Chapter published in:
Lost in Transmission: The role of attrition and input in heritage language development
Edited by Bernhard Brehmer and Jeanine Treffers-Daller
[Studies in Bilingualism 59] 2020
► pp. 229–254

The Frequency Code and gendered attrition and acquisition in the German-English heritage language community in Vancouver, Canada

| Queen Mary University of London
The paper investigates pitch level and span in a group of German L1-English L2 late bilinguals in comparison to two monolingual control groups. The late bilinguals had moved to Vancouver, Canada in adulthood, and had been living in Vancouver for an average of 40 years. The results indicate that the bilingual males increased their pitch in both English and German, and widened their pitch span, therefore indexing non-aggressive, friendly behaviour, but deviating from both monolingual pitch norms. Thus, the results offer evidence that pitch changes are at least in part dependent on the social and political environment in which they are embedded, as a low pitch level is associated with dominance and aggression which would boost the negative image of the Vancouver German community due to their ethnic origin after WWII.
Keywords: German, L1 attrition, prosody, pitch, Frequency Code, social significance
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: First language attrition as it relates to heritage language research
  • 2.Purpose of this study
  • 3.Defining pitch
  • 4.The Frequency Code
  • 5.Pitch in German and English
  • 6.Methodology
    • 6.1Participants
    • 6.2Data collection
    • 6.3Measuring pitch range
    • 6.4Hypotheses
  • 7.Results
    • 7.1Pitch level
    • 7.2Pitch span
    • 7.3Bilingual variation in pitch range
  • 8.Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 29 May 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.59.09del
References
Au, T. K., Knightly, L. M., Jun, S.-A. & Oh, J. S.
2002 Overhearing a language during childhood. Psychological Science 13(3): 238–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D.
2010 PRAAT. Doing Phonetics by Computer [Computer Program]. University of Amsterdam. http://​www​.praat​.org
Bowers, J. S., Mattys, S. L. & Gage, S. H.
2009 Preserved implicit knowledge of a forgotten childhood language. Psychological Science 20(9): 1064–1069. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. & Docherty, G. J.
1995 Phonetic variation in dysarthric speech as a function of sampling task. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 30(1): 17–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cherciov, M.
2013 Investigating the impact of attitude on first language attrition and second language acquisition from a Dynamic Systems Theory perspective. International Journal of Bilingualism 17(6): 716–733. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, J., Kerswill, P., Fox, S. & Torgersen, E.
2011 Contact, the feature pool and the speech community: The emergence of Multicultural London English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15(2): 151–196. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Leeuw, E.
2009 When Your Native Language Sounds Foreign: A Phonetic Investigation into First Language Attrition. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
2010 Measuring language-specific phonetic settings. Second Language Research 26(1): 13–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2019 Phonetic attrition. In The Oxford Handbook of Attrition, M.S. Schmid et al. (eds), 204–217. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Dominguez, L. & Hicks, G.
2016 Synchronic change in a multidialectal Spanish community: Evidence from null and postverbal subjects. In Inquiries in Hispanic Linguistics: From Theory to Empirical Evidence [Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 12], A. Cuza, L. Czerwionka & D. Olson (eds), 53–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, H. & Laver, J.
1994 Menschen und ihre Stimmen. Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. & Rickford, J. R.
2001 Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Gibbon, D.
1998 Intonation in German. In Intonation Systems. A Survey of Twenty Languages, D. Hirst & A. Di Cristo (eds), 78–95. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Grazia Busà, M. & Urbani, M.
2011 A cross-linguistic analysis of pitch range in English L1 and L2. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference of Phonetic Sciences, 380–383. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C.
2004 The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. & Jacobs, H.
1998 Understanding Phonology. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hayward, K.
2000 Experimental Phonetics: An Introduction. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Hewlett, N. & Beck, J.
2006 An Introduction to the Science of Phonetics. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kagan, O. & Dillon, K.
2001 A new perspective on teaching Russian: Focus on the heritage learner. The Slavic and East European Journal 45(3): 507–518. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kupisch, T. & Rothman, J.
2018 Terminology matters! Why difference is not incompleteness and how early child bilinguals are heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism 22(5): 564–582. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W.
1963 The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19(3): 273–309. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. R.
2008 Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Laver, J.
1980 The Phonetic Description of Voice Quality. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Levon, E.
2009 Dimensions of style: Context, politics and motivation in gay Israeli speech. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13(1): 29–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lieb, C.
2008 German diaspora experiences in British Columbia after 1945. In German Diasporic Experiences: Identity, Migration, and Loss, M. Schulze, J. M. Skidmore, D. G. John, G. Liebscher & S. Siebel-Achenbach (eds), 305–316. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.Google Scholar
Linville, S. E.
1996 The sound of senescence. Journal of Voice 10(2): 190–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mennen, I.
2007 Phonological and phonetic influences in non-native intonation. In Non-native Prosody. Phonetic Description and Teaching Practice, J. Trouvain & U. Gut (eds), 53–76. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mennen, I. & de Leeuw, E.
2014 Beyond segments. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 36(2): 183–194. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mennen, I., Schaeffler, F. & Dickie, C.
2014 Second language acquisition of pitch range in German learners of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 36: 303–329. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mennen, I., Schaeffler, F. & Docherty, G.
2012 Cross-language differences in fundamental frequency range: A comparison of English and German. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 131(3): 2249–2260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mennen, I., Schaeffler, F. & Docherty, G. J.
2007 Pitching it differently: a comparison of the pitch ranges of German and English speakers. In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress on Phonetic Sciences, 1769–1772. Saarbrücken: Universität des Saarlandes.Google Scholar
Montrul, S.
2008 Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism: Re-examining the Age Factor [Studies in Bilingualism 39]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morton, E. S.
1977 On the occurrence and significance of motivation-structural rules in some bird and mammal sounds. The American Naturalist 111(981): 855–869. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neppert, J. M.
1999 Elemente einer akustischen Phonetik, 4th edn. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Nishio, M. & Niimi, S.
2008 Changes in speaking fundamental frequency characteristics with aging. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica 60(3): 120–127. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, J. J.
1983 Cross-language use of pitch: An ethological view. Phonetica 40(1): 1–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1984 An ethological perspective on common cross-language utilization of F0 of voice. Phonetica 41(1): 1–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ohara, Y.
1999 Performing gender through voice pitch: A cross-cultural analysis of Japanese and American English. In Wahrnehmung und Herstellung von Geschlecht, U. Pasero & F. Braun (eds), 105–116. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Opitz, C.
2013 A dynamic perspective on late bilinguals’ linguistic development in an L2 environment. International Journal of Bilingualism 17(6): 701–715. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ordin, M. & Mennen, I.
2017 Cross-linguistic differences in bilinguals’ fundamental frequency ranges. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 60(6): 1493–1506. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pallier, C., Dehaene, S., Poline, J.-B., LeBihan, D., Argenti, A.-M., Dupoux, E. & Mehler, J.
2003 Brain imaging of language plasticity in adopted adults: Can a second language replace the first? Cerebral Cortex 13(2): 155–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Passoni, E., Mehrabi, A., Levon, E. & de Leeuw, E.
2018 Bilingualism, pitch range and social factors: preliminary results from sequential Japanese-English bilinguals. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Speech Prosody 2018, 1–5. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, D.
2000 A Linguistic Approach to Pitch Range Modelling. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Podesva, R. J.
2007 Phonation type as a stylistic variable: The use of falsetto in constructing a persona1. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11(4): 478–504. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M.
2008 Gender under incomplete acquisition: Heritage speakers’ lnowledge of noun categorization. Heritage Language Journal 6(1): 40–71. http://​dash​.harvard​.edu​/handle​/1​/3382970> (9 December 2018).
Rothman, J.
2007 Heritage speaker competence differences, language change, and input type: Inflected infinitives in Heritage Brazilian Portuguese. International Journal of Bilingualism 11(4): 359–389. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J. & Treffers-Daller, J.
2014 A prolegomenon to the construct of the native speaker: Heritage speaker bilinguals are natives too! Applied Linguistics 35(1): 93–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scharff-Rethfeldt, W.
2000 Speaking Fundamental Frequency Differences in the Language of Bilingual Speakers. PhD dissertation, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.Google Scholar
Scharff-Rethfeldt, W., Miller, N. & Mennen, I.
2008 Speaking fundamental frequency differences in highly proficient bilinguals of German/English. Sprache, Stimme, Gehör 32(3): 123–128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, K. R.
1974 Voice quality analysis of American and German speakers. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 3(3): 281–298. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, M. S.
2011 Language Attrition. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, M. S. & Köpke, B.
2007 Bilingualism and attrition. In Language Attrition: Theoretical Perspectives [Studies in Bilingualism 33], B. Köpke, M. S. Schmid, M. Keijzer & S. Dostert (eds), 1–7. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A. & D’Arcy, A.
2009 Peaks beyond phonology: Adolescence, incrementation, and language change. Language 85(1): 58–108. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Todd, D.
2011 Ethnic mapping 5: Find Metro’s Dutch, Germans, Iranians and Italians. Vancouver Sun 19 October 2011. http://​vancouversun​.com​/news​/staff​-blogs​/ethnic​-mapping​-5​-find​-metros​-dutch​-blacks​-germans​-and​-iranians> (9 December 2018).
Trudgill, P.
1986 Dialects in Contact. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ullakanoja, R.
2007 Comparison of pitch range in Finnish (L1) and Russian (L2). In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress on Phonetic Sciences, 1701–1704. Saarbrücken: Universität des Saarlandes.Google Scholar
Van Bezooijen, R.
1995 Sociocultural aspects of pitch differences between Japanese and Dutch women. Language and Speech 38(3): 253–265. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Willems, N.
1982 English Intonation from a Dutch Point of View. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

McCarthy, Kathleen M. & Esther de Leeuw
2021. PROSODIC PATTERNS IN SYLHETI-ENGLISH BILINGUALS. Studies in Second Language Acquisition ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.