The Time Course of Bilingual Phonologies

2017 LSA Summer Institute @ UK

Day 2: Tuesday July 11

The rest of my Agenda

• More data/questions/answers about bilingual child phonology, including:

• what it looks like? • how it is or isn’t special? • what it is (and isn’t)? – cf child L2 phon • how we measure it? – input + parental report

Continuing: what’s different about bilingual production?

our guide:

Keffala, Barlow and Rose (in press)

and many references therein

Three potential patterns see esp. Paradis and Genesee (1996)

• Delay

• Acceleration • Transfer

An ex. of acceleration: Lleo et al (2003)

Singleton codas: - German: found in ~ 67% of words few (no?) place/manner restrictions - Spanish: found in ~ 27% of words restricted: e.g., word-final coronals only Small case study: 3 German monolingual kids 3 Spanish monolingual kids 5 G/S bilinguals

An ex. of acceleration: Lleo et al (2003)

3 German monolingual kids - by 2;0: produced ~90% of singleton codas 3 Spanish monolingual kids - by 2;0: produced < 50% of singleton codas Bilinguals??

An ex. of acceleration: Lleo et al (2003)

3 German monolingual kids - by 2;0: produced ~90% of singleton codas 3 Spanish monolingual kids - by 2;0: produced < 50% of singleton codas Bilinguals?? “.... produced codas in German at similar proportions to monolingual German speakers [...] However, the percentage of Spanish target codas produced by bilinguals substantially exceeded that of Spanish monolinguals at all points.”

An ex. of acceleration: Lleo et al (2003)

3 German monolingual kids - by 2;0: produced ~90% of singleton codas 3 Spanish monolingual kids - by 2;0: produced < 50% of singleton codas Bilinguals?? “.... also first produced nasal, liquid, and obstruent codas in both languages, unlike Spanish monolingual participants, who tended to produce coda glides first.”

What mechanisms are behind delay/acceleration?

• due to overall input frequencies? • predictions?

• due to structural differences btwn languages?

• degrees of similarity or overlap? • predictions?

What mechanisms are behind delay/acceleration?

• acceleration via complex structures

• a re-ranking story? * ComplexCoda >> *Coda >> Faith * ComplexCoda >> Faith >> *Coda Faith >> *ComplexCoda >> *Coda

What mechanisms are behind delay/acceleration?

• acceleration via complex structures

• a re-ranking story? * ComplexCoda >> *Coda >> Faith * ComplexCoda >> Faith >> *Coda Faith >> *ComplexCoda >> *Coda .... HOW DO LANGUAGES SHARE? ...

Sidenote: complexity and clinical phonology

“ In terms of syllable structure in particular, Gierut (1999) found that children with delayed onset cluster production exhibited enhanced learning when treated on more linguistically complex, marked clusters (those with small sonority differences: Clements, 1990; Davis, 1990; Steriade, 1982) compared to those treated on less marked clusters (those with larger sonority differences).”

Keffala, Barlow and Rose (in press): Predictions??

If property X is more frequent in language A and less frequent in language B, bilinguals’ acquisition of property X may be delayed in language A or accelerated in language B. Exposure to linguistic complexity in one language will motivate bilinguals’ accelerated acquisition of that property or related properties in the other language.

KBR: Eng. vs Span. syllables

Mexican Spanish (Guffey 2002)

English (Dellatre and Olsen, 1969)

KBR: Eng vs Span syllable complexity

Spanish Codas (cf. English) • word-finally, only coronals • obstruents: voicing (somewhat?) neutralized to voiced • lenition, backing, debuccalization... extensive variation!

‘aceptar’: [a.sep.tar] ~ [a.seb.tar] ~ [a.seβ.tar] ~ [a.se.tar] ~ [a.sek.tar]

(Hualde, 2005; Bongiovanni, 2014)

Spanish Onset Clusters (cf. English) • less complex: s+[stop] school vs. escuela Spain vs. España • more complex (possibly)... lenited stops + sonorants?

KBR Predictions If property X is more frequent in language A and less frequent in language B, bilinguals’ acquisition of property X may be delayed in language A or accelerated in language B. * For E/S bilinguals: Spanish codas should be accelerated English codas should be delayed Exposure to linguistic complexity in one language will motivate bilinguals’ accelerated acquisition of that property or related properties in the other language. * For E/S bilinguals: Spanish onset clusters should be accelerated English onset clusters... should too?

Measuring acquisition?

• ‘structural’ accuracy: • rate of /CCVC/ [CCVC]?

deletion is an error but substitution is not

• ‘segmental’ accuracy: • rate of /... l/ [...l]

deletion and substitution are BOTH errors

KBR: Methods Participants: 27 children in Southern California/Baha:

* 12 mono English (2;5 - 4;10) * 5 mono Spanish (2;4 - 4;2) * 10 biling English/Spanish (2;1 – 4;8) * no sig. diffs between ages – means around 3;6

Protocols: Single world elicitation/imitation via picture-naming “What is this? It’ a ... / “Qué es esta? Es una...” “... It’s a flower! What is it? It’s a ...”

“ ... Es una flor! Qué es? Es una...”

KBR: Methods

Coding: Native speaker transcription Inter-transcriber reliability: 87% (E), 82% (S) Analysis: Mixed effects logistic regression * logistic regression because of binomial variable (hit or miss/ faithful or not?) * random effects: participant and item

KBR: Coda results

KBR Coda results

structural accuracy segmental accuracy

Eng

Span

KBR Onset Cluster results

KBR Onset Cluster results

Eng

Span

structural accuracy segmental accuracy

Assessing KBR Predictions If property X is more frequent in language A and less frequent in language B, bilinguals’ acquisition of property X may be delayed in language A or accelerated in language B. * For E/S bilinguals: Spanish codas should be accelerated English codas should be delayed Exposure to linguistic complexity in one language will motivate bilinguals’ accelerated acquisition of that property or related properties in the other language. * For E/S bilinguals: Spanish onset clusters should be accelerated English onset clusters... should too?

?

X

Questions for KBR?

Beyond delay and acceleration:

transfer

bL1 English-Spanish rhotics (Goldstein and Washington, 2001)

Target Child Spanish /aˈros/ [aˈɹos] rice /floɾ/ [floɹ] flower English /tɹeɪn/ [tɾen] train

bL1 English-French (Brulard and Carr, 2003) Target Child Target Child rabbit [baˈbit] socket [kɔˈkɪt] jacket [daˈkit],

[kaˈkit] paper [peˈpəp]

cooker [kuˈkut] potty [pɔˈti], [pɔˈtit]

A story of stops and spirants Spanish stop/spirant data from Barlow (2003)

Inventories and overlap bL1 English vs. Spanish labial inventory (data from Schnitzer and Krasinski, 1994) age Spanish [p]

‘papa’ English [p] ‘apple’

Spanish [f] ‘feo’ (‘ugly’)

English [f] ‘fish’

1;11-2;0 p p p p 2;1 p p p p f 2;2 p p p φ p 2;3 p p φ f p 2;4 p p φ f p f 2;5 p p f p f 2;6- 2;11 p p f p f 3;0 p p f f

Inventories and overlap

[ð] [d] [b] [β]

/ð/ /d/ /b/

/ð/? /β/ ?

Monolingual English

Monolingual Spanish

Mono- Order of Acquisition

/p/ /t/ /k/ /b/ /d/ /g/

2 year olds

4 year olds

Percentage target /stops/ [fricatives] (data from Macken and Barton, 1980)

Eng/Span Bilingual accuracy? Fabiano et al (2015)

Monolingual error patterns data from Barlow (2003)

Bilingual error patterns

In English: Gildersleeve-Neumann et al (2008), Amastae (1982) Target Child

water [wæðɚ]

piggy [pɪɣi]

doggie [dɑɣi]

In Spanish: Fabiano-Smith et al (2015) Word fuego llaves Dedo tigre

Transcription [fweγo] [jaβes] [deðo] [tiγɾe]

Error [fwebos], [wego]

[javes] [dedo] [tigɾe], [tigeɾe]

Gildersleeve-Neumann et al (2008) report some bilingual children using velar fricatives in English even outside of the intervocalic context, as in dog, rocking, bike and turkey.

... Inventories and overlap?

[ð] [d] [b] [β]

/ð/ /d/ /b/

/ð/? /β/ ? /d/? /b/?

Bilingual English

Bilingual Spanish

Foot shape transfer? Paradis (2001)

Sample nonce words

a) French b) English Target Stress

pattern Target Stress

pattern /kotimaˈtœ/ wwwS

/ləˈpætɪˌmun/ wSws

/melapoˈli/ /pəˈtulfɪgə/ wSww /pelymaˈtan/ /ˌtəmˈbeɪnɪtə/ sSww /ʀamɛliˈnoz/ /ˌkoʊmiˈgændə/ swSw

Monolingual truncation • Monolingual English:

o Truncate using a trochaic (SW) template

• /W1S’1 W2S2/ [S’1S2], [S’1W2]

• /S1W1S’2W2/ [S1W1], [S’2W2], or [S1W1S’2W2]

• influenced by syllable weight

• Monolingual French:

o Truncate using am iambic (WS) template

• /W1W2W3S/ [W3S]

• not affected by syllable weight

Bilingual French results French preservation rates for bilinguals σ1 σ2 σ3 σ4 Target B B B B /wwwS/ 32% 24% 60% 93%

/kotimaˈtœ/

Bilingual English results English preservation rates for mono- and bilinguals σ1 σ2 σ3 σ4 Target M B M B M B M B /wSws/ 11% 11% 89% 55% 51% 47% 89% 87%

/ləˈpætɪˌmun/

English preservation rates for mono- and bilinguals

σ1 σ2 σ3 σ4 Target M B M B M B M B /swSw/ 39% 17% 11% 35% 85% 67% 81% 96%

/ˌkoʊmiˈgændə/

Back to some interim questions

• How similar are monolinguals to bilinguals?

• Are bilinguals delayed? • Are they qualitatively different?

• Rate vs. order of acquisition?

Who are these “early bilinguals”?

Tessier et al (2014)

data from Johanne Paradis

The Paradis corpus

• data from over 300 child L2 learners in western Canada

• starting at ages 4-8 • starting with 6-12 mos L2 English exposure • language measures (NWR, TEGI, PPVT,

narrative task...) • also spontaneous speech samples

What some L2 onsets sound like CH1 bridge star

flowers

twinkle school

SA1 broke snack

flying stomach

play spider

L2 Onset Variability in Production

CH1 bridge [bɪz] star [saɚ], [sɑɹ]

flowers [ˈfawɚs] [stɑɹ]

twinkle [ˈtɪŋ:kʌɫ] school [ˈs:kuwʌ]

[ˈtwɪŋ:kəɫ]

SA1 broke [bəˈrok]̚ snack [snækʰ]

flying [f:ˈlaɪjɪʔ] stomach [ˈtʌmɪk̚]

play [pɪˈleɪ] spider [ɪsˈpaɪɾʌ]

Repair Strategies and L1 Differences

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CH5 CH1 CH3 CH4 CH2

L1 Chinese

CC Del Epen Other

HP2 HP4 HP3 HP1 HP5

L1 South Asian

46 27 33 29 32 4 57 44 9 15

Take Home Messages Pt 1 • bilingual phonological delay is common but shortlived • bilingual phonolgical acceleration is also common, at least

at the prosodic levels • ... we don’t really understand which one you get when

• bilingual learning may well be slightly different

• ... not just in rate but also order of acquisition?

• from as early as we can measure them: bilingual operate two separate phonological systems but they interact

• making sense of this grammatical porousness remains a challenge

• even for young children: simultaneous bilingualism IS different from child L2 acquisition