MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224323911 · doi:10.5744/shl.2022.1003

Intonation Patterns in Argentinean- and Venezuelan-Canadian Heritage Speakers of Spanish

2022· article· en· W4224323911 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jacob Aziz, Vanina Machado Araujo, Natasha Swiderski, Celina Valdivia, Ryan A. Stevenson, Yasaman Rafat, Rajiv Rao

Bibliographic record

VenueSpanish as a Heritage Language · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic Variation and Morphology
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntonation (linguistics)LinguisticsContext (archaeology)PhonologyInterrogativeHeritage languageVariation (astronomy)HistoryPsychologyPhilosophyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpanish as a Heritage LanguageSame topicLinguistic Variation and MorphologyFrench-language works237,207