Aug 2026· Journal of the Acoustical Society of America· Vol 159, pp. A306-A306· 0 citations
Abstract
Multilingualism exists on a wide spectrum, and assessing an individual’s linguistic background and predicting language outcomes is challenging. To evaluate the predictive value of more precise language background questionnaires (LBQs) (e.g., Byers-Heinlein et al., 2020) we investigate acoustic-phonetic outcomes in young simultaneous bilinguals and link these to their backgrounds assessed through our detailed LBQ (cf. Rinker et al., 2017). We analyze elicited productions of (study 1) Russian vowels /i/ and /ɨ/ by 8- to 13-year-old Russian–English bilinguals, and (study 2) productions of voicing by 3- to 6-year-old German–Italian bilinguals. Both studies show differences in the realization of acoustic-phonetic cues of bilingual versus monolingual children. This may be indicative of motoric complexity involved in producing the formant-frequency height/movement of Russian /i/ or prevoicing; and/or can be interpreted as crosslinguistic sound-category interference from the majority/societal language (English; German) to the minority/heritage-language (Russian; Italian). Importantly, we find effects even in simultaneous bilinguals with daily heritage-language use and at least one native heritage-language parent. We argue that precise assessment of bilinguals’ ongoing language use can serve as a predictor for acoustic-phonetic outcomes, and will discuss possibilities for further modernization and standardization of LBQs, specifically in terms of (multi)media use, motivation, and clinical settings.
Introduction: Multilingual speakers frequently report that operating in a different language involves more than a change in grammatical system. The phenomenon at issue is linguistic frame switching (LFS): the involuntary reorganisation of cognitive, emotional, and identity-relevant schemas when a multilingual speaker m...
Judith Zangerle· Academia Neuroscience and Br...· 0 citations
This study investigates morphological code-mixing, the combination of morphemes from two languages within a single word, in the spontaneous speech of young German–English bilingual children. Following a usage-based perspective, the study asks whether children’s morphological code-mixing shows systematic patterns an...
Antje Endesfelder Quick, Stefan Hartmann, Nikolas Koch· International Journal of Bil...· 0 citations
While there is growing awareness of the need to account for bilingualism in clinical assessments, there is a dearth of work on speech development adequately considering how input diversity, including bilingualism and accent variation, might affect toddlers’ productions. We recorded 2- and 3-year-olds with varied profil...
E. Shroads, Sophia MacKeigan, Priscilla Fung et al.· Journal of the Acoustical So...· 0 citations
This study analyses the production of voiceless and voiced plosives (/p, t, k, b, d, g/) in both read and spontaneous speech produced by L1 Polish, L2 English, L3 Norwegian multilingual learners and native control speakers. The goal is to examine whether L2/L3 learners maintain distinct phonological categories in all t...
English and Spanish differ in syllable formation. One difference is that certain vocoid sequences in English are produced in hiatus, whereas the same vocoid sequences in Spanish are produced either as a diphthong or as a hiatus, subject to phonological conditioning. This difference may contribute to crosslinguistic i...
M. Puscama, Matthew T. Carlson· Journal of Second Language P...· 0 citations
Languages differ in how they construct motion events. These crosslinguistic differences, referred to as framing typology, affect how speakers of different languages conceptualize motion events. Differences in event conceptualization may also transfer to the L2 (conceptual transfer), as shown from learners' grammatical...
Carissa A. Diantoro, Hak-Yung Sung, Melissa M. Baese-Berk· Language and Speech· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.