English Interdental Fricative Production in Dutch Heritage Speakers Living in Canada

Abstract:

This study investigates the production of /θ/ and /ð/ by three groups of English-speakers in the community of Norwich, Ontario, Canada. English monolinguals, heritage Dutch speakers (early bilinguals), and L1 Dutch/ L2 English speakers (late-learning bilinguals) /θ/ and /ð/ production was measured in both naturalistic and reading tasks. Heritage Dutch speakers produce ENT#091;θENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093; at similar rates to Monolingual English speakers, but the two groups exhibit different allophonic realizations, especially when /ð/ is word-initial and /θ/ is word-medial. This study suggests that despite their ability to produce ENT#091;θENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093; , Dutch heritage speakers may manipulate the inherently variable English /θ/ and /ð/ production to communicate their Dutch cultural identity. This is the first study to examine both heritage Dutch bilinguals in Canada and non-English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom Dutch English.

Keywords:
Heritage phonology; Bilingualism; L2 speech learning; Socio-phonetics; Interdental fricatives; Dutch; English

1. Introduction

This study aims to add to the body of literature on heritage speakers' phonology by examining how heritage Dutch speakers' English ENT#091;θENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093; production may differ from both ‘typical’ late L2 learners and native speakers of English. In particular, the purpose of this study is to examine both the type and rate of L1-based phonological transfer. Transfer in this case is the way in which Dutch phonology may affect the acquisition, and specifically the production, of English. Although more work has been done on L2 production (e.g. Best and Tyler (2007); Colantoni and Steele (2008); Flege (1995)), there is a growing body of literature on heritage-speaker phonology (Hoffman & Walker, 2010; Chang, Yao, Haynes, & Rhodes, 2011; Rao & Kuder, 2016).

Dutch has no ENT#091;θENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093; in its phonology, and research has shown that even highly proficient speakers often produce these sounds in English in a non-target-like manner (Schmid, Gilbers, & Nota, 2014; Wester, Gilbers, & Lowie, 2007). The literature on Dutch L1 English learners has mainly focused on L2 speakers who acquired English in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context and little is known about learners who learn English outside of an EFL classroom. Moreover, most studies on immigrant Dutch bilinguals have focused on attrition of Dutch, rather than the acquisition of English (c.f., Crezee (2012); Hulsen (2000); Hulsen, de Bot, and Weltens (2002)). The township of Norwich, Ontario, provides an opportunity to study the English of Dutch bilingual immigrants and heritage speakers, as 9.2% of the population reports Dutch as their mother tongue (Statistics Canada, 2012), and approximately 20% of residents are of Dutch descent (Schryer, 1998, p. 75). The research in this study will focus on these two population groups and attempt to answer the following questions:

1. Do heritage speakers of Dutch differ from monolingual English speakers and late-learning L1 Dutch L2 English bilinguals in their realization of ENT#091;θENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093;?

2. Is Dutch heritage speakers' ENT#091;θENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093; production more similar to those of the late-learning L1 Dutch bilinguals or monolingual English speakers?

2.0 Literature Review

2.1 Dutch Presence in Canada

Studies of immigrant language use suggest that Dutch immigrants tend to assimilate quickly in Anglophone societies (Harrison, 2000; Hulsen, 2000). As a result, previous studies on Dutch immigrants and their descendants have largely focussed on the attrition of their L1, rather than their acquisition of English. In Canada, 34% of the Dutch immigrant population married someone whose native language is English or French, and only 1% taught Dutch to their children as a first language (Harrison, 2000). Only 25% of Ontarians who speak Dutch as a mother tongue continue to speak Dutch in the home (Schryer, 1998, p. 163). VanDijk notes that while Dutch Calvinists (like many in Norwich¹) are more likely to resist language assimilation in comparison to Dutch Catholics or those of other religions, Calvinist rates of Dutch language use are only marginally higher than other groups (2007). The overall high degree of language assimilation may result in Heritage speakers producing ENT#091;θENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093; in a manner more similar to their English monolingual peers than to late-learning Dutch L1 speakers.

2.2 L1 Dutch L2 English Phonology

In general, L1 Dutch/L2 English speakers can attain a high degree of fluency in English. Schmid et al. (2014) found that high-fluency Dutch L2 English speakers did not differ significantly from English speakers on c-test fluency tasks. However, L1 Dutch speakers’ speech is still recognizably accented, in both vowel (Schmid et al., 2014) and interdental fricative production (Wester et al., 2007). Wester et al. (2007) looked at the realizations of ENT#091;θENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093; in naturalistic English speech by highly fluent L1 Dutch/L2 English speakers. They found that ENT#091;θENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093; were most commonly realized as ENT#091;tENT#093; and ENT#091;dENT#093; in word-initial position and as ENT#091;sENT#093; and ENT#091;zENT#093; in word-final position. These realizations follow a different pattern than those of English L1 ENT#091;θENT#093; acquisition, which tends to favour ENT#091;fENT#093; (Wester et al., 2007). Wester et al. (2007) attribute this to ENT#091;tENT#093; and ENT#091;dENT#093; being more unmarked sounds (they have fewer features that differentiate them from ENT#091;θENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093; in Dutch phonology). L1 Dutch/ L2 English speakers also confuse ENT#091;θENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093; perceptually, commonly confusing ENT#091;θENT#093; for ENT#091;fENT#093; and ENT#091;sENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093; for ENT#091;dENT#093;, ENT#091;zENT#093;, and ENT#091;sENT#093; (Cutler, Weber, Smits, & Cooper, 2004). These patterns of ENT#091;ðENT#093; and ENT#091;θENT#093; production and perceptual confusion suggest that we will find some of these patterns of variable ENT#091;θENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093; production in Norwich’s late learning L1Dutch/ L2English bilinguals and Dutch heritage speakers.

2.3 Heritage Phonology

Chang et al.,(2011) compared the production of similar (but distinct) Mandarin and English vowels, plosives, and fricatives by four different groups: native Mandarin speakers, heritage Mandarin speakers with low and high Mandarin exposure, and late Mandarin learners/English native speakers. Of the four groups, both heritage speaker groups produced the similar phonemes with stronger between-language contrasts than the late-learning groups. The heritage groups also maintained strong within-language contrasts. Chang et al. (2011) use Flege’s Speech Learning Model (SLM) to explain this. According to the SLM, learners acquire the phonology of their second language by creating contrasting categories for sounds, which are highly dissimilar to those in their native language (new sounds), but they tend to merge similar sounds with categories for their native language. This merger is more likely to occur as the age of acquisition increases. That is, late learners will be more likely to merge similar sounds. Heritage speakers acquire the sounds of both languages simultaneously and at a young age, so they are more likely to create more distinct and accurate between-language contrasts. As a result, they tend to produce native-like sounds for both of their languages, outperforming late-learners.

Hoffman and Walker (2010) investigated the ethnolects of Chinese and Italian heritage speakers in Toronto. Their findings suggest that differences between monolingual’s English and heritage speakers’ English are due to group identity rather than learning L2 speech patterns from their parents. Gatbonton, Trofimovich, and Segalowitz (2011) found similar ethnic-identity effects for French L1 English speakers’ /ð/ production. L2 speakers who viewed French language maintenance as an important political statement produced significantly less ENT#091;ðENT#093; in their English productions, even when accounting for English proficiency. In their wide-ranging survey of UK immigrants’ intergenerational language use, Parameshwaran (2013) found that while the ethnic or heritage language underwent attrition over successive generations, English (majority language) proficiency was generally native-like for all people raised in the UK. Among Heritage groups, a positive attitude towards assimilation correlated with higher levels of English fluency. Calvinist Dutch Heritage speaker communities have a strong sense of Dutch identity, but they generally prefer to speak English (Van Dijk, 1998). This suggests that while the Dutch community in Norwich has largely linguistically assimilated to the English-language majority, they maintain a strong Dutch identity. These studies suggest that heritage speakers with stronger cultural ties to the Dutch community may exhibit some “Dutch-like” features in their production of English, or may show some transfer from their Dutch for this reason.

As a counterpoint, there are rare examples of ethnic or ethno-religious identity affecting majority language use even in monolingual English speakers. A North American example of this is the Pennsylvania Dutch Anabaptists (Downing, 2015; Huffines, 1980; Parker, 1991). This group is comprised of ethnically German Old-Order Amish and Mennonite populations living not just in Pennsylvania, but also in Ohio and Southern Ontario. Despite the first migrants arriving in the late nineteenth century, these populations have maintained a dialect of heritage German that exists today (Huffines, 1980). While the majority of young people in these communities are monolingual English speakers (Huffines, 1980), these speakers still “exhibit a large influence of the Pennsylvania German dialect in their speech” (Parker, 1991, p. 23). This influence differentiates the English of the Pennsylvania Dutch from the majority English of the United States (Parker, 1991). Consonantal features include /ð/ stopping, the realization of /θ/ as ENT#091;sENT#093;, and final obstruent devoicing (Downing, 2015; Huffines, 1980). While these features are similar to German L1 English speakers, Pennsylvania Dutch Anabaptists are largely monolingual English speakers, so L2 theories (like the SLM) cannot be used to describe their speech. Instead, Parker (1991) explains that these English productions are a method of labelling themselves as a member of the Anabaptist community, and therefore, excluding themselves from secular English American culture. While the Dutch Calvinist community in Norwich is not as insular as the Anabaptists, Schryer (1998) notes that the Orthodox Calvinist church in Norwich is one of the two most conservative and insular Dutch church sects in Ontario (the other is in Ancaster). This insularity has resulted in strong social networks that may help to explain the survival of Dutch English features in Norwich Township heritage speakers. This means we may find an increased rate of typical Dutch L1 features in heritage English production. In the context of this study, this could be seen as an increased rate of ENT#091;dENT#093; production as an allophone of /ð/, and ENT#091;tENT#093; and ENT#091;sENT#093; as allophones of /θ/.

2.4 Monolingual production of the English Interdental Fricative

Flege, Munro, and MacKay (1995) measured the word-initial production of English /θ/ and /ð/ by Canadian English monolinguals, and Italian L1 English speakers who began acquiring English at different ages. They found that both the monolinguals and Italian L1 who acquired English at or before age 8 produced ENT#091;θENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093; in approximately 70% of tokens. Those who acquired English later in life produced both sounds at lower rates - speakers who acquired English as adults only produced ENT#091;θENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093; in 20% of tokens. Speakers who acquired English at or before age 8 (both monolinguals and Italian L1) realized /θ/ as ENT#091;tENT#093; and /ð/ as ENT#091;dENT#093; in the majority of the remaining tokens (Flege et al., 1995). This study shows us that /θ/ and /ð/ production is variable even within monolingual English speakers.

Zhao (2010) investigated /ð/ production and also found that English monolinguals did not produce ENT#091;ðENT#093; as a fricative in 100% of /ð/ target tokens. ENT#091;ðENT#093; was sometimes realized as “stop-like ð”, especially after a pause, vowel, liquid, or fricative. “Stop-like ð” is different from ENT#091;dENT#093;, having a significantly higher burst spectrum peak and mean spectral frequency, as well as a significantly weaker and flatter spectral burst shape. Roach even goes so far as to deny that /θ/ and /ð/ are fricatives, preferring to describe them as “weak dental plosives” (2010, p. 56). The high degree of similarity between monolingual English production of /d/ and /ð/ suggests that these sounds could be merged in L2 English phonologies under Flege’s SLM.

/θ/ and /ð/ are not present in all English dialects or discriminated by all native English speakers (Munro & Derwing, 2006). /θ/ and /ð/ have been found to be supplanted by /d/ and /t/ in Newfoundland by Boberg (2010), in AAVE by Labov (cited in Gatbonton et al. (2011)), New York City by Best and Tyler (2007) and in Belfast by Milroy (cited in Gatbonton et al. (2011)). /θ/ has also been frequently supplanted by /f/ in many British (Blevins, 2004; Hanulikova & Weber, 2012), Australian, and New Zealand dialects (Jekiel, 2012) as well as word-finally and inter-vocalically by AAVE speakers (Jekiel, 2012). /θ/ is also frequently confused by English monolingual children - the ENT#091;θENT#093; - ENT#091;fENT#093; contrast is one of the few English consonant contrasts that infants struggle to discriminate (Vihman, 1996 in Blevins (2004)). The interdental fricatives are some of the last sounds to be acquired by North American English speaking children (Bernhardt & Stemberger, 2002). In General American English, /θ/ is usually acquired around age 6, while /ð/ is acquired around age 7 (Smith, 2007). Prior to that age, it is common for /ð/ to be produced as ENT#091;dENT#093; and for /θ/ to be produced as ENT#091;fENT#093; or ENT#091;sENT#093; (Smith, 2007). The minimal contrastive function of /θ/ and /ð/ allows these sounds to be produced variably by English speakers of many different dialects.

3.0 Hypotheses

It is predicted that:

1. The three groups will differ and fall along a continuum, with English speakers producing the highest rate of ENT#091;θENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093;. Late bilingual Dutch immigrants will experience some transfer from their L1, and so will produce the lowest rate of ENT#091;θENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093; (as in Wester et al., 2007). Heritage speakers will produce ENT#091;θENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093; at a rate close to, but lower than the English monolingual speakers (following findings by Chang et al. (2011); Hoffman and Walker (2010)).

2. All three groups will exhibit allophonic variation for ENT#091;θENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093; production. However, the patterns of allophonic distribution will differ between the three groups. The Dutch heritage speakers' patterns of ENT#091;θENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093; allophonic production will be similar to those of the Dutch L1 speakers as reported in Wester et al. (2007). Specifically, they will tend to produce ENT#091;dENT#093; and ENT#091;tENT#093; as allophones at a significantly higher rate than the ENT#091;sENT#093; and Ø (zero) allophones which characterize monolingual English speakers.

4. Method

4.1 Participants

21 participants were recruited for this study. The participants were between age 20-80, with a mean age of 49. The participants were divided into three groups (L1 Dutch/ L2 English bilinguals, heritage Dutch bilinguals, English monolinguals) according to their responses to the Dutch and English fluency portions of the proficiency questionnaire task. All of the participants were recruited from the Township of Norwich, Ontario, Canada. Two of the English monolingual group members were not raised in Norwich, but were raised in other Southwestern Ontario communities. Table 1 shows the demographic data of the participants (see ^{Appendix A} for a detailed participant table).

Table 1
A summary of the participants' demographic data

Group	Average Age	Gender	Average Education (years)	Average Age of Immigration	Average Dutch Fluency	Average English Fluency
L1 Dutch/ L2 English	57	Female: 2 Male: 7	11	21	9.4	8.6
Heritage	34	Female: 4 Male: 2	16	5	7.7	10
English	51	Female: 4 Male: 2	17.5	n/a	n/a	10
TOTAL / AVERAGE	49	Female: 10 Male: 11	14.5

4.2 Tasks

The experiment consisted of three production tasks. First, all participants were required to complete the Language Experience And Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q) (adapted from Marian, Blumenfeld, and Kaushanskaya (2007)). This survey asks about basic demographic information and relative experience and proficiency with both English and Dutch. The results of the LEAP-Q were used to sort the participants into groups based on the ages at which they learned Dutch and English, and their relative language proficiencies. Participants who preferred Dutch, ranked their Dutch fluency as equal to or greater than their English fluency, and who learned English as adults were put in the ‘L1 Dutch/L2 English’ group. Participants who spoke both languages but learned English as children, who prefer English, and who rank their Dutch fluency as equal to or less than their English fluency were put in the ‘Heritage’ group. The ‘English’ group consists of self-reported English monolinguals. Due to being educated in Canada, a few English participants reported low proficiency in French. A copy of the LEAP-Q is included in ^{Appendix B}.

The second task was a naturalistic production task. The participants were audio-recorded as they completed a picture description task. The participants were asked to describe each of the pictures in detail, “as if ENT#091;they wereENT#093; describing it to someone who was attempting to draw it”. They viewed each of the 3 pictures as they were presented one-by-one on a computer screen. The task was self-paced, and took participants a mean of 3 minutes to complete. This task was designed to elicit natural production.

The third task was a reading task. All of the participants were audio-recorded as they read aloud a paragraph that contains target /θ/ and /ð/ words. The task was self-paced, and took less than 2 minutes for participants to complete. This task ensured that there were at least 5 tokens from 5 unique words demonstrating each position (initial, medial, and final) and each sound (/θ/ and /ð/) from each participant.

4.3 Stimuli

In the naturalistic production task, one picture contained details designed to elicit 31 words containing /θ/ and /ð/ (see ^{Appendix C}). Due to the naturalistic nature of this task, all 31 words were not produced by each participant. More balanced data was recorded from the reading task. The reading task paragraph contained 31 target words for /ð/: 21 word-initially (i.e., though /ðo/), 5 word-medially (i.e., lather /læðəɹ̩/), and 5 word-finally (i.e., bathe /beð/). It also contained 31 target words for /θ/: see ^{Appendix D}.

4.4 Data Analysis

The tokens were auditorily transcribed and coded by the English-native author working in Praat for Mac v5.4 (Boersma, 2013). Each token was labeled as either ENT#091;θENT#093;, ENT#091;ðENT#093;, ENT#091;tENT#093;, ENT#091;dENT#093;, ENT#091;sENT#093;, Ø (zero), or other. A spectrogram produced by Praat was used to confirm segment labeling. Specifically, short duration productions of /ð/ were checked for evidence of “gaps” that would indicate a closure (ENT#091;dENT#093;). A multiple regression analysis was done in Rbrul (Johnson, 2009) to determine which factors significantly affected ENT#091;θENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093; production rates and patterns of allophone realization. The factor variables included in the analysis were: group (English, Heritage, L1 Dutch/L2 English), task (picture description, reading), gender (male, female), and position in the word (initial, medial, final). Two continuous variables were also included: age and word frequency. Word frequency was calculated using the logarithmic frequency from the SUBTLEXus database (Brysbaert & New, 2009) as accessed through the English Lexicon Project’s website (Balota et al., 2007). Individual speakers were accounted for as a random effect to prevent any one participant from having possible outlier effects.

5.0 Results

5.1 Voice Interdental Fricative

A mixed-effect variable rule statistical analysis done in Rbrul showed that /ð/ production varied significantly due to group affiliation (p<0.001), position in the word (p<0.001) and task (p<0.05). The log-odds table is shown in Table 2. Gender, age, and word frequency were not significant predictors of /ð/ production. No interactions between variables were found. The results of each task are discussed separately below.

Table 2
Result of the mixed effect statistical analyses for production of /ð/ words

Input Probability	0.479
Total N	1634
Deviance	1621.391
Degrees of freedom	7
Factor	Log-odds2	Tokens	Percentage ENT#091;ðENT#093;
Group	p<0.001
English	1.332	708	80.5
Heritage	0.336	425	58.6
L1 Dutch / L2 English	-1.668	501	17.6
Location	p<0.001
Word medial	0.353	163	53.4
Word initial	0.072	1367	57.4
Word final	-0.425	104	33.7
Task	p<0.05
Picture Description	0.278	954	65.8
Reading	-0.278	680	41.0

5.1.1 Picture Description Task

The participants produced an average of 45 /ð/ tokens across a total of 38 unique /ð/ words. English monolinguals produced the highest number of tokens (51.8% of all tokens), which was especially due to two speakers who spoke for 8 and 9 minutes and produced over 180 tokens each. The average token count for the English group with these speakers removed remained higher than the other two groups at 66.5 tokens. The full breakdown of both /ð/ and /θ/ token counts and the number of unique words used by each group is presented in Table 3.

Table 3
Tokens and unique words produced in the picture description task

Group	L1 Dutch / L2 English	Heritage	English	Total
Average Task Duration: m:ss	2:12	2:52	5:24	3:18
Average tokens/speaker (st.dev)	31.1 (17.0)	51 (31.1)	105.5 (65.4)	58.0 (49.4)
% total /θ/ tokens (n)	27.3% (73)	27.3% (73)	45.3% (121)	100% (267)
% total /ð/ tokens (n)	21.8% (207)	24.5% (233)	53.7% (511)	100% (951)
% total /θ/ and /ð/ tokens (n)	23.0% (280)	25.1% (306)	51.8% (632)	100% (1219)
% unique /θ/ word (n)	54.8% (17)	58.1% (18)	74.2% (23)	100% (31)
% unique /ð/ word (n)	58.8% (20)	52.9% (18)	94.1% (32)	100% (34)
% of all unique words (n)	56.9% (37)	55.4% (36)	84.6% (55)	100% (65)

The most between-group variability was observed at the word-initial position of /ð/. The groups’ production was significantly different from one another (p<0.001). /ð/ also had the most numerous tokens (n=893) due to the high proportion of word-initial /ð/ function words in English. English monolinguals produced /ð/ as ENT#091;ðENT#093; in 85% of tokens (n=484). The remaining tokens were realized as Ø (9%), ENT#091;θENT#093; (3%), and ENT#091;dENT#093; (2%). The L1 Dutch/ L2 English group produced ENT#091;dENT#093; at 60% usage, while also producing ENT#091;ðENT#093; in 20% of tokens. The remaining 20% were produced as Ø (n=191). The Heritage group’s rate of ENT#091;ðENT#093; production was between the other two groups, with ENT#091;ðENT#093; produced in 62% of tokens (n=218). Similar to the L1 Dutch / L2 English group, the Heritage group produced ENT#091;dENT#093; as the most common allophone of /ð/, producing ENT#091;dENT#093; in 25% of tokens. The remaining productions were more similar to the English group, with 12% of the tokens realized as Ø, and the remaining 1% as ENT#091;θENT#093;.

The three groups produced a total of 58 medial /ð/ tokens across 16 unique words. Both the English and Heritage groups produced ENT#091;ðENT#093; very consistently at this position. The English group produced 92.9% tokens as ENT#091;ðENT#093;, 3.6% as ENT#091;θENT#093;, and 3.6% as Ø (n=28). The Heritage group produced 15 tokens, of which 93.3% were ENT#091;ðENT#093; and 6.7% were ENT#091;dENT#093;. The L1 Dutch/ L2 English group produced 81.3% ENT#091;dENT#093; and 18.8% ENT#091;ðENT#093; (n=16). Only a single /ð/ token was recorded in the word-final position for this task - an English monolingual production of ENT#091;ðENT#093; in “bathe”.

5.1.2 Reading Task

The task effect for /ð/ shows a tendency for all three groups to produce more varied realizations of /ð/ in the reading task. Word-initially, the /ð/ reading task results were very similar to those of the picture description task, though overall the groups produced a lower proportion of ENT#091;ðENT#093; tokens. The English group produced the most ENT#091;ðENT#093; at 73%. The remaining realizations were Ø (12%), ENT#091;θENT#093; (12%), and ENT#091;dENT#093; (3%). The Heritage group produced less ENT#091;ðENT#093; (54%) and unlike the English group, favoured ENT#091;dENT#093; (21%). The remaining tokens were very similar to the English group and were split between Ø (15%) and ENT#091;θENT#093; (10%). The L1 Dutch/ L2 English group successfully produced ENT#091;ðENT#093; in only 15% of tokens at this position, instead producing ENT#091;dENT#093; in the majority of tokens (63%). The remaining tokens were Ø (15%), ENT#091;θENT#093; (3%), ENT#091;tENT#093; (1%), and other (2%).

Word-medial /ð/ words showed more variation than in the picture description task. The English and Heritage groups both produced a majority of tokens as ENT#091;ðENT#093;. These two groups produced a similar pattern of allophonic variation - using ENT#091;θENT#093;, ENT#091;dENT#093;, and Ø at similar rates, though the Heritage group produced more ENT#091;dENT#093; than the English group. The L1 Dutch/ L2 English group produced ENT#091;dENT#093; in the majority of tokens (58%), but also produced ENT#091;ðENT#093;, ENT#091;θENT#093;, ENT#091;dENT#093;, ENT#091;sENT#093;, Ø, and others.

The standard ENT#091;ðENT#093; production was low in all three groups in final position. The English and Heritage groups both produced ENT#091;ðENT#093; in about 45% of tokens. The English group frequently devoiced ENT#091;ðENT#093; in this position, producing ENT#091;θENT#093; in 43% of tokens. English monolinguals also rarely produced ENT#091;sENT#093; (7%) and ENT#091;dENT#093; (3%). The Heritage group also produced ENT#091;θENT#093;, but at a lower rate (30%). This group realized /ð/ as ENT#091;dENT#093; at the highest rate of all three groups (26%). The L1 Dutch / L2 English group was again more variable than the other two groups, and produced ENT#091;θENT#093; in the largest number of tokens (42%). The L1 Dutch/ L2 English group produced ENT#091;ðENT#093; in 24% of cases, while also substituting with ENT#091;dENT#093; (18%), ENT#091;sENT#093; (8%), and other sounds (8%).

5.2 Voiceless Interdental Fricative

A mixed effect variable rule statistical analysis done in Rbrul showed that /θ/ production varied significantly as a result of group affiliation (p<0.01) and position in the word (p<0.01). The log-odds table is shown in Table 4. Task, gender, age, and word frequency were tested for, but were not significant factors. There were no significant interaction effects. There was not a significant task effect for /θ/ production, so the position and group data presented in this section represent the results for both tasks. Overall, all three groups exhibited a tendency to produce /θ/ as ENT#091;θENT#093;. This sound was produced with greater accuracy and with less allophonic variation than /ð/.

Table 4
The results of the mixed effects statistical analysis for /θ/ production

Input Probability	0.764
Total N	914
Deviance	765.864
Degrees of freedom	6
Factor	Log-odds	Tokens	Percentage ENT#091;θENT#093;
Group	p<0.01
English	0.977	306	87.9
Heritage	0.593	255	82.7
L1 Dutch/ L2 English	-1.569	353	46.7
Location	p<0.01
Initial	0.408	365	74.0
Medial	-0.127	151	68.2
Final	-0.280	398	68.3

Word-initially, all three groups produced ENT#091;θENT#093; in the majority of tokens. The Heritage group (n=97) and English group (n=114) both produced ENT#091;θENT#093; very regularly, producing ENT#091;θENT#093; in over 87% of tokens. The L1 Dutch/ L2 English group produced ENT#091;θENT#093; in 53% of tokens (n=155). The most common allophone of /θ/ for the Heritage and English groups was ENT#091;sENT#093;. ENT#091;sENT#093; occurred in approximately 6% of both groups’ tokens. The L1 Dutch/ L2 English group also produced ENT#091;sENT#093; in 9% of tokens, but preferred to substitute with ENT#091;tENT#093;, which was found in 31% of tokens. The Heritage group also produced ENT#091;tENT#093; as a realization of /θ/, but more infrequently than the L1 Dutch/ L2 English group (5%). The English group produced both ENT#091;tENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093; extremely rarely, in only 1 token each (<1%).

The three groups also produced ENT#091;θENT#093; in their majority of medial /θ/ tokens. The Heritage group (n=42) and English group (n=48) each produced ENT#091;θENT#093; in about 80% of tokens, while the L1 Dutch/ L2 English group (n=57) produced significantly less ENT#091;θENT#093; at a rate of 50%. The next most frequent allophone in the Heritage and English groups was ENT#091;ðENT#093;. While this voicing occurred in 14% of Heritage tokens and 10% of English tokens, in both groups ENT#091;ðENT#093; was confined to only two words: “something” (/sʌmθɪŋ/ as ENT#091;sʌmðɪŋENT#093; or ENT#091;sʌmðɪnENT#093;) and “healthy” (/hɛlθi/ as ENT#091;hɛlðiENT#093;). The L1 Dutch/ L2 English group produced the voiced variant in only 2 tokens (4%). The remaining productions by the Heritage and English groups were minimal. The English group realized /θ/ as Ø (4%), ENT#091;tENT#093; (2%), and ENT#091;sENT#093; 2%, while the Heritage group produced ENT#091;tENT#093; (5%) and ENT#091;sENT#093; (2%). As in other positions, L1 Dutch/ L2 English group was the most highly variable. The L1 Dutch/ L2 English group’s most common realization of /θ/ was ENT#091;sENT#093; (18%), though they also produced ENT#091;tENT#093; (16%), ENT#091;dENT#093; (5%), Ø (2%), and other (4%).

Word-final /θ/ production was very similar to the word-medial position. All three groups produced ENT#091;θENT#093; in the largest proportion of their productions. Both the Heritage group (n=116) and English group (n=144) produced ENT#091;θENT#093; in over 81% of tokens, while the L1 Dutch/ L2 English group (n=135) produced ENT#091;θENT#093; in 42% of tokens. The English group produced a non-ENT#091;θENT#093; variant in only 13% of tokens. The preferred English group variants were ENT#091;sENT#093; (6%) and ENT#091;ðENT#093; (4%). Infrequent English group variants included ENT#091;tENT#093; (2%) and Ø (1%). The Heritage group patterned in a similar way, but preferred ENT#091;tENT#093; more heavily, producing it in 12% of tokens. Other Heritage group variants included ENT#091;sENT#093; (4%), ENT#091;ðENT#093; (2%), and Ø (1%). The L1 Dutch/ L2 English group substituted /θ/ most frequently with ENT#091;sENT#093; (28%) and ENT#091;tENT#093; (22%), while also using ENT#091;dENT#093; (3%), Ø (2%), and other sounds (2%) more rarely. A summary of the results for both /ð/ and /θ/ is shown in Table 5.

Table 5
Summary of mean group production of /ð/ and /θ/ target tokens for both tasks by position in order of frequency

/ð/

/θ/

Initial

Medial

Final

Initial

Medial

Final

L1 Dutch/ L2 English

ENT#091;dENT#093; ENT#091;ðENT#093; Ø ENT#091;θENT#093; OT ENT#091;tENT#093;

62% 17% 17% 2% 2% 1%

ENT#091;dENT#093; ENT#091;ðENT#093; ENT#091;θENT#093; ENT#091;tENT#093; Ø ENT#091;sENT#093; OT

62% 17% 10% 3% 3% 2% 2%

ENT#091;θENT#093; ENT#091;dENT#093; ENT#091;ðENT#093; OT ENT#091;sENT#093; ENT#091;tENT#093;

37% 23% 21% 11% 9% 2%

ENT#091;θENT#093; ENT#091;tENT#093; ENT#091;sENT#093; ENT#091;ðENT#093; ENT#091;dENT#093; OT

53% 31% 9% 3% 3% 2%

ENT#091;θENT#093; ENT#091;tENT#093; ENT#091;sENT#093; ENT#091;dENT#093; ENT#091;ðENT#093; OT Ø

50% 17% 17% 8% 3% 3% 2%

ENT#091;θENT#093; ENT#091;tENT#093; ENT#091;sENT#093; ENT#091;dENT#093; OT Ø

39% 27% 26% 4% 4% 2%

Heritage

ENT#091;ðENT#093; ENT#091;dENT#093; Ø ENT#091;θENT#093; OT

56% 23% 13% 5% 1%

ENT#091;ðENT#093; ENT#091;θENT#093; ENT#091;dENT#093; Ø

68% 18% 11% 2%

ENT#091;ðENT#093; ENT#091;θENT#093; ENT#091;dENT#093; OT

44% 30% 26% 4%

ENT#091;θENT#093; ENT#091;sENT#093; ENT#091;tENT#093; ENT#091;ðENT#093;

86% 7% 5% 1%

ENT#091;θENT#093; ENT#091;ðENT#093; ENT#091;tENT#093; ENT#091;sENT#093;

79% 14% 5% 2%

ENT#091;θENT#093; ENT#091;tENT#093; ENT#091;sENT#093; ENT#091;ðENT#093; Ø

81% 12% 4% 2% 1%

English

ENT#091;ðENT#093; Ø ENT#091;θENT#093; ENT#091;dENT#093;

82% 10% 5% 3%

ENT#091;ðENT#093; ENT#091;θENT#093; Ø ENT#091;dENT#093;

79% 16% 3% 2%

ENT#091;ðENT#093; ENT#091;θENT#093; ENT#091;sENT#093; ENT#091;dENT#093;

48% 42% 7% 3%

ENT#091;θENT#093; ENT#091;sENT#093; ENT#091;ðENT#093; ENT#091;tENT#093;

92% 6% 1% 1%

ENT#091;θENT#093; ENT#091;ðENT#093; Ø ENT#091;tENT#093; ENT#091;sENT#093;

81% 10% 4% 2% 2%

ENT#091;θENT#093; ENT#091;sENT#093; ENT#091;ðENT#093; ENT#091;tENT#093; Ø

87% 6% 4% 2% 1%

• OT = other

6.0 Discussion

The first hypothesis was that the three groups’ production of ENT#091;θENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093; would differ with the L1 Dutch/ L2 English group producing the lowest rate of ENT#091;θENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093;, the English monolinguals the highest rate, and the Heritage group producing a relatively high rate that was lower than the English group. This hypothesis was supported. All three groups’ productions of /θ/ and /ð/ were significantly different from one another. Group affiliation was the strongest contributor to both /θ/ and /ð/ production. /ð/ showed a strong group effect with a log-odds range of 3. /θ/ was similarly strong with a log-odds range of 2.546. The English group consistently produced ENT#091;θENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093; at rates equal to or higher than the Heritage group. The two groups’ productions of /θ/ were more similar than those of /ð/, but were still significantly different. The English and Heritage groups’ production of /ð/ was most differentiated word-initially. The English group produced /ð/ on average 26% more than the Heritage group at this position (21.9% mean difference over /ð/ tokens in all positions). /θ/ production was most differentiated at both the initial and final positions with a mean 6% difference in production (5.2% mean difference across all tokens). As predicted, the L1 Dutch/ L2 English group produced significantly less ENT#091;θENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093; than both the Heritage or English groups. Overall, the three groups fall along a continuum as predicted. The English and Heritage groups both produced high levels of ENT#091;θENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093;, with the English group producing more ENT#091;θENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093;. The L1 Dutch/ L2 English group was highly dissimilar from both of the other groups, and produced significantly less ENT#091;θENT#093; and ENT#091;ðENT#093; than either of the other groups.

The effect of word position was also a significant predictor for the production of both /θ/ and /ð/. While significant, the effect was relatively weak with log-odds ranges of 0.778 for /ð/ and 0.688 for /θ/. For /ð/, ENT#091;ðENT#093; production was preferred in the word-medial and word-initial positions and dis-preferred in the word-final position. Lower word-final ENT#091;ðENT#093; production is attested in the literature, as utterance-final voiced fricatives are commonly devoiced in English (Hayes, 2009, p. 93). For /θ/, ENT#091;θENT#093; production was only preferred word-initially, while both word-medial and word-final position weakly dis-preferred ENT#091;θENT#093;.

The weakest factor in the results was the task effect. Task significantly contributed to /ð/ production, with a relatively weak log-odds range of .556. Unusually, ENT#091;ðENT#093; production was more highly dis-preferred in the reading task, which also showed higher variability in /ð/ production than the more naturalistic picture description task. This is a reversal of the more common sociolinguistic pattern of more standardized and regular production during reading tasks. This could be due to the relative difficulty of producing ENT#091;ðENT#093;, combined with the high number of /ð/ and /θ/ tokens per utterance in the paragraph (mean of 1.8 /ð/ tokens per utterance and 3.6 /ð/ and /θ/ tokens per utterance). This gave the paragraph somewhat of a “tongue-twister” effect that may account for the significant increase in /ð/ production variability on the reading task.

All three groups produced ENT#091;θENT#093; at higher rates than ENT#091;ðENT#093;, suggesting that /θ/ may be less marked or easier to produce than /ð/. This distinction is mostly overlooked in the literature, as the two interdental fricatives are generally treated as a single category (c.f. Flege et al. (1995); Gierut and Storkel (2009); Jekiel (2012)). Where /θ/ and /ð/ are differentiated, as in Hancin-Bhatt (1994, in Brannen (2011)) and Cutler et al. (2004), it was found that ENT#091;θENT#093; was more difficult to discriminate than ENT#091;ðENT#093;. The results of Wester et al. (2007) study of Dutch L1 English /θ/ and /ð/ production correspond with those of the current study - ENT#091;θENT#093; was produced at higher rates than ENT#091;ðENT#093;. However, Wester et al. did not comment on this differentiation in their study. /θ/ being less marked than /ð/ fits with the universal pattern of voiceless obstruents being less marked than their voiced counterparts (Major & Faudree, 1996).

The second hypothesis was that the allophonic realizations of /θ/ and /ð/ would differ between the three groups. It was predicted that both the L1 Dutch/L2 English and the Heritage speakers would realize ENT#091;tENT#093; and ENT#091;dENT#093; at a high rate, while the English group would produce Ø and ENT#091;sENT#093; at a higher rate. This hypothesis was partially supported. The groups did show different allophonic inventories for /θ/ and /ð/. The English group’s most commonly realized allophones for /ð/ were ENT#091;θENT#093; and Ø. Monolingual English allophones for /θ/ were ENT#091;sENT#093; word-initially and finally and ENT#091;ðENT#093; word-medially. The variable voicing of /θ/ and /ð/ has been explained as more dependent on position and part of speech rather than a phonemic voicing difference (Smith, 2013). The Smith (2013) findings were supported in this study because, as mentioned in section 5.2, production of /θ/ as ENT#091;ðENT#093; was lexically restricted. Heritage speakers generally followed this model of allophone realization, but not at the same rate. The Heritage speakers' patterns of /θ/ and /ð/ allophone realization were most dissimilar to English monolinguals at /ð/ in word-initial position, and for /θ/ in word-final position. These positions showed variation more similar to L1 Dutch/ L2 English speakers than to English L1 speakers. At these positions, the Heritage group frequently produced the alveolar stops ENT#091;dENT#093; and ENT#091;tENT#093; in a way which was similar to the L1 Dutch/ L2 English group and very dissimilar to the English speaker group. Word-initial /ð/, was produced as ENT#091;dENT#093; in 23% of Heritage tokens and 62% of L1 Dutch / L2 English tokens, but in only 3% of English tokens. Word-final /θ/ was produced as ENT#091;tENT#093; in 12% of Heritage speaker tokens, while the L1 Dutch /L2 English group produced ENT#091;tENT#093; in 26% of tokens and the English group in only 2%. These two patterns show that in these two positions, the Heritage group’s allophonic realization of /ð/ was very unlike the native speakers of English. The Heritage group was not identical to the L1 Dutch/ L2 English group either. The L1 Dutch/ L2 English group’s productions were much more highly variable than the other two groups. Late-learning L1 Dutch/ L2 English speakers exhibited greater variability in all positions, and never produced an allophone more consistently than 62% of tokens. The L1 Dutch/ L2 English group was also the only group to produce the “others” category sounds ENT#091;fENT#093; and ENT#091;t͡sENT#093;, and the only group to produce “others” sounds for both /θ/ and /ð/. The only other “others” productions were by the Heritage group: 3 /ð/ tokens that were produced as ENT#091;zENT#093;.

Except for the cases discussed above (word-initial /ð/ and word-final /θ/), the allophonic production of the English and Heritage groups were similar. The overall similarity of the Heritage and English groups’ /θ/ and /ð/ allophone production is not surprising, in the context of similar findings of early-acquiring bilinguals such as Chang et al. (2011) and Flege et al. (1995) who found that heritage speaker productions were largely identical to those of the monolingual majority population. However, while similar, the heritage Dutch speakers did maintain significant differences from English monolinguals. This difference was especially clear when comparing the production of word-initial /ð/, and word-final /θ/, but it was also present in the overall higher variability of Heritage productions and the more frequent production of ENT#091;dENT#093; and ENT#091;tENT#093; variants. Theories of L2 speech acquisition - including the concepts of transfer, lack of contact, and impoverished input - cannot adequately explain the patterns of heritage Dutch speakers’ /θ/ and /ð/ production. Unlike late-learning Dutch bilinguals, heritage Dutch speakers are integrated into Canadian English society and have a native grasp of English. The LEAP-Q results showed that they generally prefer to use English both at home and at work. This, combined with the Heritage speakers’ acquisition of English at a young age, means that a lack of contact with L1 English speakers cannot explain the differences between English monolinguals’ and Dutch heritage speakers’ /θ/ and /ð/ production patterns. Instead, we propose that variable /θ/ and /ð/ production by heritage speakers may be promoted by the effect of ethnic or cultural identity.

Ethnocultural identity has been shown to affect target language (e.g., English) production patterns by Hoffman and Walker (2010). Hoffman and Walker found that an increased orientation to one’s ethnic community and identification with the ethnic community correlates with ethnolinguistic variation. Dutch heritage speakers living in Norwich strongly identify themselves with their heritage culture and their /θ/ and /ð/ allophone inventories may have been affected by this affiliation. In addition, the in-group insularity promoted by the Calvinist church may play a role by promoting linguistic markers that can identify one as a member of that in-group. This finding would mirror those of Parker (1991) and Huffines (1980) in the Anabaptist Pennsylvania Dutch communities. Because the LEAP-Q is not directed towards religious affiliation or other non-linguistic cultural markers, the question of identity will have to be more directly addressed in future work.

7.0 Conclusion

The data presented in this study are a first look at the Dutch-English bilinguals living in Norwich, Ontario and a new insight into heritage speakers’ majority language phonology. While heritage speakers generally produce native-like English, their production of /ð/ and /θ/ significantly differs from both the majority population of English monolinguals and their parents’ generation of late-learning L1 Dutch bilinguals. Heritage speaker speech production falls along a continuum between the “typical” L1 and L2 speakers of English - heritage speakers share similarities with both groups (especially monolingual English speakers), but they do not fit completely into either category. The difference between heritage and monolingual English phonology may be understood through the ethnic orientation framework developed by Hoffman and Walker (2010). In order to differentiate themselves from their non-Dutch speaking peers, heritage speakers use subtle linguistic cues to mark their speech’s Dutch origins, while maintaining intelligibility. This is done primarily through word-initial /ð/ and word-final /θ/ production. Intelligibility and native accent are maintained through a monolingual-like high percentage of ENT#091;ðENT#093; and ENT#091;θENT#093; productions. Dutch ethnic membership can instead be communicated through the careful manipulation of the intrinsically variable monolingual English /ð/ and /θ/ allophone inventory. By replacing a portion of English allophones that are typical of monolinguals with those allophones typical of Dutch L1 speakers, Dutch heritage speakers do not compromise their association with either of their Dutch or Canadian identities.

References

• Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Treiman, R. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 445-459.
• Bernhardt, B., & Stemberger, J. P. (2002). Intervocalic consonants in the speech of English-speaking Canadian children with phonological disorders. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 16(3), 199-214. doi: 10.1080/02699200110112583
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/02699200110112583
• Best, C. T., & Tyler, M. D. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In O.-S. Bohn & M. J. Munro (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege (Vol. 17, pp. 13-34). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins, B.V.
• Blevins, J. (2004). Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns Cambridge; New York;: Cambridge University Press.
• Boberg, C. (2010). The English language in Canada: Status, history, and comparative analysis Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Boersma, P. (2013). The use of praat in corpus research. Oxford Handbooks Online: Oxford University Press.
• Brannen, K. J. (2011). The perception and production of interdental fricatives in second language acquisition (PhD Dissertation), McGill University, Ann Arbor. Retrieved from digitool.library.mcgill.ca/thesisfile106279.pdf
  » digitool.library.mcgill.ca/thesisfile106279.pdf
• Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond kucera and francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for american english. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977-990. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
  » https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
• Chang, C. B., Yao, Y., Haynes, E. F., & Rhodes, R. (2011). Production of phonetic and phonological contrast by heritage speakers of Mandarin. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 129(6), 3964-3980. doi: 10.1121/1.3569736
  » https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3569736
• Colantoni, L., & Steele, J. (2008). Integrating articulatory constraints into models of second language phonological acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29(03), 489-534. doi: 10.1017/S0142716408080223
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716408080223
• Crezee, I. (2012). Language shift and host society attitudes: Dutch migrants who arrived in New Zealand between 1950 and 1965. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16(4), 528-540.
• Cutler, A., Weber, A., Smits, R., & Cooper, N. (2004). Patterns of English phoneme confusions by native and non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116(6), 3668-3678. doi: 10.1121/1.1810292
  » https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1810292
• Downing, L. (2015). Dutchified English in an Ohio mennonite community (Master's Thesis), The Ohio State University, Ohio.
• Edwards, A. (2010). Dutch english: Tolerable, taboo, or about time too? English Today, 26(1), 19-25. doi: 10.1017/S0266078409990563
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078409990563
• Flege, J., Munro, M. J., & MacKay, I. R. A. (1995). Effects of age of second-language learning on the production of english consonants. Speech Communication, 16(1), 1-26. doi: 10.1016/0167-6393(94)00044-B
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6393(94)00044-B
• Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 233-277). Timonium, MD: York Press Inc.
• Gatbonton, E., Trofimovich, P., & Segalowitz, N. (2011). Ethnic group affiliation and patterns of development of a phonological variable. The Modern Language Journal, 95(2), 188-204.
• Gierut, J. A., & Storkel, H. L. (2009). Markedness and the grammar in lexical diffusion of fricatives. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 16(2), 115-134. doi: 10.1080/0269920011011287
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/0269920011011287
• Gollan, T. H., Starr, J., & Ferreira, V. S. (2015). More than use it or lose it: The number-of-speakers effect on heritage language proficiency. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 22(1), 147-155.
• Hancin-Bhatt, B. (1994). Phonological Transfer in Second Language Perception and Production. PhD Dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Retreived from: http://hdl.handle.net/2142/21209
  » http://hdl.handle.net/2142/21209
• Hanulikova, A., & Weber, A. (2012). Sink positive: Linguistic experience with th substitutions influences nonnative word recognition. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 74(3), 613-629. doi:10.3758/s13414-011-0259-7
  » https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-011-0259-7
• Harrison, B. (2000). Passing on the language: Heritage language diversity in Canada. Canadian Social Trends, 14-19.
• Hayes, B. (2009). Introductory phonology Singapore: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Hoffman, M. F., & Walker, J. A. (2010). Ethnolects and the city: Ethnic orientation and linguistic variation in toronto english. Language Variation and Change, 22(1), 37-67. doi:10.1017/S0954394509990238
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394509990238
• Huffines, M. L. (1980). English in contact with Pennsylvania German. The German Quarterly, 53(3), 352-366. doi:10.2307/404912
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/404912
• Hulsen, M. E. H. (2000). Language loss and language processing: Three generations of Dutch migrants in New Zealand (Dissertation). Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegan. Retrieved from http://repository.ubn.ru.nl/handle/2066/18901
  » http://repository.ubn.ru.nl/handle/2066/18901
• Hulsen, H., de Bot, K., & Weltens, B. (2002). Between two worlds. Social networks, language shift, and language processing in three generations of Dutch migrants in New Zealand International Journal of the Sociology of Language (Vol. 2002, pp. 27).
• Jekiel, M. (2012). The evolution of english dental fricatives: Variation and change (Master's Master's Thesis), The University of Adam Mickiewicz. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/7477404/The_evolution_of_English_dental_fricatives_variation_and_change
  » https://www.academia.edu/7477404/The_evolution_of_English_dental_fricatives_variation_and_change
• Johnson, D. E. (2009). Getting off the goldvarb standard: Introducing rbrul for mixed-effects variable rule analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 359-383. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00108.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00108.x
• Major, R. C., & Faudree, M. C. (1996). Markedness universals and the acquisition of voicing contrasts by Korean speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(01), 69-90.
• Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The language experience and proficiency questionnaire (leap-q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50(4), 940-967. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/067)
  » https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/067)
• Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (2006). The functional load principle in esl pronunciation instruction: An exploratory study. System, 34(4), 520-531. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2006.09.004
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.09.004
• Parameshwaran, M. (2013). Explaining intergenerational variations in English language acquisition and ethnic language attrition. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 37(1), 27-45. doi: 10.1080/01419870.2013.827794
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2013.827794
• Parker, R. (1991). Influences of the Pennsylvania German dialect on the English spoken in" Pennsylvania Dutch country" as a regional identity marker Term Paper. Hannahs, Napoli.
• Rao, R., & Kuder, E. (2016). Research on heritage spanish phonetics and phonology: Pedagogical and curricular implications.Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research ,5(2), 99-113A. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7821/naer.2016.7.171
  » https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2016.7.171
• Roach, P. (2010). English phonetics and phonology: A practical course (4 ed.). Italy: Cambridge University Press.
• Schmid, M., Gilbers, S., & Nota, A. (2014). Ultimate attainment in late second language acquisition: Phonetic and grammatical challenges in advanced dutch-english bilingualism. Second Language Research, 30(2), 129-157. doi: 10.1177/0267658313505314
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658313505314
• Schryer, F. J. (1998). The netherlandic presence in ontario: Pillars, class and Dutch ethnicity Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press.
• Smith, A. B. (2007). General american english speech acquisition. In S. McLeod (Ed.), The international guide to speech acquisition (pp. 128-147). Clifton Park, NY, USA: Thomson Delmar Learning.
• Smith, B. (2013). An acoustic analysis of voicing in American English dental fricatives. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, 60, 117-128.
• Statistics Canada. (2012). Census subdivision of Norwich, tp (Ontario) - census 2011 (98-310-XWE2011004). Ottawa, Ontario Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-csd-eng.cfm?LANG=Eng&GK=CSD&GC=3532002
  » http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-csd-eng.cfm?LANG=Eng&GK=CSD&GC=3532002
• Statistics Canada. (2013). Norwich township, Ontario (code 3532002) (99-004-XWE). Ottawa, Ontario Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=3532002&Data=Count&SearchText=Norwich&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&A1=All&B1=All&TABID=1
  » http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=3532002&Data=Count&SearchText=Norwich&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&A1=All&B1=All&TABID=1
• Van Dijk, J. (1998). Ethnic persistence among Dutch-Canadian Catholics and Calvinists. Canadian Ethnic Studies/Etudes Ethniques au Canada, 30(2), 23-49.
• Van't Zelfde, A. (2015). Norwich (canada). Norwich (Canada) - Gereformeerde Gemeenten Retrieved from http://gergeminfo.nl/buitenland/gemeenten-amerika-canada/classis-east/norwich-canada
  » http://gergeminfo.nl/buitenland/gemeenten-amerika-canada/classis-east/norwich-canada
• Wester, F., Gilbers, D., & Lowie, W. (2007). Substitution of dental fricatives in English by Dutch l2 speakers. Language Sciences, 29(2-3), 477-491. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2006.12.029
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2006.12.029
• Zhao, S. Y. (2010). Stop-like modification of the dental fricative /ð/: An acoustic analysis. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128(4), 2009-2020. doi:doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3478856
  » https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3478856

• 1
  Though the census does not separate “Calvinist” from other Christian denominations, over 30% of Norwich’s population identified as “Other Christian” (Statistics Canada, 2013), and Norwich’s Netherlands Reformed church (an Orthodox Calvinist denomination) serves approximately 2100 parishioners (Van't Zelfde, 2015).

• 2
  Log-odds reflect the difference from a baseline measure of all three groups combined. Positive values reflect that the variable is used at levels higher than baseline, while negative values are lower than baseline. More information about interpreting log-odds can be found in Johnson (2009).

Appendix A

Group Age Gender Years of Education Age of Immigration Dutch Fluency English Fluency Dutch 77 Male 5 14 8.5 7.5 80 Female 7 21 7.5 7 61 Male 9 21 10 10 64 Male 13 23 10 10 27 Male 16 13 10 8 35 Male 12 18 9 8.5 44 Male 14 31 10 7.5 44 Female 15 31 10 9 81 Male 11 21 10 9 English 60 Female 14 n/a n/a 10 60 Female 15 40 Female 18 40 Female 25 41 Male 19 66 Male 14 Heritage 28 Female 22 n/a 6.4 10 31 Female 14 9 9 10 34 Male 14 5 8 10 32 Male 20 6 months 9.5 10 58 Female 13 11 3.5 10 20 Female 14 5 9.5 10 Note: Fluency is self-rated from 0 - no knowledge/non-speaker to 10 - native speaker. The fluency ratings presented here are the mean of the speaking and oral comprehension ratings.

Group	Age	Gender	Years of Education	Age of Immigration	Dutch Fluency	English Fluency
Dutch	77	Male	5	14	8.5	7.5
	80	Female	7	21	7.5	7
	61	Male	9	21	10	10
	64	Male	13	23	10	10
	27	Male	16	13	10	8
	35	Male	12	18	9	8.5
	44	Male	14	31	10	7.5
	44	Female	15	31	10	9
	81	Male	11	21	10	9
English	60	Female	14	n/a	n/a	10
	60	Female	15
	40	Female	18
	40	Female	25
	41	Male	19
	66	Male	14
Heritage	28	Female	22	n/a	6.4	10
	31	Female	14	9	9	10
	34	Male	14	5	8	10
	32	Male	20	6 months	9.5	10
	58	Female	13	11	3.5	10
	20	Female	14	5	9.5	10
Note: Fluency is self-rated from 0 - no knowledge/non-speaker to 10 - native speaker. The fluency ratings presented here are the mean of the speaking and oral comprehension ratings.

Appendix B Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q) Northwestern Bilingualism & Psycholinguistics Research Laboratory

Please cite: Marian, Blumenfeld, & Kaushanskaya (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 50 (4), 940-967.

(1)
Please list all the languages you know in order of dominance:

(2)
Please list all the languages you know in order of acquisition (your native language first):

(3)
Please list what percentage of the time you are currently and on average exposed to each language.

(4)
When choosing to read a text available in all your languages, in what percentage of cases would you choose to read it in each of your languages? Assume that the original was written in another language, which is unknown to you.

(5)
When choosing a language to speak with a person who is equally fluent in all your languages, what percentage of time would you choose to speak each language? Please report percent of total time.

(6)
Please name the cultures with which you identify. On a scale from zero to ten, please rate the extent to which you identify with each culture. (Examples of possible cultures include Canadian, Chinese, Jewish-Orthodox, etc):

(7)
How many years of formal education do you have?

(8)
Age of immigration to Canada, if applicable

All questions below refer to your knowledge of DUTCH.

(1) Age when you…:

(2) Please list the number of years and months you spent in each language environment:

(3) On a scale from zero to ten, with ten being more proficient, please select your level of proficiency in speaking, understanding, and reading Dutch:

(4) On a scale from zero to ten, with ten being most contributing, please select how much the following factors contributed to you learning Dutch:

(5) Please rate to what extent you are currently exposed to Dutch in the following contexts:

(6) In your perception, how much of a foreign accent do you have in Dutch?

(7) How frequently do others identify you as a non-native speaker based on your accent in Dutch

All questions below refer to your knowledge of ENGLISH.

(1) Age when you:

(2) Please list the number of years and months you spent in each language environment:

(3) On a scale from zero to ten, with ten being more proficient, please select your level of proficiency in speaking, understanding, and reading English:

(4) On a scale from zero to ten, with ten being most contributing, please select how much the following factors contributed to you learning English:

(5) Please rate to what extent you are currently exposed to English in the following contexts:

(6) In your perception, how much of a foreign accent do you have in English?

(7) How frequently do others identify you as a non-native speaker based on your accent in English:

Appendix C

Image by
Jeanne Luzzi Skaar - http://939210745777211253.weebly.com/stick-out-your-tongue-and-say-th.html

Initial Medial Final /ð/ the they them those this that mother brother another feather weather lather bathing clothes bathe /θ/ thunderstorm thief throw Thursday third three thread thimble bathtub something bath math wreath underneath both with

	Initial	Medial	Final
/ð/	the they them those this that	mother brother another feather weather lather bathing clothes	bathe
/θ/	thunderstorm thief throw Thursday third three thread thimble	bathtub something	bath math wreath underneath both with

Appendix D Please review the following paragraph. When you are ready, read it aloud into the microphone.

Ruth sighs and looks at the clock. It is almost three-thirty, and at three-thirty, she will bathe her two dogs: Thor and Zeus. The weather had been bad on Thursday: it rained heavily and even thundered a bit. Still, Ruth had taken them to the park and thrown the ball for them. The dogs are very muddy, but they both loathe the bathtub. Ruth decides that Thor will go first, and she tries to soothe him as she drags him towards the bath. The other dog waits impatiently in the kennel. Ruth takes a deep breath, and pushes Thor into the water. Though he was seething and angry a second ago, now Thor seems to enjoy the water, and he bites it playfully with his teeth. Ruth takes the shampoo and works up a lather in his fur, getting soap everywhere. She can breathe more easily now. She washes the shampoo out and brushes Thor’s fur smooth again. “These dogs are not so difficult - I can do this!”, she thinks. When Thor is clean, Ruth brushes his teeth too, to keep him healthy. She has special toothpaste and a toothbrush that are made for dogs. Thor and Zeus are two lucky dogs! They are clean, and now their bathing is done.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  Dec 2017

History

• Received
  31 Mar 2017
• Accepted
  10 July 2017