The document analyzes vowel quality changes in Romanian heritage speakers living in Canada. It discusses how heritage speakers tend to have varied language abilities due to growing up with both the dominant and minority language. The study examines simultaneous and sequential Romanian-English bilinguals as well as late bilingual controls, analyzing vowel formant values after normalization. Results show simultaneous bilinguals have the most varied productions and significant changes to mid vowels, while sequential bilinguals and late bilinguals display changes primarily in back vowels. The study investigates how social and linguistic factors influence vowel changes in heritage speakers.

1. Vowel Quality Change in
Romanian Heritage Speakers
SORINA DRAGUSANU
WESTERN UNIVERSITY

2. Overview
 Heritage Speakers
 Other Literature
 Participants
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion

3. Heritage Speakers
 Who are they?
 Term coined in Canada in 1970 (Cummins, 2005)
 Child or adult speakers of a linguistic minority who grew
up exposed to both dominant and minority language
(Montrul, 2010)
 Little or no access to language education

4. Heritage Speakers
 Who are they?
 Simultaneous bilingual – learns both languages at the
same time
 Sequential bilingual – learns native language then the
dominant one (up-to age 5)

5. Heritage Speakers
 What do we know about their language abilities?
 Varied language abilities (low to near-native)
 Stronger ethnic ties or larger linguistic market is linked
with overall better language performance.
 Sequential bilinguals perform better than simultaneous
bilinguals

6. Heritage Speakers
 What do we know about their language abilities?
 Speakers display both native and non-native
pronunciations
 Phonetic distance is a factor in preserving native-like
pronunciation (Godson, 2004)

7. Heritage Speakers
 Why are they interesting to study?
 The role of language internal and external factors
 The emergence of new linguistic varieties
 Diachronic language change
 The very nature of the mental constitution of language
and cognition

8. Research Questions
 What is the overall change in the vowel quality of
heritage speakers of Romanian?
 What social or linguistic factors contribute to this
change?

9. Romanian
 Vowel inventory
i ɨ u
e ə o
a
 Frequency (Renwick, 2011):
i 25% u 11%
e 20% ə 5%
a 20% ɨ 2%
o 12%

10. Hypotheses
 If phonetic distance is a more prominent factor than
order of acquisition then the central high vowel is
preserved in HS
 Simultaneous bilinguals will be considerably more
affected than sequential bilinguals;
 Sequential bilinguals pattern more closely with late
bilinguals.

11. Participants
 Where
 South-Western Ontario
 Heritage groups
 Simultaneous bilinguals
 Sequential bilinguals
 Adult groups
 Late Bilinguals – learned Romanian in native environment,;
English is second language learned in school
 Age ranges from 15-30 at the time of immigration

12. Methods
 Data collection
 Interviews
 One hour long
 Detailed language background, demographics, and language
attitudes
 Word list (Swadesh, 1971)
 100 words
 Frequently used words
 Mainly single and disyllabic
 About 14 token per vowel

13. Methods
 Vowel Normalization Process:
 Since speaker’s mouth shapes and pitch differ we cannot
do a one-to-one comparison. Normalization scales and
overlaps the vowel space of groups of individuals for
better comparison
 Function found in the vowel package for R
 Lobanov normalization technique for complete vowel
inventories

14. Mean Formant Values for Control
Individual vowel formant values
Non-Normalized
non-normalized
400
i
450
u
central
500
e o
F1
550
schwa
600
a
650
Control
1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800
F2

15. Mean Formant Values formant values
Individual vowel for Late Bilingual
Non-Normalized
non-normalized
300
i
u
400
central
500
e
F1
o
schwa
600
700
Dio
a
2000 1500 1000
F2

16. Mean Formant Values for Late Bilingual and Control
Individual vowel formant values
Lobanov normalized Normalized
Lobanov
•The late bilinguals have the
closest productions to the
i
i control
-1
u •Changes are observed in the
central
u schwa and back vowels
central
•T-test results show
significant change for F2 of
0
o
e
e schwa and back vowels
F*1
o
schwa
1
schwa
a
2
Control a
Dio
2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5
F*2

17. Individual vowel formant valuesSequential Bilingual
Mean Formant Values for
Lobanov normalized Normalized
Lobanov
•Sequential bilinguals are
much more varied in their
i
productions
-1
i u •Changes are observed in all
central u vowels
central
•Group results show
o o significant changes for the F2
0
e
values of back vowels, much
F*1
e like the late bilingual group
schwa
1
schwa
a
2
Laura a
Control
2 1 0 -1
F*2

18. Mean Formant Values for Simultaneous Bilingual
Individual vowel formant values
Lobanov normalized Normalized
Lobanov
•Simultaneous bilinguals are
the most varied in production
i
i of Romanian vowels
-1
u
•As with simultaneous group,
u
changes are observed in all
central vowels
central •Group results however show
that this group has the most
0
e o
F*1
o significant changes,
e schwa especially in the mid vowels,
[e] [ə] and [ɨ]
1
schwa
a
Control a
2
Simultaneous Bilingual
2 1 0 -1
F*2

19. Discussion & Conclusion
 Phonetic distance does not help heritage speakers
distinguish [ɨ] from other vowels as predicted by the
SLM and seen in Godson’s (2004) paper
 Simultaneous bilinguals have a difficult time
mapping out the central vowel space of Romanian
 Frequency of use and the existence of minimal pairs
are crucial to forming and maintaining the necessary
contrast between this vowel and the mid-central
 In addition, F2 and the back vowels are more
susceptible to variation and influence.

20. Thank you!
 Selected Sources:
 Bullock, B. E. & Green, C. (2004). Phonological convergence in a
contracting language variety. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 7(2), 95-104.
 Clopper, C. G. (2009). Computational methods for normalizing
acoustic vowel data for talker differences. Language and Linguistics
Compass, 3 (6), 1430–1442.
 Godson, L. (2004). Vowel production in the speech of western
Armenian heritage speakers. Heritage Language Journal, 2 (1).
 Locke, J. L. (1983). Phonological acquisition and change. New York:
Academic Press.
 Montrul, S. (2010). Current issues in heritage language acquisition.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,30, pp. 3-23

21. Thank you!
 Please comment if you have any questions or would
like to see more results and discussion.