Individual-level cross-linguistic comparisons in Toronto Cantonese and English high vowels
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.15845/bells.v14i1.4342Résumé
Previous studies of Toronto Heritage Cantonese have suggested the lack of a similar phonological contrast in English as the source of cross-linguistic influence on the phonetic production of the /y/ vs. /u/ contrast in Cantonese. By comparing both the English and Cantonese production of the same individual speakers in spontaneous speech recordings, this study addresses Chang’s (2021) call for more bilingual studies focused on individual-level cross-linguistic interactions. Results show three distinct patterns of cross-linguistic interaction: P1) three distinct vowels, P2) Cantonese /u/ merged with English /u/, and P3) Cantonese /y/ merged with English /u/. While P1 was the most frequently occurring pattern, the occurrence of P3 exclusively among second-generation speakers, among those with lower Cantonese Production Scores, and among those with the lowest Pillai Scores suggest that cross-linguistic phonetic similarity is what drives decreased acoustic distance between /y/ and /u/ rather than direct transfer of phonological categories.
Références
Boberg, Charles. 2011. Reshaping the vowel system: An index of phonetic innovation in Canadian English. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 17(2). https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol17/iss2/4.
Chan, Arlene. 2011. The Chinese in Toronto from 1878: From outside to inside the circle. Toronto: Dundurn Press.
Chang, Charles B. 2021. Phonetics and phonology of heritage languages. In Silvina Montrul & Maria Polinsky (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of heritage languages and linguistics. 581– 612. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108766340.027
Chang, Charles B., Yao Yao, Erin F. Haynes & Russell Rhodes. 2011. Production of phonetic and phonological contrast by heritage speakers of Mandarin. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 129(6). 3964–3980. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3569736.
Cui, Naomi, Minyi Zhu, Vina Law, Holman Tse & Naomi Nagy. 2014. Exploring automated formant analysis for comparative variationist study of Heritage Cantonese and English. In Change and Variation in Canada / Changement et Variation au Canada (CVC 8). Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada. http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/26261/.
Hoffman, Michol F. & James A. Walker. 2010. Ethnolects and the city: Ethnic orientation and linguistic variation in Toronto English. Language Variation and Change 22(1). 37–67. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394509990238.
Johnson, Daniel Ezra. 2009. Getting off the GoldVarb standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixed- effects variable rule analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1). 359–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00108.x
Labov, William. 1984. Field methods of the project on linguistic change and variation. In John Baugh & Joel Sherzer (eds.), Language in use: readings in sociolinguistics, 28–53. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Nagy, Naomi. 2011. A multilingual corpus to explore variation in language contact situations. Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata 43(1/2). 65–84.
Nycz, Jennifer & Lauren Hall-Lew. 2015. Best practices in measuring vowel merger. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 20(1). 060008. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4894063.
Stanley, Joseph A. & Betsy Sneller. 2023. Sample size matters in calculating Pillai scores. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. Acoustical Society of America 153(1). 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0016757
Statistics Canada. 2022. Table 98-10-0181-01 Mother tongue by single and multiple mother tongue responses: Canada, provinces, and territories, census metropolitan areas and census agglomerations with parts.
Thomason, Sarah Grey. 2001. Language contact: An introduction. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Tse, Holman. 2019. Vowel shifts in Cantonese? Asia-Pacific Language Variation 5(1). 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1075/aplv.19001.tse.
Tse, Holman. 2022. What can Cantonese heritage speakers tell us about age of acquisition, linguistic dominance, and sociophonetic variation? In Robert Bayley, Dennis Richard Preston & Xiaoshi Li (eds.), Variation in second and heritage languages: Crosslinguistic perspectives (Studies in Language Variation 28), 97–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.28.05tse.
Tse, Holman. 2024. Functional load and vowel merger in Toronto Heritage Cantonese. In Rajiv Rao (ed.), The Phonetics and phonology of heritage languages, 280-301. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108966986.014.
Umbal, Pocholo & Naomi Nagy. 2021. Heritage Tagalog phonology and a variationist framework of language contact. Languages (Special Issue: Heritage Speaker Phonetics and Phonology: Testing Models and Expanding the Range of Data) 6(4). 201. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6040201.
Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in contact, findings and problems. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York.
Zee, Eric. 1999. Chinese (Hong Kong Cantonese). In Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: a guide to the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet, 58–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
