Acquisition of vowel duration conditioning in russian scottish english bilingual children
Download
1 / 15

Acquisition of vowel duration conditioning in Russian-Scottish English bilingual children - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 130 Views
  • Uploaded on

Acquisition of vowel duration conditioning in Russian-Scottish English bilingual children. Olga Gordeeva 5 th International Symposium on Bilingualism March 20-23, 2005 Barcelona. Acquisition of Sound Structure. Are bilingual’s languages differentiated?

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Acquisition of vowel duration conditioning in Russian-Scottish English bilingual children' - bedros


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Acquisition of vowel duration conditioning in russian scottish english bilingual children

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
Acquisition of Sound Structure Russian-Scottish English bilingual children

  • 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
Acquisition of Sound Structure (cont.) Russian-Scottish English bilingual children

  • 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)


  • Background of bilingual subjects
    Background of bilingual subjects Russian-Scottish English bilingual children

    subject BS (3;4 to 4;5)

    subject AN (3;8 to 4;5)


    Crosslinguistic differences in focus
    Crosslinguistic differences in focus Russian-Scottish English bilingual children

    SSE: A systematic and large in extent postvocalic conditioning of vowel duration (SVLR): checked /i/ 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)


    Sse monolingual acquisition of the svlr
    SSE monolingual acquisition of the SVLR Russian-Scottish English bilingual children

    /i/ in ‘sheep’ ‘feet’

    ‘seed’

    ‘cheese’ ‘peas’

    /¬/ in ‘cook’ ‘put’

    ‘food’

    ‘shoes’


    Post vocalic conditioning of i more equally balanced bilingual an
    Post-vocalic conditioning of /i/ Russian-Scottish English bilingual children(more ‘equally balanced’ bilingual AN)

    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 u more equally balanced bilingual an
    Postvocalic conditioning of Russian-Scottish English bilingual children/¬/ /u/(more equally ‘balanced’ bilingual AN)

    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
    Postvocalic conditioning of /i/ Russian-Scottish English bilingual children(Russian ‘dominant’ bilingual BS)

    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
    Patterns of Language Interaction Russian-Scottish English bilingual children

    • 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)

    ‘Transfer’ or ‘Delay’? (Genessee & Paradis, 1996;)

    Kehoe (2002)  ‘Delay’


    Patterns of language interaction cont
    Patterns of Language Interaction (cont.) Russian-Scottish English bilingual children

    • ANproduced bi-directional patterns for postvocalic conditioning of SSE /¬/ and MSR /u/

    • similar to patterns observed in L2 acquisition

      intonation (Mennen, 2004);

      VOT studies (Caramazza et al. 1973; Flege, 1987; Williams, 1980)

    The bi-directionality is problematic for:

    CCCH (Döpke, 1998, 2000)

    Markedness Hypothesis (Müller, 1998)

    Language Dominance Hypothesis

    (Petersen, 1988)


    Systematicity of language interaction
    Systematicity of Language Interaction Russian-Scottish English bilingual children

    • 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
    Structure or Exposure? or both? Russian-Scottish English bilingual children

    • 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
    Longitudinal effects on language differentiation Russian-Scottish English bilingual children

    lack of language differentiation involved only variables involving

    vowel duration (not vowel quality or vocal effort)


    Conclusions
    Conclusions Russian-Scottish English bilingual children

    • 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?


    ad