Post on 01-Feb-2016
description
Acquisition of vowel duration conditioning in Russian-Scottish
English bilingual children
Olga Gordeeva
5th International Symposium on Bilingualism
March 20-23, 2005 Barcelona
Acquisition of Sound Structure
• Are bilingual’s languages differentiated?“Yes” Genesee, 1989; Genesee et al., 1995; de Houwer, 1995;
Deuchar & Quay, 2000; Petitto, 2001; Keshavarz & Ingram, 2002
– early simultaneous bilinguals (3;4 to 4;5)
– a version of the two systems is already acquired
• Do they interact?“Yes” (Petersen, 1988; Döpke, 1998;Schlyter, 1993; Müller, 1998;
Döpke, 2000; Paradis, 2001; Kehoe, 2002; Lleó, 2002)
• Autonomous or interdependent development? (Paradis &Genessee, 1996)
Acquisition of Sound Structure (cont.)
• What are sources: structure or input (or both)? • Cross-language cue competition hypothesis (Döpke, 1998,
2000)
• Markedness Hypothesis (Müller, 1998)
• Language Dominance Hypothesis (Petersen, 1988)
• What are the patterns of interaction:Kehoe, 2002; Whitworth, 2002 for vowel duration
~ merged categories in L2 acquisition (Mack, 1982)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0;0
to 0
;3
0;4
to 0
;6
0;7
to 0
;9
0;10
to 1
;0
1;1
to 1
;3
1;4
to 1
;6
1;7
to 1
;9
1;10
to 2
;0
2;1
to 2
;3
2;4
to 2
;6
2;7
to 2
;9
2;10
to 3
;0
3;1
to 3
;3
3;4
to 3
;6
3;7
to 3
;9
3;10
to 4
;0
4;1
to 4
;3
4;4
to 4
;5
AN's age%
English
Russian
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0;0
to 0
;3
0;7
to 0
;9
1;1
to 1
;3
1;7
to 1
;9
2;1
to 2
;3
2;7
to 2
;9
3;1
to 3
;3
3;7
to 3
;9
4;1
to 4
;3
BS's age
%
English
Russian
Background of bilingual subjects
subject BS (3;4 to 4;5) subject AN (3;8 to 4;5)
Crosslinguistic differences in focus
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
SSE MSR SSBE
Language
du
rati
on
(m
s)
+ 1
Std
ev
fric voice+
stop voice+
stop voice-
SSE: A systematic and large in extent postvocalic
conditioning of vowel duration (SVLR): checked and are long before
voiced fricatives and short in other consonantal contexts
(Aitken, 1981; Scobbie et al., 1999a; Scobbie et al., 1999b)
MSR: A less clear-cut system of postvocalic conditioning of vowel
duration (Chen, 1970; Keating,1985;
Gordeeva et al., 2003)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
voiced fricative voiced stop voiceless stop
following consonant
dura
tion
/i/ (m
s) SSE adult
child 3;4 to 3;11
child 4:0 to 4;4
child 4;5 to 4;9
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
voiced fricative voiced stop voiceless stop
dura
tion
(ms)
SSE adult
child 3;4 to 3;11
child 4:0 to 4;4
child 4;5 to 4;9
SSE monolingual acquisition of the SVLR
in ‘sheep’ ‘feet’ ‘seed’
‘cheese’ ‘peas’
in ‘cook’ ‘put’ ‘food’‘shoes’
Post-vocalic conditioning of /i/ (more ‘equally balanced’ bilingual AN)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
voicedfricative
voicedstop
voicelessstop
SSE child 4;5 to 4;9
AN 4;5
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
voicedfricative
voicedstop
voicelessstop
SSE child 4;0 to 4;4
AN 4;2
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
voicedfricative
voicedstop
voicelessstop
SSE child 3;4 to 3;11
AN 3;8
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
voicedfricative
voicedstop
voicelessstop
AN 4;5 SSE
AN 4;5 MSR0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
voicedfricative
voicedstop
voicelessstop
AN 4;2 SSE
AN 4;2 MSR0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
voicedfricative
voicedstop
voicelessstop
AN 3;8 SSE
AN 3;8 MSR
SVLR was not significantly different from Scottish English
peers
But in 1st age sample reduced extent for the
“long vowel”
AN’s MSR/SSE production of
postvocalic conditioning was significantly
different
But 1st age sample non-differentiated
Postvocalic conditioning of / (more equally ‘balanced’ bilingual AN)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
voicedfricative
voicedstop
voicelessstop
SSE child 4;5 to 4;9
AN 4;5
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
voicedfricative
voicedstop
voicelessstop
SSE child 4;0 to 4;4
AN 4;2
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
voicedfricative
voicedstop
voicelessstop
SSE child 3;4 to 3;11
AN 3;8
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
voicedfricative
voicedstop
voicelessstop
AN 4;5 SSE
AN 4;5 MSR0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
voicedfricative
voicedstop
voicelessstop
AN 4;2 SSE
AN 4;2 MSR0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
voicedfricative
voicedstop
voicelessstop
AN 3;8 SSE
AN 3;8 MSR
SVLR was not significantly different from Scottish
English peers
But in the 1st age sample she produced a reduced
extent for the “long vowel”
AN’s MSR/SSE production of postvocalic conditioning was significantly different
But in the 1st / 2nd age samples it was
differentiated in the unexpected direction
Postvocalic conditioning of /i/ (Russian ‘dominant’ bilingual BS)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
voicedfricative
voicedstop
voicelessstop
SSE child 4;2 to 4;9
BS 4;5
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
voicedfricative
voicedstop
voicelessstop
SSE child 3;9 to 4;1
BS 3;10
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
voicedfricative
voicedstop
voicelessstop
SSE child 3;4 to 3;8
BS 3;4
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
voicedfricative
voicedstop
voicelessstop
BS 4;5 SSE
BS 4;5 MSR
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
voicedfricative
voicedstop
voicelessstop
BS 3;10 SSE
BS 3;10 MSR
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
voicedfricative
voicedstop
voicelessstop
BS 3;4 SSE
BS 3;4 MSR
SVLR different from Scottish English peers
(factor bilinguality)
Russian/Scottish English are not differentiated
Statistically insignificant difference towards the 3rd
age sample
Patterns of Language Interaction
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
voicedfricative
voicedstop
voicelessstop
SSE child 3;9 to 4;1
BS 3;100
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
voicedfricative
voicedstop
voicelessstop
BS 4;5 SSE
BS 4;5 MSR
‘Transfer’ or ‘Delay’? (Genessee & Paradis,
1996;)Kehoe (2002) ‘Delay’
• both BS & AN produced unidirectional effects from MSR to SSE: a merged system
• the effect is similar to those observed L2-acquisition(Mack,1982; Markus & Bond, 1999)
Patterns of Language Interaction (cont.)
• ANproduced bi-directional patterns for postvocalic conditioning of SSE MSR
• similar to patterns observed in L2 acquisitionintonation (Mennen, 2004); VOT studies (Caramazza et al. 1973; Flege, 1987; Williams, 1980)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
voicedfricative
voicedstop
voicelessstop
AN 4;5 SSE
AN 4;5 MSR0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
voicedfricative
voicedstop
voicelessstop
AN 3;8 SSE
AN 3;8 MSR
The bi-directionality is problematic for: CCCH (Döpke, 1998, 2000)Markedness Hypothesis (Müller, 1998) Language Dominance Hypothesis(Petersen, 1988)
Systematicity of Language Interaction
• Contextually inappropriate mixed utterances have been explained as “unrepaired slips of the tongue”
(De Houwer, 1995)• The data on vowel duration in this study suggests
systematicity rather than an incidental occurrence:– present longitudinally in 2 out of 3 age samples– present in the speech of both subjects despite individual
differences in language exposure– patterns are coherent to L2-studies and other simultaneous
bilingual acquisition studies
Structure or Exposure? or both?
• Formal structural complexity does not necessarily determine the direction of language interaction– The presence of bi-directional effects contradicts unidirectional
language interaction hypotheses Cross-language cue competition hypothesis (Döpke, 1998, 2000); Markedness Hypothesis (Müller, 1998);
• Language exposure seems important, but can produce “fuzzy” bi-directional language interaction effects for structurally ambiguous sound structures– This contradicts unidirectional Language Dominance Hypothesis
(Petersen, 1988)
Longitudinal effects on language differentiation
lack of language
differentiation involved only
variables involving
vowel duration (not vowel
quality or vocal effort)
Conclusions• The amount of language differentiation differs with
changing language input conditions: depending on the amount language exposure and its longitudinal accumulation.
• Observed language interaction effects were systematic.• Both subjects seem to acquire the majority variety (SSE)
despite the presence of other English varieties in their input• “Differences in temporal aspects of speech phenomena are
relatively easily mastered”? (Jenkins &Yeni-Komishian, 1995)
• Does the relationship between “autonomous” and “interdependent” development have to be categorical?