Charles B. Chang, Erin Haynes, Russell Rhodes, and Yao Yao University of California, Berkeley

1. The 32nd Penn Linguistics Colloquium 23 February 2008 A Tale of Two Fricatives Consonantal Contrast in Heritage Speakers of Mandarin Charles B. Chang, Erin Haynes, Russell Rhodes, and Yao Yao University of California, Berkeley cbchang@berkeley.edu, hayneser@berkeley.edu, russell_rhodes@berkeley.edu, yaoyao@berkeley.edu

2. Outline • Background and research questions • Methods • Results • Discussion • Conclusions

3. Background This study compares fricative production in heritage speakers of Mandarin to that of native Mandarin speakers and that of native English speakers learning Mandarin as a foreign language. Heritage speakers of Mandarin (narrow definition): people who have had exposure to Mandarin in their family but have shifted to primarily using English 3

4. Background A few studies have examined the phonological competence of heritage speakers: Au et al. (2002) and Knightly et al. (2003): heritage speakers of Spanish have a phonological advantage over late learners (VOT, degree of lenition, and accent ratings). Oh et al. (2002, 2003): heritage speakers of Korean exhibit rather native-like production (VOT and accent ratings). Godson (2003): heritage speakers of Armenian show influence in their Armenian vowels from English, but only for Armenian vowels close to English vowels. 4

5. Research Questions Only Godson (2003) has explored categorical neutralization, and only with respect to vowels. Do heritage speakers maintain consonantal contrasts of the heritage language? Do heritage speakers maintain contrasts between segments of the heritage language and similar segments of the dominant language? 5

6. Research Questions Realization of 3 fricatives compared: Mandarin /ʂ/ English /ʃ/ Mandarin /ɕ/ 6

7. Outline • Background and research questions • Methods • Results • Discussion • Conclusions

8. Methods • Participants • 12 speakers total • 3 native speakers of Mandarin • 6 heritage speakers of Mandarin • 3 late learners of Mandarin • Questionnaire • Speakers’ status determined based on a language background questionnaire • Recordings • All items recorded in a sound-proof booth (at 48 kHz, 16 bps) • Marantz PMD660, AKG C420 head-mounted condenser microphone

9. Methods • Stimuli • 91 words total • 59 Mandarin words • 32 English words • Presentation of stimuli • words read off of index cards • English words written in English orthography • Mandarin words written in Mandarin orthography (traditional and simplified characters) and romanization (pinyin and BoPoMoFo) • all words written and read in isolation • words read in 8 blocks • 4 Mandarin blocks • 4 English blocks • block consisted of reading all of the words from a given language • words randomized before each block

10. Methods • Acoustic measurements • All measurements were performed in Praat (Boersma & Weenink 2008). • Peak amplitude frequency and centroid frequency (Ladefoged 2005) were measured over a spectrum of the middle 100 ms of the fricative. • Average values of F1, F2, and F3 were measured over the first 20 ms of the vowel. • Analysis of data • Statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-rank test.

11. Outline • Background and research questions • Methods • Results • Discussion • Conclusions

12. Results • Mean peak amplitude frequency, by speaker (L = female speakers, R = male speakers) * ** ** ** * ** * ** * * ** ** * * ** ** *

13. Results • Mean centroid frequency, by speaker (L = female speakers, R = male speakers) ** ** ** * * * * ** * * * * ** **

14. Results • Distinctions made between fricatives, by speaker: (1-3 = native, 4-9 = heritage, 10-12 = learners)

15. Outline • Background and research questions • Methods • Results • Discussion • Conclusions

16. Discussion • The spectral data indicate: • Almost all speakersclearly distinguishalveolo-palatal /ɕ/ from retroflex /ʂ/ and the English palato-alveolar /ʃ/. • Realization of the contrast between /ʂ/ and /ʃ/ shows a great deal of variation among speakers.

17. Discussion • Two of the three native speakers and two of the three late learners collapse /ʂ/ and /ʃ/. • The most advanced heritage speaker and the least advanced heritage speaker pattern with native speakers and late learners, respectively. /ʃ/ /ʂ/ /ɕ/

18. Discussion • The middle four heritage speakerskeep /ʂ/ and /ʃ/ apart on one or both spectral measures. None of them merges the two sounds. /ʃ/ /ʂ/ /ɕ/

19. Outline • Background and research questions • Methods • Results • Discussion • Conclusions

20. Conclusions • Our results suggest that native speakers and late learners most likely collapse /ʃ/ and /ʂ/, while heritage speakers tend to keep the two sounds apart. • Two possible explanations: • Early exposure to both languages makes heritage speakers better at hitting the two targets. • Early-acquired categories interact with each other and are dissimilated.

21. Conclusions • Our results also suggest that there is a correspondence in heritage speakers between linguistic performance and amount of exposure to the heritage language. native speakers most advanced heritage speakers late learners least advanced heritage speakers intermediate heritage speakers

22. Thank you! Acknowledgements: Sharon Inkelas Keith Johnson all speaker participants participants in a seminar on phonological learning (UCB, Fall 2007) UC Berkeley Linguistics

23. Selected References Au, Terry K., Leah M. Knightly, Sun-Ah Jun, and Janet S. Oh. 2002. Overhearing a language during childhood. Psychological Science 13(3): 238-243. Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink. 2008. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. http://www.praat.org. Godson, Linda. 2003. Phonetics of Language Attrition: Vowel Production and Articulatory Setting in the Speech of Western Armenian Heritage Speakers. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Knightly, Leah M., Sun-Ah Jun, Janet S. Oh, and Terry K. Au. 2003. Production benefits of childhood overhearing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 114(1): 465-474. Ladefoged, Peter. 2005. Vowels and Consonants, 2nd edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Oh, Janet S., Terry K. Au, and Sun-Ah Jun. 2002. Benefits of childhood language experience for adult L2 learners’ phonology. In B. Skarabela et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Vol. 2: 464-472. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Oh, Janet, Sun-Ah Jun, Leah Knightly, and Terry Au. 2003. Holding on to childhood language memory. Cognition 86(3): B53-B64.

24. Results • Mean F1 frequency

25. Results • Mean F2 frequency

26. Results • Mean F3 frequency