1. Vowel Quality Change inRomanian Heritage Speakers SORINA
DRAGUSANU WESTERN UNIVERSITY
2. Overview Heritage Speakers Other Literature Participants
Methods Results Discussion
3. Heritage Speakers Who are they? Term coined in Canada in
1970 (Cummins, 2005) Child or adult speakers of a linguistic
minority who grew up exposed to both dominant and minority language
(Montrul, 2010) Little or no access to language education
4. Heritage Speakers Who are they? Simultaneous bilingual
learns both languages at the same time Sequential bilingual learns
native language then the dominant one (up-to age 5)
5. Heritage Speakers What do we know about their language
abilities? Varied language abilities (low to near-native) Stronger
ethnic ties or larger linguistic market is linked with overall
better language performance. Sequential bilinguals perform better
than simultaneous bilinguals
6. Heritage Speakers What do we know about their language
abilities? Speakers display both native and non-native
pronunciations Phonetic distance is a factor in preserving
native-like pronunciation (Godson, 2004)
7. Heritage Speakers Why are they interesting to study? The
role of language internal and external factors The emergence of new
linguistic varieties Diachronic language change The very nature of
the mental constitution of language and cognition
8. Research Questions What is the overall change in the vowel
quality of heritage speakers of Romanian? What social or linguistic
factors contribute to this change?
9. Romanian Vowel inventory i u e o a Frequency (Renwick,
2011): i 25% u 11% e 20% 5% a 20% 2% o 12%
10. Hypotheses If phonetic distance is a more prominent factor
than order of acquisition then the central high vowel is preserved
in HS Simultaneous bilinguals will be considerably more affected
than sequential bilinguals; Sequential bilinguals pattern more
closely with late bilinguals.
11. Participants Where South-Western Ontario Heritage groups
Simultaneous bilinguals Sequential bilinguals Adult groups Late
Bilinguals learned Romanian in native environment,; English is
second language learned in school Age ranges from 15-30 at the time
of immigration
12. Methods Data collection Interviews One hour long Detailed
language background, demographics, and language attitudes Word list
(Swadesh, 1971) 100 words Frequently used words Mainly single and
disyllabic About 14 token per vowel
13. Methods Vowel Normalization Process: Since speakers mouth
shapes and pitch differ we cannot do a one-to-one comparison.
Normalization scales and overlaps the vowel space of groups of
individuals for better comparison Function found in the vowel
package for R Lobanov normalization technique for complete vowel
inventories
14. Mean Formant Values for Control Individual vowel formant
values Non-Normalized non-normalized 400 i 450 u central 500 e oF1
550 schwa 600 a 650 Control 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 F2
15. Mean Formant Values formant values Individual vowel for
Late Bilingual Non-Normalized non-normalized 300 i u 400 central
500 eF1 o schwa 600 700 Dio a 2000 1500 1000 F2
16. Mean Formant Values for Late Bilingual and Control
Individual vowel formant values Lobanov normalized Normalized
Lobanov The late bilinguals have the closest productions to the i i
control -1 u Changes are observed in the central u schwa and back
vowels central T-test results show significant change for F2 of 0 o
e e schwa and back vowelsF*1 o schwa 1 schwa a 2 Control a Dio 2.0
1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 F*2
17. Individual vowel formant valuesSequential Bilingual Mean
Formant Values for Lobanov normalized Normalized Lobanov Sequential
bilinguals are much more varied in their i productions -1 i u
Changes are observed in all central u vowels central Group results
show o o significant changes for the F2 0 e values of back vowels,
muchF*1 e like the late bilingual group schwa 1 schwa a 2 Laura a
Control 2 1 0 -1 F*2
18. Mean Formant Values for Simultaneous Bilingual Individual
vowel formant values Lobanov normalized Normalized Lobanov
Simultaneous bilinguals are the most varied in production i i of
Romanian vowels -1 u As with simultaneous group, u changes are
observed in all central vowels central Group results however show
that this group has the most 0 e oF*1 o significant changes, e
schwa especially in the mid vowels, [e] [] and [] 1 schwa a Control
a 2 Simultaneous Bilingual 2 1 0 -1 F*2
19. Discussion & Conclusion Phonetic distance does not help
heritage speakers distinguish [] from other vowels as predicted by
the SLM and seen in Godsons (2004) paper Simultaneous bilinguals
have a difficult time mapping out the central vowel space of
Romanian Frequency of use and the existence of minimal pairs are
crucial to forming and maintaining the necessary contrast between
this vowel and the mid-central In addition, F2 and the back vowels
are more susceptible to variation and influence.
20. Thank you! Selected Sources: Bullock, B. E. & Green, C.
(2004). Phonological convergence in a contracting language variety.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(2), 95-104. Clopper, C. G.
(2009). Computational methods for normalizing acoustic vowel data
for talker differences. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3 (6),
14301442. Godson, L. (2004). Vowel production in the speech of
western Armenian heritage speakers. Heritage Language Journal, 2
(1). Locke, J. L. (1983). Phonological acquisition and change. New
York: Academic Press. Montrul, S. (2010). Current issues in
heritage language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics,30, pp. 3-23
21. Thank you! Please comment if you have any questions or
would like to see more results and discussion.