1. One head, two languages: Mark Antoniou m.antoniou@uws.edu.au Speech production and perception in Greek–English bilinguals

2. What is bilingualism? The regular and frequent use of two languages Types: Simultaneous, early, late L1 = strongL2 = weak(er)

3. Do bilinguals have separate phonological systems?

4. Can bilinguals become monolingual-like? Challenges: Production – L1 and L2 accent Speech Learning Model (Flege and colleagues) Perception – Persistent L1-influence (Sebastian Galles and colleagues)

5. Language context Psycholinguistic literature demonstrates that bilinguals are sensitive: –Word recognition –Naming tasks –Reading

6. Language mode figure adapted from Grosjean (2008)

7. Language Mode and VOT Bilinguals’ languages Shift in VOTVOT = L1 monolinguals VOT = L2 monolinguals Dutch-English (Flege & Eefting, 1987) ✓ French-English (Caramazza et al., 1973; Hazan & Boulakia, 1993) ✓✓ Spanish-English (Garcia-Sierra et al., 2009; Magloire & Green, 1999) ✓✓✓ Inconsistency: matching monolinguals

8. Language dominance L2-dominant bilinguals most likely to suppress L1 interference (Flege et al., 2002) Because of their L2 fluency

9. Establishing L2 categories PAM-L2: Contribution of age to L2 perceptual learning mediated by: –relative quantity and quality of input from native L2 speakers –length of residence –relative L1:L2 usage (Best & Tyler, 2007)

10. Greek-Australian bilinguals L1 – parents, family L2 – teachers, peers LOR – Australian-born L1:L2 – L2-dominant

11. Greek Voiceless stops: /p, t/ short-lag VOT Voiced stops: nasal + stop /b/ = μπ /d/ = ντlead VOT  May be prenasalised word-medially

12. Can bilinguals match the VOTs of monolingual speakers? Australian monols Greek monols EM bilinguals (L2:3.6yrs) GM bilinguals (L2:3.4yrs) English or Greek /ba, da, pa, ta/ Carrier: say ___ againλέει ___ άλλο All communication solely in one language

13. /Ca/

14. Bilinguals match monolinguals’ VOTs Bilabial and coronal stops /Ca/ Dominant in the L2 When language mode is manipulated Implications: SLM, PAM-L2

15. /aCa/ *

16. /aNCa/

17. Conclusions Bilinguals are very accurate More than intelligibility requires Persistent L1-influence (albeit modest) for some medial stops

18. Can language interaction be forced? Bilinguals recorded in monolingual mode Gestural drift (Sancier & Fowler, 1997) Language mode predicts interaction

19. Language mode figure adapted from Grosjean (2008)

20. Code-switching A complete switch to the other language to produce a whole word –Time cost (Kolers, 1966; Macnamara & Kushnir, 1971) –Delay (Altarriba et al., 1996; Li, 1996) –‘Base language’ effect (Grosjean, 1988) Sensitive test of interlanguage phonetic interaction

21. Does code-switching increase L1-L2 interaction? (GM) bilinguals Reverse LM, but same targets Code-switch recordings : 3-6mo after initial Carrier: say Greek target againλεει English target αλλο All communication solely in one language, except for target words (EM) bilinguals

22. say ντα again

23. Code-switch /Ca/ * * * *

24. Code-switch /aCa/ * * * *

25. Code-switch /aNCa/ * * * *

26. Conclusions Code-switching exacerbates L1-L2 interaction Support for Language mode framework VOT shifts more evident in L2

27. L1 free of L2-interaction Persistent L1-influence in production What about perception? SLM: perception and production linked LM: shift boundaries PAM(L2): assimilations  discrimination

28. Perceptual Assimilation Model PAM: Perceptual attunement to native language constrains our nonnative perception. Two-category (TC)Single-category (SC)Category-goodness (CG)Categorised-Uncategorised (UC) Discrimination performance: TC > UC > CG > SC

29. Do bilinguals match monolingual listeners in perception? Australians Greeks EM bilinguals GM bilinguals English and Greek /ba/-/pa/ /da/-/ta/ 2 Greek and 2 Aussie male native speakers Categorisation and goodness rating (4 randomised presentations per stop) AXB discrimination (16 randomised triads per contrast)

30. What did you hear? p m+p d n+d b m+b t n+t

31. Very strangePerfect, no foreign accent How good did that consonant sound?

32. Bilinguals identify Greek stops similarly to monolinguals Greek /ba/GreeksAussiesGMEM IDbbbb %981009181 Rating (1-7)6.14.56.05.3 Greek /pa/GreeksAussiesGMEM IDpbpp %100548050 Rating (1-7)6.34.365.94.0 TCUCTCUC * *

33. Bilinguals identify English stops similarly* to monolinguals English /ba/GreeksAussiesGMEM IDpbbb %95885481 Rating (1-7)4.45.03.14.8 English /pa/GreeksAussiesGMEM IDpppp %1009899100 Rating (1-7)3.75.43.15.6 CGTCUCTC * * *

34. LM has no effect on discrimination * * *

35. LM has no effect on /aCa/-/aCa/ *

36. Conclusions Perception: Dominant L2 influences the L1 Perception and production are not the same LM influences ID but not discrimination

37. Why different perception and production? Language learning histories Communicative pressure –Production: can be understood –Perception: encounter far more variability Statistical learning –Perception: immersed in L2 –BUT Production: also used more than L1

38. Can bilinguals match monolinguals? Yes* Production: L1 (and L2) Perception: L2 –Categorisation vs Discrimination

39. Separate phonological systems? Cannot possibly be separate Better question: Can the two languages be kept free of L1-L2 interaction?

40. Future directions Does bilingualism augment or hinder nonnative discrimination? Complex relationship between speech perception and production Investigate dominance (L1 vs L2)