Intonation Patterns in Argentinean- and Venezuelan-Canadian Heritage Speakers of Spanish
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
An encompassing study projected by Rao (2016) identified various factors such as transfer from English, parental input, and pragmatic context as contributing to the source of variation in the production of nuclear (i.e., final) intonation in the Spanish of heritage speakers (HSs) of Mexican Spanish who lived in the United States. The current study expands on Rao (2016) by quantifying the degree of similarity to (a) English and (b) parental intonation patterns in nuclear yes-no question intonation in Porteño (i.e., Buenos Aires, Argentina) Spanish HSs and Caraqueño (i.e., Caracas, Venezuela) Spanish HSs living in Ontario, Canada. Whereas the intonation contour in absolute interrogative questions in Canadian English is primarily ascending (Séguinot, 1976), it is often descending in Porteño (Gabriel et al., 2010) and Caraqueño Spanish (Sosa, 1999). Therefore, these groups of bilinguals lend themselves well to a study examining whether heritage intonational phonology is more influenced by parental input or whether it exhibits drift towards English. We tested eight adult English-dominant HSs – four of Argentinean heritage and four of Venezuelan heritage – and their parents. All participants filled out the Bilingual Language Profile (BLP; Birdsong, Gertken & Amengual, 2012). The participants were also asked to complete a semi-spontaneous task, where they were presented with fictional scenarios (identical in both languages) and asked to respond (e.g., Fictional Scenario: Entrás a un negocio donde nunca estuviste antes y preguntás si tienen mandarinas (You walk into a store that you’ve never been to before and ask if they have any mandarins) Anticipated utterance: ¿Tienen mandarinas? (Do you have any mandarins?)). Pragmatic context was controlled and taken into account with the elicitation of 6 different kinds of yes-no questions: surprise questions, requests, information-seeking questions, confirmation, offers and orders. The tasks were completed by both HSs and their parents; they first completed the task in Spanish, followed by English. English-speaking controls completed the same tasks only in English. This study only focuses on the Spanish stimuli of the HSs and their parents as well as the English of the control group. Results were caluclated using the total percent of frequencies of pitch accents across all participants. To analyze the impact of group on these pitch accents, a 3 x 4 Chi-squared was run across group and pitch accent, reavealing a significant impact of group on the frequency of pitch accent (p < 0.001, φ = 0.39). While L+H* showed a numerical declining trend across the three groups, this effect did not achieve significance (max absolute SR = 1.1). L* showed an increase across groups that achieved marginal significance (max absolute SR = -1.9). L+¡H* showed a significant decrease across the three groups (max absolute SR = -2.5). H+L* showed a significant difference across groups, however, this change was driven by a greater frequency in the monolingual English group (SR = 2.8), with no parametric trend across the three groups. An analysis was then run to analyze the impact of group on these boundary tones within the Argentinean group (p < 0.001, φ = 0.54) and then the Venezuelan group (p < 0.001, φ = 0.65), a 3 x 3 Chi-squared was run across generation and boundary, revealing a significant impact of generation on the frequency of boundary tone. Parental influence on pitch accent, nuclear pitch configuration, and boundary tones was also investigated. The proportion for each response characteristic for each child was paired with their parent’s proportion of responses (e.g. Child 1’s proportion of responses with a L* pitch accent was paired with their parent’s proportion of responses with an L* pitch accent), and bivariate Pearson correlations were performed for each type of characteristic. Parents’ pitch accents were significantly related to their child’s proportions of pitch accents (r(34) = 0.46, p = 0.005, CI = [0.15 0.68]). Neither boundary tone (r(16) = 0.18, p = 0.49, CI = [-0.32 0.59]) nor nuclear pitch configuration (r(16) = 0.21, p = 0.40, CI = [-0.28 0.62]) showed any significant relationship between parent and child. In sum, the results reveal that, while we do note parental influence on pitch accents, we do not observe this effect much on heritage speakers' boundary tones and nuclear pitch configurations, where we ascertain shifts toward English in heritage Spanish question intonation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».