),Japanese(2),French(2),and oneeachwithArabic,Latin,Korean,German,ModernGreek, Samoan,Turkish,andSwahili;twoparticipantsreportedno secondlanguageexperience.Participantsinthe Zhuyin group reportedexperiencewithSpanish(12),French(3),andoneeach hadexperiencewithRussian,Armenian,ASL,German,orItalian; tworeportednosecondlanguageexperience. Materials Forthepurposesofthestudy,wedevelopedasetof16Mandarin syllables("words"),alongwiththeirwrittenformsin Pinyin and Zhuyin andrandomly-assignedline-drawingvisualreferents(i.e., thewords'"meanings").Thewordsbelongedtotwoconditions: congruentandincongruent.Inthecongruentcondition,the Pinyin formsarepossibleEnglishspellingsfortheauditorywords (e.g., <nai> for[nai]);intheincongruentcondition,the Pinyin formsinvolveafamiliar(English)graphemerepresentinganovel (Mandarin)consonant(e.g.,the <x> in <xiu> for[Ciou]).Itis importanttonotethatwordsarecategorizedascongruentand incongruentonthebasisoftheir Pinyin spellingsonly-thenovel Zhuyingraphemesareneithercongruentnorincongruentfrom thepointofviewofparticipants.Todeterminetheuseof Pinyin graphemesinthecongruentvs.incongruentwordconditions, we firstconductedanormingstudy.Inthisstudy,10nativeEnglish speakers(whodidnotparticipateinthethreeexperiments) wereaskedtouseEnglishgraphemestotranscribetheinitial consonantsin105aurally-presentedMandarinCVsyllables.The syllableswereproducedbyamaleMandarin-Englishbilingual speakerreadingfrom Pinyin transcriptions.Followingabrief practicesessionusingEnglishnonwordstofamiliarizethem with thetask,thenativeEnglishspeakerswereaskedtorespondtothe entireblockof105syllables,presentedtwiceandinadifferent randomordereachtime. Wecalculatedthepercentageofparticipants'Englishletter responsesthatmatchedthe Pinyin lettersusedtotranscribe theinitialconsonantsinMandarin.Forexample,theauditory syllable/lin/,whichisspelledwithaninitial <l> in Pinyin, wasalwaystranscribedbythenativeEnglishparticipantswith aninitial <l>, andthusreceiveda"match"scoreof100%.On theotherhand,theinitialconsonantin[tC hie],transcribedas <q>in Pinyin, wastranscribedbythenativeEnglishparticipants as <ch,C,sh,t,ts>, butneveras <q>, andthusreceived a matchscoreof0%.Thefourgraphemesthatreceivedthe highestmatchscoreswereselectedforuseinthecongruent condition: <l> (100%), <m> (100%), <s> (98%),and <n> (96%).Thefourreceivingthelowestmatchscoreswereselected foruseintheincongruentcondition:<c>(0%),<q>(0%),<x> (0%),and <z> (13%).[Note:Although Pinyin <zh> alsohad a lowmatchscore(5%),itscorrespondingMandarinconsonant phonemehadasimilarresponseprofiledto <q>, indicatingthat theMandarinphonemesrepresentedby <zh> and <q> are FrontiersinPsychology|www.frontiersin.org 5 June2016|Volume7|Article785Hayes-HarbandCheng OrthographicInputinL2Mandarin potentiallyconfusablebynativeEnglishspeakers.Forthisreason, weexcluded <zh> fromthestudymaterials]. Wenextcreated16MandarinsyllablesusingtheMandarin phonemesrepresentedbythecongruentandincongruent graphemesthatwereselectedviathenormingstudy.Tocontrol forlexicaltone,allwordstimuliwereproducedinTone4(high- falling);inthistone,someofthewordswereactualwordsin Mandarinandotherswerenonwords;allarereferredtohereas "words"sinceourparticipantswereunfamiliarwithMandarin. DuetorestrictionsonvoweldistributionsinMandarin,words withinitial <z,c,n,s> (/ts,tsh, n,s/,respectively)containedthe rimes <ai> or <ao> (/aI/ or/au/),andthosewithinitial <q,x, l,m> (/tC h, C, l,m/)containedtherimes <ie> or <iu> (/i+/ or /iou/).Eachoftheeightinitialconsonantswascombinedwith itstwocorrespondingrimestocreatethe16Mandarinwords; a fulllistofthewordsisprovidedin TableA1 inAppendix. Thesewordsservedasthestimulipresentedintheexposure, criterion,andtestphasesofthethreeexperimentsdescribed below. Inaddition,wecreatedasetof16foilwordsforuseinthetest phases.Fortheincongruentcondition,wechosethephonemes thattheincongruent Pinyin graphemesusuallyrepresentin Englishtoserveasfoils.Thefoilphonemefor <z> and <x> isthus/z/,andthefoilphonemefor <c> and <q> isthus/k/ (Note:asthereisno/z/phonemeinMandarin,someofthe wordsusedinthestudyareinfactimpossibleinMandarin; asawhole,thestimulussetisthusquasi-Mandarin).Thefoil phonemesforthecongruentgraphemeswereselectedrandomly: /d/for <n> and <l>, and/ / for <s> and <m>. Table2 summarizestheconstructionoftheMandarinwordsandtheir foils.Wordsarecategorizedascongruentandincongruenton thebasisoftheir Pinyin spellingsonly,giventhatthenative Englishspeakerswhoparticipatedinthepresentexperimentsdo nothaveexistinggrapheme-phonemecorrespondencesforthe (unfamiliar) Zhuyin graphemes. Eachofthe16wordswasrandomlyassigneda"meaning" fromamongasetofnonobjectlinedrawings;theword-meaning pairingswerethesameforallparticipants.Thewordswere producedbyamaleMandarin-Englishbilingualspeakerreading from Pinyin transcriptions. Experiment1(Grapheme-Phoneme CorrespondenceLearning)Procedures InExperiment1,weexposedparticipantstothesetofauditory Mandarinwordsandtheirwrittenforms,andlatertestedthem ontheirabilitytoaccuratelydeterminewhethertheauditoryand writtenformswerecorrectlymatched.Theexperimentinvolved threephases:exposure,criterion,andtest.Allthreeexperiments wereconductedinasound-attenuatedbooth;theentiresession lasted 1 h,withbriefparticipant-controlledbreaksbetween experiments. ExposurePhase Participantswereaskedtolearnthe16words.ineachexposure trial,awrittenformwaspresentedonthecomputerscreenwhile theauditorywordwasplayedoverheadphonesatacomfortable listeninglevel.Thewrittenformremainedonthescreenfor 2 s, followedbythenexttrial.The16wordsconstitutedoneblock, andtherewerefourblocksintheexposurephase.see Table3 for exampleexposurephasetrials. CriterionPhase Thecriterionphaseconsistedof16matchedand16mismatched trials.Participantswereaskedtoindicatewhetherawritten word matchedtheauditorywordbypressing"yes"or"no"buttons onthekeyboard. Table3 illustratesexamplecriterionphase trials.Congruent-matchedandcongruent-mismatchedtrials wereexpectedtobeeasyforparticipants(e.g.,seepinyin/zhuyin writtenformfor[nai]andhear[nai](matched)or[tshai] (mismatched)).Inincongruent-matchedtrials,participants saw a writtenformandhearditscorrespondingauditoryword(e.g., seethepinyin/zhuyinwrittenformfortheword[Ciou]and hear[Ciou]).Intheincongruent-mismatchedtrials,asinthe congruent-mismatchedtrials,participantssawawrittenform andheardawordbeginningwithanentirelydifferentconsonant thatwasalsonotthefoil(e.g.,seethepinyin/zhuyinwritten formfortheword[Ciou]buthear[miou]).Inthisway,no criterionphasetrialsweredesignedtobedifficultforparticipants ineitherexposurecondition;rather,thecriterionphasewas used toensurethatallparticipantsachievedasimilarlevelofability todistinguishlearnedformsfromquitedifferentfoilsbefore continuingtothetestphase.Participantsrepeatedtheexposure andcriterionphasesuntiltheyreached90%accuracyonthe criteriontest. TestPhase Thetestphasewasidenticaltothecriterionphaseexceptthat thetestphasewasdesignedtodeterminewhetherparticipants experiencedconfusionduetodifferencesbetweenPinyin andEnglishgrapheme-phonemecorrespondences.Congruent- matchedandcongruent-mismatchedtrialswereagainexpected tobeeasyforparticipants(e.g.,seePinyin/Zhuyinwrittenform for[nai]andhear[nai](matched)or[dai](mismatched)),as weretheincongruent-matchedtrials(e.g.,seethePinyin/Zhuyin writtenformfortheword[Ciou]andhear[Ciou]).However, theincongruent-mismatchedtrialsweredesignedtobedifficult forparticipantsinthePinyinconditioniftheyexperienced interferencefromEnglishgrapheme-phonemecorrespondences. Inthesetrials,participantssawawrittenformandhearda wordbeginningwithaconsonantreflectingEnglishgrapheme- phonemecorrespondences(e.g.,seethePinyin/Zhuyinwritten formfortheword[Ciou],whichisspelled <xiu> inPinyin, buthear[ziou],apossibleEnglishpronunciationofthePinyin writtenform).See Table3 foranillustrationoftestphase trials. Results Thefirstanalysisconcernsthenumberofexposure-criterion phasecyclesthatparticipantsrequiredtoreachthecriterion necessarytocontinuetothefinaltest.Participantsinthe Pinyin group(mean = 1.6cycles;SD = 0.632)requiredsignificantly fewercyclesthandidparticipantsinthe Zhuyin group[mean = 3.47;SD = 1.807; F(1, 28) = 14.255, p = 0.001, partial 2 = 0.337]. Weconvertedthefinaltestphaseaccuracydata(see Table4) tod-primesusingSignalDetectionTheory(see Figure1; for FrontiersinPsychology|www.frontiersin.org 6 June2016|Volume7|Article785Hayes-HarbandCheng OrthographicInputinL2Mandarin TABLE2|The Pinyin and Zhuyin graphemesusedinthestudy,alongwiththefoilphonemesassignedtoeachgraphemeandthevowelsaddedtocreate theMandarinwordstimuli. GraphemeCorrespondingphoneme(s)FoilphonemeVowelsaddedto createwordstimuli PinyinZhuyin MandarinEnglishVowel PinyinZhuyin Congruentitemsn /n//n//d/ /aI/ ai s /s//s// / /au/ao l /l//l//d/ /i+/ ie m /m//m// / /iou/iu Incongruentitemsz /ts//z//z/ /aI/ ai c /tsh/ /k/,/s//k/ /au/ao q /tC h/ /k//k/ /i+/ ie x /C/ /z/,/ks//z/ /iou/iu TABLE3|Experiment1examplestimuli,byphase. EXPOSUREPHASE ExposureconditionExamplecongruenttrials Exampleincongruenttrials SeeHearSee Hear Pinyin nai [nai] xiu [Ciou] Zhuyin CRITERIONTESTPHASE ExposureconditionExamplecongruenttrials Exampleincongruenttrials SeeMatchedhearMismatchedhearSeeMatchedhearMismatchedhear Pinyin nai [nai] [tshai] xiu [Ciou][miou] Zhuyin FINALTESTPHASE ExposureconditionExamplecongruenttrials Exampleincongruenttrials SeeMatchedhearMismatchedhearSeeMatchedhearMismatchedhear Pinyin nai [nai][dai] xiu [Ciou][ziou] Zhuyin moreinformationaboutd-prime,pleasesee MacMillanand Creelman,2004).Thed-primesweresubmittedtoANOVAwith exposurecondition(twolevels: Pinyin, Zhuyin) asabetween- subjectsvariableanditemcondition(congruent,incongruent)as a within-subjectsvariable.Therewasamaineffectofexposure group,withparticipantsinthe Zhuyin groupperformingmore accuratelythanparticipantsinthe Pinyin groupoverall[F(1, 28) = 4.275, p = 0.048, partial 2 = 0.132],amaineffectofitem type,withhigherd-primesoncongruentthanincongruentitems [F(1, 28) = 32.027, p < 0.0005, partial 2 = 0.534],andan interactionofthetwo[F(1, 28) = 5.991, p = 0.021, partial 2 = 0.176].Followingupontheinteraction,welookedat theeffectofexposureconditioninthetwoitemconditions separately.Oncongruentitems,therewasnoeffectofexposure condition[F(1, 28) = 0.284, p = 0.598, partial 2 = 0.010]. However,onincongruentitems,theeffectofexposurecondition FrontiersinPsychology|www.frontiersin.org 7 June2016|Volume7|Article785Hayes-HarbandCheng OrthographicInputinL2Mandarin TABLE4|Experiment1testaccuracy(proportioncorrectresponses;95% confidenceintervalsinparentheses),byexposurecondition anditem condition. ExposureCongruenttrialsIncongruenttrials condition MatchedMismatchedMatchedMismatched Pinyin 0.975(0.03)0.867(0.07)0.933(0.06)0.533(0.12) Zhuyin 0.942(0.04)0.925(0.05)0.858(0.05)0.867(0.10) FIGURE1|Experiment1meantestd-primes(whiskersrepresent95% confidenceintervals),byexposureconditionanditemcondition. wassignificant[F(1, 28) = 6.277, p = 0.018, partial 2 = 0.183], withparticipantsinthe Zhuyin conditionoutperformingthosein the Pinyin condition2. Experiment2(WordLearning)Procedures Oursecondresearchquestionconcernedwhetherthereis a differenceinnativeEnglishspeakers'abilitytolearnthe phonologicalformsofnewwordswhenexposedto Pinyin vs. Zhuyin. Experiment2wasidenticaltoExperiment1except thatparticipantsadditionallysawlinedrawingsdepictingword meaningsduringtheexposurephase,andattestwereaskedto matchauditoryformswiththelinedrawings. ExposurePhase Participantswereaskedtolearnthe16auditorywordsand theirpicturedmeanings.Foreachword,awrittenwordform, a picturerepresentingthewordmeaning,andanauditoryword werepresentedsimultaneouslyandstayedonthescreenfor4s, 2Atthesuggestionofananonymousreviewer,weexploredwhetherthe English wordstatusofthelettersequence <lie> (relativetotheEnglishnonwordstatusof allotherwords'spelledforms)mayhaveimpactedperformanceonitemsinvolving <lie>. AnalysisofproportioncorrectscoresamongPinyingroupparticipantsin Experiment1indicatesthat <lie> itemselicitedaccuracywithintherangeofthat oftheotheritems. followedbythenexttrial.The16wordsconstitutedoneblock, andtherewerefourblocksintheexposurephase. CriterionPhase ThecriterionphasetrialswereidenticaltothoseinExperiment1 exceptthatinsteadofmatchingauditorywordstowrittenforms, participantswereaskedtodeterminetheaccuracyofthematch betweenauditorywordsandpictures.Again,congruent-matched andcongruent-mismatchedtrialswereexpectedtobeeasyfor participants(e.g.,seethepictureassociatedwiththeauditory word[nai]andhear[nai](matched)or[tshai](mismatched)). Inincongruent-matchedtrials,e.g.,participantssawthepicture associatedwiththeauditoryword[Ciou]andheard[Ciou].Inthe incongruent-mismatchedtrials,e.g.,participantssawthepicture associatedwiththeauditoryword[Ciou]butheard[miou]. Participantsrepeatedtheexposureandcriterionphasesuntilthey reached90%accuracyonthecriteriontest. TestPhase ThetestphasetrialswereidenticaltothoseinExperiment1, againwiththeexceptionthatparticipants'taskwastodetermine theaccuracyofthematchbetweenauditorywordsandpictures. Congruent-matchedandcongruent-mismatchedtrialsinvolved, e.g.,seeingthepictureassociatedwith[nai]andhearing[nai] (matched)or[dai](mismatched).Incongruent-matchedtrials involved,e.g.,seeingthepictureassociatedwith[Ciou]and hearing[Ciou].Inincongruent-mismatchedtrials,participants sawapictureassociatedwith,e.g.,[Ciou],butheard[ziou],a possibleenglishpronunciationofthepinyinwrittenform<xiu>. Table5 illustratesthestimuliencounteredduringtheexposure, criterion,andfinaltestphasesinExperiment2. Results Again,wefirstconsiderthenumberofexposure-criterionphase cyclesparticipantsinthetwoexposureconditionsrequired. Inthisexperiment,participantsinthe Pinyin group(mean = 2.53;SD = 0.834)requiredonaveragemorecyclesthan didparticipantsinthe Zhuyin group(mean = 2.00;SD = 0.655);however,thisdifferencewasonlymarginallysignificant [F(1, 28) = 3.797, p = 0.061, partial 2 = 0.119]. Table6 presents thefinaltestaccuracydataand Figure2 thed-primes.Thed- primesweresubmittedtoANOVAwithexposurecondition(two levels: Pinyin, Zhuyin) asabetween-subjectsvariableanditem condition(congruent,incongruent)asawithin-subjectsvariable. Therewasamaineffectofexposuregroup,withparticipantsin the Zhuyin groupperformingmoreaccuratelythanparticipants inthe Pinyin groupoverall[F(1, 28) = 14.410, p = 0.001, partial 2 = 0.340],amaineffectofitemtype,withhigherd-primeson congruentthanincongruentitems[F(1, 28) = 56.571, p < 0.0005, partial 2 = 0.669],andaninteractionofthetwo[F(1, 28) = 2.362, p = 0.001, partial 2 = 0.318].Followinguponthe interaction,welookedattheeffectofexposureconditioninthe twoitemconditionsseparately.Oncongruentitems,therewas noeffectofexposurecondition[F(1, 28) = 1.688, p = 0.204, partial 2 = 0.056].However,onincongruentitems,theeffectof exposureconditionwassignificant[F(1, 28) = 32.027, p < 0.0005, FrontiersinPsychology|www.frontiersin.org 8 June2016|Volume7|Article785Hayes-HarbandCheng OrthographicInputinL2Mandarin TABLE5|Experiment2examplestimuli,byphase. EXPOSUREPHASE ExposureconditionExamplecongruenttrials Exampleincongruenttrials See HearSeeHear Pinyin [Ciou] nai [nai] xiu Zhuyin CRITERIONTESTPHASE ExposureconditionExamplecongruenttrials Exampleincongruenttrials SeeMatchedhearMismatchedhearSeeMatchedhearMismatchedhear Pinyin [nai] [tshai] [Ciou][miou] Zhuyin FINALTESTPHASE ExposureconditionExamplecongruenttrials Exampleincongruenttrials SeeMatchedhearMismatchedhearSeeMatchedhearMismatchedhear Pinyin [nai][dai] [Ciou][ziou] Zhuyin TABLE6|Experiment2testaccuracy(proportioncorrectresponses;95% confidenceintervalsinparentheses),byexposurecondition anditem condition. ExposureCongruenttrialsIncongruenttrials condition MatchedMismatchedMatchedMismatched Pinyin 0.975(0.03)0.942(0.06)0.850(0.06)0.683(0.12) Zhuyin 0.967(0.03)0.992(0.02)0.900(0.05)0.925(0.07) partial 2 = 0.534],withparticipantsinthe Zhuyin condition outperformingthoseinthe Pinyin condition. Experiment3(ConsonantDiscrimination) Procedures ThepurposeofExperiment3wastodeterminewhetherthe participantsinthe Pinyin groupandthoseinthe Zhuyin group differedintheirabilitytoperceptuallydistinguishtheconsonants containedinthenewlylearnedwordsfromthefoilconsonants containedintheincongruent-mismatchedtrials.Becausethefoil consonants(e.g.,[z])weresometimesphoneticallysimilar tothe relevantMandarinconsonants(e.g.,[C]),performanceinthetest phasemayhavebeenconfoundedbyperceptualconfusability, whichwouldundermineourabilitytoattributeExperiments 1 and2performancetotheinfluenceofthewritteninput. Experiment3involved16matchedand16mismatchedtrials.In eachtrial,twoauditorywordswerepresented,andparticipants wereaskedtodecidewhetherthetwowordsthattheyheard werethesame.Inthematchedtrials,eachofthe16words waspresentedtwice.Inthemismatchedtrials,eachofthe16 wordswaspresentedwithitsfoil(fromExperiments1and2;see TableA1 inAppendixforeachword'sfoil). Results Inthisfinalexperiment,participantsweretestedontheir abilitytodiscriminatetheMandarinconsonantcontrasts.As seenin Table7 and Figure3, participantsinbothgroupswere nearceilingintheirdiscriminationability.Thed-primeswere submittedtoANOVAwithexposurecondition(twolevels: Pinyin, Zhuyin) asabetween-subjectsvariableanditemtype (congruent,incongruent)asawithin-subjectsvariable.Therewas nosignificantmaineffectofeitherexposurecondition[F(1, 28) = FrontiersinPsychology|www.frontiersin.org 9 June2016|Volume7|Article785Hayes-HarbandCheng OrthographicInputinL2Mandarin FIGURE2|Experiment2meantestd-primes(whiskersrepresent95% confidenceintervals),byexposureconditionanditemcondition. TABLE7|Experiment3accuracy(proportioncorrectresponses;95% confidenceintervalsinparentheses),byexposurecondition anditem condition. ExposureCongruenttrialsIncongruenttrials condition MatchedMismatchedMatchedMismatched Pinyin 0.975(0.03)1.000(0.00)0.992(0.02)0.933(0.05) Zhuyin 0.975(0.03)1.000(0.00)0.992(0.02)0.975(0.03) 2.683, p = 0.113, partial 2 = 0.087]oritemcondition[F(1, 28) = 1.357, p = 0.254, partial 2 = 0.046],andtheinteractionwasalso nonsignificant[F(1, 28) = 2.529, p = 0.123, partial 2 = 0.083]. Thusanydifferencesinperformancebetweenthetwogroups onExperiments1and2isnotattributabletodifferencesinthe twogroups'perceptualsensitivitiestotheMandarinconsonant contrasts. DISCUSSION Recallthatwefirstaskedwhetherthereisadifferenceinnative Englishspeakers'abilitytolearn Pinyin and Zhuyin grapheme- phonemecorrespondences,specificallywhethernativeEnglish speakersexposedto Pinyin experienceparticulardifficulty with"incongruent"grapheme-phonemecorrespondences. Experiment1wasdesignedtoaddressthisquestion.Analysis of thenumberofexposure-criterionphasecyclesrequiredtoreach the90%accuracycriterionindicatesthatparticipantsexposed to Zhuyin requiredmorethantwiceasmanycyclesasdidthose exposedto Pinyin. However,onthefinaltest,thoseexposedto Zhuyin didnotexperienceinterferencefromEnglishgrapheme- phonemecorrespondencesonthe"incongruent"items,asdid FIGURE3|Experiment3meantestd-primes(whiskersrepresent95% confidenceintervals),byexposureconditionanditemcondition. participantsexposedto Pinyin. Thuswhileparticipantsinitially requiredmoreexposureto Zhuyin thanto Pinyin tolearnthe grapheme-phonemecorrespondences,theyultimatelywereable toavoiddifficultyassociatedwiththenegativetransferofnative languagegrapheme-phonemecorrespondences. Wenextaskedwhetherthereisadifferenceinnative Englishspeakers'abilitytolearnthephonologicalformsofnew wordswhenexposedto Pinyin vs. Zhuyin, specificallywhether nativeEnglishspeakersexposedto Pinyin experienceparticular difficultylearningthephonologicalformsofwordswith "incongruent"spellings.InExperiment2,whichimmediately followedExperiment1,weexaminedthewordlearningability ofparticipantsexposedto Zhuyin vs. Pinyin writtenforms. Intheexposurephaseofthisexperiment,participantsheard auditoryformsandsawpicturesindicatingthewords'meanings. Thepictureswereaccompaniedbyeitherthe Zhuyin written formorthe Pinyin writtenform.AsinExperiment1,wewere interestedinwhetherthoseinthe Pinyin groupwouldexperience interferencefromEnglishgrapheme-phonemecorrespondences onwordsintheincongruentcondition.Indeed,attest, participantsinthe Pinyin groupincorrectlyacceptedauditory formsreflectingEnglishgrapheme-phonemecorrespondences (thefoils)asthelabelsfornewlylearnedwords(e.g.,they indicatedthat[ziou]wasacorrectpronunciationforapicture theyhadlearnedwaspronounced[Ciou],presumablyduetoits Pinyin spelling <xiu>) significantlymoreoftenthandidthosein the Zhuyin group,whiletherewasnodifferenceinperformance betweengroupsonwordsinthecongruentcondition. Itisinterestingtonote,however,thatinExperiment2,the patternwithrespecttothenumberofexposure-criterionphase cyclesrequiredbythetwogroupswasoppositethatobservedin Experiment1.InExperiment2,the Pinyin groupinfactrequired more exposure-criterionphasecyclesthandidthe Zhuyin group, thoughthisdifferenceonlyapproachedsignificanceat p = 0.061. FrontiersinPsychology|www.frontiersin.org 10 June2016|Volume7|Article785Hayes-HarbandCheng OrthographicInputinL2Mandarin Thusthelearningspeeddisadvantageexperiencedby Zhuyin participantsinExperiment1(whenlearninggrapheme-phoneme correspondencesandnotwordmeanings)didnotpersevere intothewordlearningexperiment.Onemightintuitively anticipateinitialdifficultyassociatedwithexposuretounfamiliar graphemes-indeed,inasimilarly-structuredstudyofnative EnglishspeakerslearningofArabicwords, ShowalterandHayes- Harb(2015) hypothesizedthattheunfamiliarityoftheArabic scriptanditsconventionsmayhavebeenresponsibleforlowtest accuracylevels.However,inafollow-upexperiment,whenthe ArabicletterswerereplacedwithRomantransliteration,they saw noincreaseinwordlearningaccuracy,indicatingthatdifficulty associatedwiththenovelsymbolswasnotfullyresponsible fortheobservedtestdifficulty.Inanothersimilarly-structured study, Hayes-HarbandHacking(2015) didnotfindsubstantial differencesineithernumberofexposure-criterionphasecycles orinfinaltestaccuracybetweennativeEnglishspeakersexposed toRussianwordsspelledinCyrillicvs.Romanletters.Together, thepresentfindings,inadditiontothoseoftheseArabicand Russianstudies,donotprovideevidenceofaninitiallearning detrimentassociatedwiththepresenceofnovelgraphemesin thevisualinputduringwordlearning.Weinfactseeevidence tothecontraryinthepresentstudy:relativeto(familiarbut incongruent) Pinyin, exposureto(unfamiliar) Zhuyin ultimately affordedawordformlearningadvantage.Wehavethusprovided additionalevidenceforthedetrimentaleffectsoforthographic incongruencybetweentheL1andL2,consistentwiththefindings ofanumberofearlierstudies(e.g., Hayes-Harbetal.,2010; Escuderoetal.,2014). Ourfinalresearchquestionwaswhetherthereisadifferencein nativeEnglishspeakers'abilitytoperceiveMandarinconsonant contrastswhenexposedto Pinyin vs. Zhuyin. Experiment3 wasdesignedtodeterminewhetheranydifferentialperceptual sensitivitytotheMandarinconsonantcontrastexistedbetween thetwogroupsofparticipantsthatmightunderminethe interpretationoftheresultsofExperiments1and2.However, therewasnoeffectofexposuregrouponperceptualsensitivityto thedistinctionbetweentheconsonantscontainedinthenewly learnedwordsandtheirfoils,confirmingthatthedifferential performancebythetwoexposuregroupsinExperiments1and 2 areattributableto Pinyin vs. Zhuyin exposureratherthan todifferencesbetweenthegroupsofparticipantsinauditory discriminationability.Itisworthnotingthatourfinding thatdifferencesinorthographicexperienceofparticipants inthetwogroupsdidnotleadtoadifferentialabilityto perceivetheconsonantcontrastsisconsistentwiththefindings reportedby Pytlyk(2011). Wethusprovideevidencethat incongruenciesbetweentheL1andL2grapheme-phoneme correspondencescanimpactparticipants'memoryforwords' phonologicalformsintheabsenceofimpactingtheirperceptual sensitivitytotherelevantnovelphonologicalcontrasts.This suggeststhat,atleastunderthecircumstancesofthepresent study,thedifficultyassociatedwithsuppressingnativelanguage grapheme-phonemecorrespondencesinfavorofnewones playedoutatthelevelofthelexicon,withconflictsbetween orthographicandphonologicalinformationoftenresolvedin favoroforthography,whichwas,crucially,interpretedvia grapheme-phonemecorrespondencerulestransferredfromthe nativelanguage. CONCLUSION ThestudyoforthographicinputinL2phonologicaland wordformacquisitionhasemergedonlyrecently,andthe presentstudyrepresentsanadditionalstepinthedirection ofunderstandingthespecificcircumstancesunderwhich L2learners'lexicaldevelopmentishelpedorhinderedby writteninput.Ouraimwastoinvestigatetheinfluenceof twofactorsthatmaymoderatetheinfluenceofwritteninput onL2wordformlearning:(i)whetherthewritingsystemis sharedbythenativelanguageandtheL2,and(ii)ifthewriting systemisshared,whethertherelevantgrapheme-phoneme correspondencesarealsoshared.Wedidsoviaaseriesof experimentsinwhichnativeEnglishspeakerswereexposed toMandarinwordsviaauditoryandvisual(picture,written) input.NativespeakersofEnglishwhohadaccessto Pinyin (familiarwritingsystem,someunfamiliargrapheme-phoneme correspondences)experienceddifficultylearningthewords' phonologicalformsduetointerferencefromEnglishgrapheme- phonemecorrespondences.Thosewhohadaccessto Zhuyin (unfamiliarwritingsystem)experiencednosuchinterference, thoughtheydidinitiallytakesomewhatlongertolearnthe words'writtenforms. Inlightofthefactthatboth Pinyin and Zhuyin areusedin pedagogicalsettingstosupportMandarinlanguageacquisition, ourfindingscancontributetoanunderstandingofthecosts andbenefitsofeachforthispurpose.Inparticular,given thatliterateL2learnersarelikely,especiallyininstructed settings,tobeexposedtonewwords'phonologicalforms andtheirwrittenformsmoreorlesssimultaneously,itis crucialthatweunderstandthewaysinwhichthesetwo typesofinputimpacttheestablishmentandsubsequentuse ofL2lexicalrepresentations.Shortlaboratory-basedstudies liketheonepresentedheredifferimportantlyfromreal-world languageacquisition;however,theydopermitustoisolate andexaminethefactorsthatmaycontributetoL2learning successordifficulty.Onemightnextaskwhetherthepatterns identifiedinthepresentstudywithrespectto Pinyin'sand Zhuyin'sinfluenceonL2wordformlearningplayoutinactual nativeEnglish-speakinglearnersofMandarin,andwhether Mandarinlanguageexperience(see VeivoandJarvikivi,2013) orotherfactorscanmoderatetheeffectsoforthographic input. AUTHORCONTRIBUTIONS RH andHCcollaboratedonthisprojectwhileHCwasapost- doctoralresearcherunderthesupervisionofRH.RHandHC wereinvolvedatallstagesoftheproject,fromitsconception throughdesign,datacollection,andanalysis.RHwasresponsible forpreparingthemanuscriptforpublication,inconsultation withHC. FrontiersinPsychology|www.frontiersin.org 11 June2016|Volume7|Article785Hayes-HarbandCheng OrthographicInputinL2Mandarin ACKNOWLEDGMENTS WegratefullyacknowledgethecontributionsofRichardChi, AaronKaplan,JeffreyGreen,andJingZhaotothedevelopment ofthestudystimuli.Wearealsogratefultomembersofthe SpeechAcquisitionLabattheUniversityofUtahfortheir helpwithdatacollection,theDepartmentofLinguisticsand theSecondLanguageTeachingandResearchCenteratthe UniversityofUtahforpostdoctoralfundingforHC,andtothe twoanonymousreviewersandeditorforhelpfulsuggestions. REFERENCES Bassetti,B.(2006).Orthographicinputandphonologicalrepresentationsin learnersofChineseasaforeignlanguage. Writ.Lang.Lit. 9,95-114.doi: 10.1075/wll.9.1.07bas Bassetti,B.(2008)."Orthographicinputandsecondlanguagephonology,"in Input Mattersin SLA,edsT.PiskeandM.Young-Scholten(Clevedon:Multilingual Matters),191-206. Bassetti,B.,Escudero,P.,andHayes-Harb,R.(2015).Second languagephonology attheinterfacebetweenacousticandorthographicinput. Appl.Psycholinguist. 36,1-7.doi:10.1017/S0142716414000393 Cheng,H-W.(2012). SemanticandPhonologicalActivationinFirstandSecond LanguageReading. Unpublisheddissertation.BostonUniversity, Boston. Eckman,F.,andIverson,G.K.(2013).Theroleofnativelanguage phonology intheproductionofL2contrasts. Stud.SecondLang.Acquis. 35,67-92.doi: 10.1017/S027226311200068X Escudero,P.(2015).Orthographyplaysalimitedrolewhenlearningthe phonologicalformsofnewwords:thecaseofSpanishandEnglish learnersofnovelDutchwords. Appl.Psycholinguist. 36,7-22.doi: 10.1017/S014271641400040X Escudero,P.,Hayes-Harb,R.,andMitterer,H.(2008).Novelsecond- languagewordsandasymmetriclexicalaccess. J.Phon. 36,345-360.doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2007.11.002 Escudero,P.,Simon,E.,andMulak,K.(2014).Learningwordsinanew language:orthographydoesn'talwayshelp. Bilingualism 17,384-395.doi: 10.1017/S1366728913000436 Escudero,P.,andWanrooij,K.(2010).TheeffectofL1orthography onnon- nativevowelperception. Lang.Speech 53,343-365.doi:10.1177/0023830910 371447 Hayes-Harb,R.,andHacking,J.F.(2015).Theinfluenceofwrittenstressmarks onnativeEnglishspeakers'acquisitionofRussianlexicalstresscontrasts. Slavic EastEur.J. 59,91-109. Hayes-Harb,R.,Nicol,J.,andBarker,J.(2010).Learningthephonologicalforms ofnewwords:effectsoforthographicandauditoryinput. Lang.Speech 53, 367-381.doi:10.1177/0023830910371460 ISO(2015). 7098: Informationanddocumentation-RomanizationofChinese. Retrievedfrom:https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:7098:ed-3:v1:en (AccessedDecember31,2015). MacMillan,N.A.,andCreelman,C.D.(2004). DetectionTheory:AUser'sGuide. Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates. Mathieu,L.(2016).Theinfluenceofforeignscriptsontheacquisitionofa secondlanguagephonologicalcontrast. SecondLang.Res. 32,145-170.doi: 10.1177/0267658315601882 Pytlyk,C.(2011).Sharedorthography:dosharedwrittensymbolsinfluencethe perceptionofL2sounds? Mod.Lang.J. 95,541-557.doi:10.1111/j.1540- 4781.2011.01244.x Racine,I.,Bürki,A.,andSpinelli,E.(2014).Theimplicationofspelling andfrequencyintherecognitionofphonologicalvariants:evidence frompre-readersandreaders. Lang.Cogn.Neurosci. 29,893-898.doi: 10.1080/01690965.2013.832784 Showalter,C.E.,andHayes-Harb,R.(2013).Unfamiliarorthographicinformation andsecondlanguagewordlearning:anovellexiconstudy. SecondLang.Res. 29,185-200.doi:10.1177/0267658313480154 Showalter,C.E.,andHayes-Harb,R.(2015).NativeEnglishspeakerslearning Arabic:theinfluenceofnovelorthographicinformationonsecond languagephonologicalacquisition. Appl.Psycholinguist. 36,23-42.doi: 10.1017/S0142716414000411 Simon,E.,Chambless,D.,andAlves,U.K.(2010).Understandingthe roleof orthographyintheacquisitionofanon-nativevowelcontrast. Lang.Sci. 32, 380-394.doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2009.07.001 Taylor,I.,andTaylor,M.M.(2014). WritingandLiteracyinChinese,Koreanand Japanese:RevisedEdition. Amsterdam:JohnBenjaminsPublishing. Veivo,O.,andJarvikivi,J.(2013).Proficiencymodulatesearlyorthographic andphonologicalprocessinginL2spokenwordrecognition. Bilingualism 16, 864-883.doi:10.1017/S1366728912000600 Young-Scholten,M.(2002)."OrthographicinputinL2phonological development,"in AnIntegratedViewofLanguageDevelopment:Papersin HonourofHenningWode, edsP.Burmeister,T.Piske,andA.Rohde(Trier: WissenschaftlicherVerlagTrier),263-279. Young-Scholten,M.,andLanger,M.(2015).Theroleoforthographic input insecondlanguageGerman:evidencefromnaturalisticadultlearners' production. Appl.Psycholinguist. 36,93-114.doi:10.1017/S0142716414000447 Ziegler,J.C.,andFerrand,L.(1998).Orthographyshapestheperceptionofspeech: theconsistencyeffectinauditorywordrecognition. Psychon.Bull.Rev. 5, 683-689.doi:10.3758/BF03208845 ConflictofInterestStatement: Theauthorsdeclarethattheresearchwas conductedintheabsenceofanycommercialorfinancialrelationshipsthatcould beconstruedasapotentialconflictofinterest. Copyright©2016Hayes-HarbandCheng.Thisisanopen-accessarticledistributed underthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAttributionLicense (CCBY).Theuse, distributionorreproductioninotherforumsispermitted,providedtheoriginal author(s)orlicensorarecreditedandthattheoriginalpublicationinthisjournal iscited,inaccordancewithacceptedacademicpractice.No use,distributionor reproductionispermittedwhichdoesnotcomplywiththeseterms. FrontiersinPsychology|www.frontiersin.org 12 June2016|Volume7|Article785Hayes-HarbandCheng OrthographicInputinL2Mandarin APPENDIX TABLEA1|CompletelistofMandarinwords'auditoryforms,their written formsin Pinyin and Zhuyin, theirauditoryfoils,andtheirpictured meanings. PinyinZhuyin AuditoryAuditoryPictured formfoilmeaning Congruentitemsnai /naI/ /daI/ nao /nau//dau/ sai /saI/ / aI/ sao /sau// au/ lie /liE/ /diE/ liu /liou//diou/ mie /miE/ / iE/ miu /miou// iou/ Incongruentitemszai /tsaI/ /zaI/ zao /tsau//zau/ cai /tshaI/ /kaI/ cao /tshau//kau/ qie /tC hiE/ /kiE/ qiu /tC hiou//kiou/ xie /CiE/ /ziE/ xiu /Ciou//ziou/ FrontiersinPsychology|www.frontiersin.org 13 June2016|Volume7|Article785