The Case of Uptalk in Heritage Spanish

languages

Article Keeping a Critical Eye on Majority Language Inﬂuence: The Case of Uptalk in Heritage Spanish

Ji Young Kim * and Gemma Repiso-Puigdelliura

Department of Spanish and Portuguese, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The goal of this study is to highlight the importance of taking into account variations in monolingual grammars before discussing majority language influence as a possible source of heritage speakers’ divergent grammars. In this study, we examine the production of uptalk in Spanish by heritage speakers of Mexican Spanish in Southern California. Uptalk (i.e., rising intonation contour at the end of a non-question utterance) is frequently associated with California English. Thus, heritage speakers’ use of uptalk is often considered to be influenced from English intonation (i.e., the majority language). Although uptalk in Spanish is not well understood, it has been observed in Mexican Spanish, which calls attention to the importance of investigating uptalk in monolingual Spanish. Using a dyadic interaction task, we obtained spontaneous speech data of 16 heritage speakers and 16 monolingual speakers of Mexican Spanish and compared the phonological and phonetic properties of uptalks produced by the two groups. Our results demonstrated that the heritage speakers and the monolingual speakers produced uptalks with similar frequencies and mainly used L+H* HH% and L* HH% contours. However, the two groups had more differences than similarities. Specifically, heritage speakers’ uptalks presented less dynamic contours and were produced with flatter rises

than monolinguals’ uptalks. Heritage speakers’ divergent patterns showed close resemblance with patterns in English, suggesting majority language inﬂuence as a valid source of divergence. We

Citation: Kim, Ji Young, and Gemma discuss possible avenues for future research for a better understanding of the role of majority language Repiso-Puigdelliura. 2021. Keeping a influence on heritage Spanish uptalk. Critical Eye on Majority Language Influence: The Case of Uptalk in Keywords: heritage language intonation; uptalk; heritage speakers; Spanish phonetics and phonology Heritage Spanish. Languages 6: 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ languages6010013 1. Introduction Received: 1 September 2020 Heritage speakers are a type of bilinguals whose home language (i.e., heritage lan- Accepted: 5 January 2021 guage) is different from the majority language of the society. Heritage speakers acquire both Published: 12 January 2021 the heritage language and the majority language during childhood. However, since the heritage language is a minority language and its use is generally limited to certain domains Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu- (e.g., familial settings), heritage speakers often become more dominant in the majority tral with regard to jurisdictional clai- ms in published maps and institutio- language as they grow up (Benmamoun et al. 2013; Polinsky and Kagan 2007). In the past nal affiliations. decade, experimental research on the structure of heritage languages has increased expo- nentially. Regardless of the specific areas of interest, a consensus reached by researchers in heritage language studies is that heritage grammars are not the same as monolingual grammars. While some linguistic properties in heritage languages may follow the mono- Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Li- lingual norms, others demonstrate divergence. According to Polinsky and Scontras (2020), censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. heritage speakers perform similarly to monolingual speakers in their use of linguistic prop- This article is an open access article erties that provide direct reference to real world entities and events (e.g., determiner, tense), distributed under the terms and con- whereas they show divergence in dependencies at distance (e.g., agreement morphology, ditions of the Creative Commons At- long-distance syntactic dependencies), absence of form (e.g., form-meaning association tribution (CC BY) license (https:// of null elements), and ambiguous structures (e.g., scope interpretation of ambiguous creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ structures). Although heritage language phonology has received relatively less attention 4.0/).

Languages 2021, 6, 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6010013 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/languages Languages 2021, 6, 13 2 of 27

compared to heritage language syntax and morphosyntax (Rao and Ronquest 2015), it also demonstrates areas of convergence and divergence. For instance, heritage speakers tend to maintain phonemic contrasts in their heritage languages even if the majority language does not have such contrasts (Amengual 2016; Chang et al. 2009, 2011; Einfeldt et al. 2019; Henriksen 2015). Einfeldt et al.(2019) examined the production of Italian singleton and geminate consonants by Italian heritage speakers in Germany, and found that the heritage speakers produced the Italian geminates (e.g., palla /"pal:a/ ‘ball’) significantly longer than the singletons (e.g., pala /"pala/ ‘shovel’), although German does not have consonant gemination. Since loss of phonemic contrasts leads to ambiguity in meaning, Kupisch(2020) argued that heritage speakers’ convergence to monolingual norms in this respect is an indication of their avoidance to ambiguity, which is a characteristic of heritage grammars proposed by Polinsky and Scontras(2020). Heritage speakers also show divergence from monolingual norms in several aspects, primarily in fine-grained phonetic details of speech sounds. For instance, they produce heritage language speech sounds similar to corresponding majority language phones (Amengual 2012; Elias et al. 2017; Godson 2004; Łyskawa et al. 2016; Mayr and Siddika 2018; Ronquest 2013, 2016), produce them past native targets (Chang et al. 2011; Cummings Ruiz 2019; Kim 2011), use different strategies or sets of strategies from monolingual speakers (Amengual 2016; Bullock 2009; Henriksen 2015; Kang and Nagy 2016; Kim 2019; Repiso-Puigdelliura and Kim 2020), exploit language-inherent allophonic variation (Kupisch 2020), or show linguistic archaism (Kang and Nagy 2016; Parodi 2014). When heritage speakers behave differently from their monolingual peers, majority language influence is often regarded as the first candidate responsible for divergence (Polinsky and Scontras 2020). This is especially true if the feature of interest shows patterns that resemble those in the majority language. For instance, Spanish heritage speakers in the US often reduce Spanish vowels in unstressed positions (Elias et al. 2017; Ronquest 2013, 2016). In English, vowel quality is conditioned by stress, whereas Spanish vowels do not show such systematic variation. Thus, heritage speakers’ divergent patterns found in these cases can be explained by assimilation to English (i.e., the majority language). Heritage speakers may also take a completely different trajectory in the same linguistic scenarios. Cummings Ruiz(2019) found that Spanish heritage speakers did not reduce the Spanish /u/ in unstressed condition and clearly distinguished the Spanish /u/ (lower F2) from the English /u/ (higher F2). Moreover, they produced the Spanish /u/ even more back (lower F2) than Spanish monolingual speakers. These findings indicate that, apart from assimilation to the majority language, heritage language phonology may also demonstrate dissimilation. According to Chang et al.(2011), some heritage speakers are successful at simultaneously maintaining language-internal and cross-linguistic contrasts, due to their exposure to two languages from an early age when acquisition of language-general fine-grained acoustic features takes place (Kuhl et al. 2012; Werker and Tees 1984). As the Speech Learning Model (Flege 1995) posits, bilinguals’ L1 and L2 sound categories exist in a common phonological space. Thus, bilinguals strive to keep separate L1 and L2 phones that are close to each other, yet perceptually distinct, and in some cases the establishment of separate categories occurs to the point that they are further pushed apart than needed (Chang et al. 2011; Flege 1995). While influence from the majority language is one of the main sources of heritage speakers’ divergent grammars, an automatic linkage between the two should be taken with caution. Before discussing majority language influence, it is paramount that researchers confirm that the feature of interest is not present or is different in monolingual varieties. While this may seem obvious, many heritage language studies, especially those that examine linguistic features that are not well understood in monolingual varieties, tend to rely on prescriptive forms when setting the “target”. Since monolingual speakers are seldom the focus of heritage language studies, variations in monolingual varieties are often overlooked. Therefore, we propose that heritage language studies should take an extra step confirming that heritage speakers show different patterns from monolingual speakers Languages 2021, 6, 13 3 of 27

(i.e., identify areas of divergence), before delving into the source(s) of heritage speakers’ divergent grammars. In this study, we examine heritage language intonation, speciﬁcally uptalk in Spanish produced by Spanish heritage speakers in Southern California. Uptalk (i.e., the use of rising intonation contours at the end of non-question utterances) is generally associated with English, especially with California English (Armstrong et al. 2015; Barry 2007; Ritchart and Arvaniti 2014; Tyler 2015). Thus, one may think that heritage speakers’ use of uptalk in Spanish is due to inﬂuence from English. However, this phenomenon has also been observed in Spanish (Henriksen 2017; Holguín-Mendoza 2011; Martínez-Gómez 2018; Vergara 2015), although it is very little understood. The goal of this study is to examine whether uptalk is present in the Spanish of heritage speakers’ homeland variety and, if so, whether the phonology and phonetics of uptalk in heritage Spanish are similar/different from those of the homeland variety.

1.1. Variability in the Intonation of Heritage Languages and Monolingual Varieties The speech of heritage speakers is often described as having a slight accent (Polinsky and Kagan 2007) and prosody has been considered to be one of the most salient features leading to the perception of heritage accent (Kan 2020; Kupisch et al. 2014; Shin 2005; Stangen et al. 2015). Stangen et al.(2015) performed a foreign accent rating task for Turkish heritage speakers in Germany. In this task, apart from rating the degree of accentedness, monolingual listeners of Turkish and German commented on heritage speakers’ accent. Results showed that there were more heritage speakers that sounded native in German (i.e., majority language) than in Turkish (i.e., heritage language). Crucially, among various linguistic features of foreign accent, prosody was the one that received the most comments for both Turkish (28%) and German (26.5%). The raters pointed out that the speech of heritage speakers demonstrated “something wrong with the musicality”, “strokes [that] are wrong”, strange intonation, or “staccato” (Stangen et al. 2015). The strong effect of prosody on heritage accent is also confirmed in Shin(2005). Using forced-choice identification tasks, Shin(2005) asked native Korean listeners to identify whether the speaker is a Korean or a foreigner solely based on prosody. Sentences produced by Korean heritage speakers and L2 learners of Korean were low-pass filtered in order to remove segmental information. Results showed that the heritage speakers were more often identified as Koreans than the L2 learners. Interestingly, according to some listeners’ comments during a debriefing after the experiment, heritage speakers’ speech was sometimes hard to judge, because it seemed like a “Korean speaker who fakes foreign accents” (Shin 2005). This finding suggests that heritage speakers are perceived as native speakers, but they have an accent (i.e., heritage accent) that is distinct from the foreign accent of L2 learners. Although research on heritage language intonation is scarce, studies have shown that heritage speakers are different from monolingual speakers in the distribution of pitch accents and boundary tones (Dehé 2018; Queen 2001; Rao 2016; Robles-Puente 2014), in the phonetic implementation of pitch accents (Colantoni et al. 2016; Kim 2020; Zuban et al. 2020), or in the use of prosody to express pragmatic functions (Bullock 2009; Hoot 2017; Kim 2019). Some possible explanations for heritage speakers’ divergent intonation patterns are the emergence of new tonal categories due to hybridization of heritage and majority language categories (Queen 2001; Rao 2016), the mix of intonation patterns or prosodic strategies found in both heritage and majority languages (Bullock 2009; Kim 2019; Robles-Puente 2014), or the use of fine-grained acoustic cues similar to or approaching those in the majority language (Colantoni et al. 2016; Kim 2020; Zuban et al. 2020). That is, due to pressure from the majority language, heritage speakers may be forced to restructure their phonological grammars. While this is a valid explanation, as we proposed above, it should be preceded by extensive research on the variation of intonation patterns in monolingual varieties in order to rule out the possibility that heritage speakers’ seemingly divergent patterns may in fact be present in monolingual varieties. For instance, Dehé (2018) examined the variation in the intonation of yes-no polar questions in Languages 2021, 6, 13 4 of 27

heritage Islandic of Canada, Icelandic of Iceland, and North American English produced by non-Icelandic Canadians. Results showed that low-rising contours typical of North American English were frequently found in heritage Icelandic, but these contours were also observed in Icelandic of Iceland. Similarly, the default rise-fall intonation of Icelandic were found in both heritage Icelandic and North American English. However, when comparing the frequency of these contours across groups, Dehé (2018) found that heritage Icelandic demonstrated significantly more low rises (56.7%) than Icelandic of Iceland (10.5%) and significantly fewer low rises than North American English (78.9%). Regarding the rise-fall contours typical of Icelandic, the opposite pattern was found; heritage Icelandic showed significantly fewer rise-falls (32.5%) than Icelandic of Iceland (65%) and significantly more rise-falls than North American English (6.3%). These findings suggest that the intonation of yes-no polar questions in heritage Icelandic demonstrates a different distribution of intonation patterns from those in Icelandic of Iceland. While this may be due to influence from North American English (i.e., majority language), Dehé (2018) also pointed out that longitudinal studies should be carried out to examine possible changes in the intonation of the two Icelandic varieties (i.e., Iceland and North America). Intonation inherently shows variability even within the same linguistic variety (Bullock 2009), due to a lack of one-to-one relationship between form and meaning. On the one hand, the same tonal event can be associated with multiple meanings. For example, in Catalan a low boundary tone can encode new information in declarative sentences or evidentiality in yes-no questions (Vanrell et al. 2014). On the other hand, the same utterance type can be expressed with more than one tonal event. For instance, declarative sentences in English can be marked with both a low boundary tone or a high boundary tone (Armstrong et al. 2015; Barry 2007; Ritchart and Arvaniti 2014). Moreover, the variability of intonation can be conditioned by various extralinguistic factors (e.g., gender, social class, speech style, age). For instance, Enbe and Tobin(2008) found that, in the production of statements, female speakers of Buenos Aires Spanish have a preference for marked forms (i.e., the high rising contour in the subject and falling contour in the predicate), while male speakers tend to use unmarked forms (i.e., the rise-fall contour in subject and falling contour in predicate) more often. For wh-questions, however, age was a stronger predictor of the type of contour than gender. Young male speakers deviated more from the standard form (i.e., higher pitch accent in the wh-word) than older age groups. Aside from sociodemographic factors, intonation in monolingual varieties is also subject to stylistic variation (Henriksen 2013; Savino 2012; Yaeger-Dror 2002). For instance, Henriksen(2013) found that, when producing declarative questions, Manchego Spanish speakers preferred the standard Spanish tonemic late rises in a reading task (i.e., more monitored speech), while they preferred the Manchego Spanish vernacular tonemic early rises in an information-gap task (i.e., less monitored speech). The implication of this study is that informal speech styles elicit tonal contours of vernacular varieties, while in more formal styles there is an overall preference for intonation patterns of standard varieties. In short, variation in intonation commonly occurs in non-heritage varieties and sociodemographic factors or style-shifts can predict some of these changes.

1.2. Uptalk in English Uptalk is the use of rising terminals in non-question utterances. Uptalk in English has attracted the attention of a great deal of scholarship, probably due to its widespread use among English speakers and its relationship with various pragmatic meanings (Armstrong et al. 2015; Barry 2007; Cruttenden 1997; Di Gioacchino and Jessop 2010; Hirschberg and Ward 1995; House 2007; Ritchart and Arvaniti 2014; Shepherd 2011; Shokeir 2008; Warren 2016; Wichmann and Caspers 2001). Although the use of uptalk has been reported across many varieties of English, it is frequently associated with Valley Girl speech in California English (Armstrong et al. 2015; Barry 2007; Ritchart and Arvaniti 2014; Tyler 2015). While uptalk is characterized by having rising terminals, it presents various nuclear conﬁgurations (i.e., the combination of nuclear pitch accent and boundary tone). For Languages 2021, 6, 13 5 of 27

California English, Ritchart and Arvaniti(2014) analyzed the rising terminals of a clip retelling task and a map task, and measured the scale of the rise and the alignment of the onset of the rise with respect to the last stressed syllable. The authors found that the most common nuclear configuration for statements was L* L-H% (i.e., low rise) and for questions it was L* H-H% (i.e., high rise). For floor holding, they found that the speakers used the L* H-L% configuration (i.e., high plateau) rather than rises. In addition, they found that female speakers produced more uptalks than male speakers. With regard to the phonetic realization of uptalk, statements were produced with later and smaller rises than questions. Moreover, the female speakers demonstrated greater pitch excursion and later alignment than the male speakers. Armstrong et al.(2015) compared the use of uptalk in Southern California English to that of Massachusetts English in the production of narratives. Despite the popular stereotype that uptalk is used most frequently by female speakers of California English (Ritchart and Arvaniti 2014; Tyler 2015), Armstrong et al.(2015) did not find any gender or regional differences in the use of final rises. In fact, they found that the most common contour shape of non-question utterances was the level tone (H-L%) regardless of gender and region. With regard to the phonetic realization of uptalks, they found that only for the Southern California speakers, women overall produced uptalks with steeper rises than men, but at the same time they also produced the longest rises. While the different patterns regarding gender in Ritchart and Arvaniti(2014) and Armstrong et al.(2015) may be due to task effect (i.e., narrative and direction in Ritchart and Arvaniti(2014) and narrative in Armstrong et al.(2015)), these findings demonstrate that the association of uptalk with a particular gender or region may not be as strong as one would expect.

1.3. Uptalk in Spanish Compared to English, uptalk has not been extensively studied in Spanish. English speakers’ use of uptalk in Spanish has been considered as an indication of transfer from English phonology (Buck 2016; Henriksen et al. 2010;M éndez Seijas 2019; Trimble 2013; Zárate-Sández 2018). Longitudinal studies examining the effects of study abroad experience on L2 Spanish intonation have shown that, after completing study abroad programs in Spanish-speaking countries, some English L2 learners produced fewer uptalks in Spanish than they used to when they first started (Buck 2016; Henriksen et al. 2010; Trimble 2013). Given that these learners generally demonstrated high proficiency in Spanish (Henriksen et al. 2010) or more interactions with native speakers (Trimble 2013), it is likely that they developed native-like patterns. However, as Trimble(2013) noted, native Spanish speakers produce variable intonation patterns, especially in informal speech. Although Trimble(2013) did not specifically mention uptalk, the use of uptalk has been reported in Spanish. Vergara(2015) analyzed the speech of monolingual speakers of Peninsular Spanish from a Spanish reality TV show and found that all speakers, both male and female, produced uptalks in Spanish to express various discourse functions (e.g., hold the floor, show camaraderie, soften a command). However, female speakers used uptalks more frequently than male speakers and only the female speakers used them to flirt (Sp. coqueteo) during romantic interactions. The two main melodies found were L* LH% and L+H* HH%. Henriksen(2017) also reported that uptalk is commonly used in Peninsular Spanish 1, but male speakers produced more rises than female speakers, with greater pitch excursion and rise duration. The discrepancy found in the two studies may be due to different analysis methods. Vergara(2015) reported the raw number of uptalks, whereas Henriksen(2017) presented the percentage of rises. Uptalk has also been observed in Mexican Spanish, especially in the speech of fresas (Barranco Márquez 2015; Holguín-Mendoza 2011; Martínez-Gómez 2018). Fresa (i.e.,

1 The report in Henriksen(2017) is based on the data from an ongoing research project in which he is collaborating with Meghan Armstrong-Abrami and Lorenzo García-Amaya. Languages 2021, 6, 13 6 of 27

‘strawberry’ in Spanish) is a popular term widespread in Mexico that is used to “des- ignate a person, especially women, who are or try to appear from the upper class by behaving, dressing, and speaking in a manner perceived as snobbish towards other peo- ple” (Holguín-Mendoza 2011, p. 36). While fresas are generally associated with expensive lifestyles, they are also known for their distinctive ways of speaking (Córdova Abundis and Zenil 2002; Martínez-Gómez 2018). Some of the linguistic stereotypes of fresa-style speech include the use of English words, excessive use of certain words or discourse markers (e.g., güey ‘dude’, o sea ‘I mean’, tipo de que/así como ‘be like’), vowel lengthening, and question-like rising intonation in non-questions (i.e., uptalk) (Martínez-Gómez 2018). Holguín-Mendoza(2011) examined the speech patterns of young women in Juárez, Mexico, which borders El Paso, Texas. She found many instances of uptalk typical of fresa-style speech, which resemble the contours of yes-no questions (e.g., LH% and (H)H%) reported in Mexico City Spanish (De la Mota et al. 2010). These patterns were mostly found in a group of speakers who are from families with economic resources, live in the most affluent area in the city, conveniently cross the US-Mexico border by car, and have access to a bilingual lifestyle2. Interestingly, these speakers also used northern regional intonational patterns (e.g., H+L* followed by a level boundary tone), demonstrating a fronterizo/border identity. In a study on fresa-style speech in Guadalajara, which is a city in western Mexico, Martínez-Gómez(2018) demonstrated that, regardless of gender, uptalk is commonly found in the speech of young speakers in the Guadalajara Metropolitan Area. Moreover, speakers who were perceived as less fresa-sounding produced more cases of uptalk. Martínez-Gómez(2018) examined the phonetic realization of uptalk and found that the uptalks in fresa-style speech were produced with greater pitch excursion (9.6 semitones) and rise slope (41.2 semitones per second) than those in non-fresa-style speech (pitch excursion: 8 semitones, rise slope: 25.4 semitones per second). Thus, Martínez-Gómez(2018) argued that a fresa persona is not indexed by a rising contour in declaratives per se, but by a specific type of rising contour, that is a sharp rise, which is often accompanied by other features such as IP-final lengthening and stop lenition. Thus, although uptalk in fresa-style speech is not as frequent as one would expect, its distinctive contour may be perceived as a marked form. The findings of the above-mentioned studies demonstrate that uptalk is present in societies where Spanish is the majority language (i.e., Spain and Mexico). However, users of uptalk in these studies were either fluent English speakers (Holguín-Mendoza 2011) or no information on their English proficiency or use was reported (Henriksen 2017; Martínez-Gómez 2018; Vergara 2015). Thus, more research on the uptalk of Spanish monolingual varieties should be carried out.

2. The Present Study In this study we examine the phonology and phonetics (i.e., forms) of uptalk in heritage Spanish spontaneous speech. The use of uptalk by Spanish heritage speakers in the US has been reported in a few studies (Kim and Repiso-Puigdelliura 2018; Zárate-Sández 2018), but very little is understood on the nature of heritage Spanish uptalk.Z árate-Sández(2018) found that Spanish heritage speakers and English L2 learners of Spanish in Northeastern US produced final boundary tones of declarative sentences with pitch height that was between that of English monolinguals (highest) and Spanish non-heritage native speakers (lowest). Although no significant group difference was found, except for the two control groups, there was a moderate inverse relationship between Spanish proficiency and final boundary tone height (i.e., English monolinguals > intermediate proficiency L2 learners > high proficiency L2 learners > very high proficiency L2 learners > heritage speakers >

2 While these speakers are fluent Spanish-English bilinguals, Holguín-Mendoza(2011) distinguishes them from Mexican Americans who are ethnic minorities in the US and corporate professionals whose use of both Spanish and English is limited to formal settings. The use of English by young women in Juárez is a speech style that “follows an emerging commodified social lifestyle of the upper classes in first world countries that are part of the cosmopolitan elite within this maximized capitalist global world” (Holguín-Mendoza 2011, p. 131). Languages 2021, 6, 13 7 of 27

Spanish non-heritage native speakers). While uptalk was not the main purpose of the study, Zárate-Sández(2018) suggested that heritage speakers’ and L2 learners’ higher boundary tone height compared to non-heritage native speakers may be due to their production of uptalks in some sentences. In an earlier study (Kim and Repiso-Puigdelliura 2018), we also observed many instances of uptalk in the speech of heritage speakers of Mexican Spanish in Southern California. Using the MAE-ToBI (Mainstream American English Tone and Break Indices) annotation system (Beckman et al. 2005; Pierrehumbert 1980; Pierrehumbert and Beckman 1988), we compared the intonation contours of uptalks in heritage Spanish to those reported in California English (Armstrong et al. 2015; Ritchart and Arvaniti 2014). Results showed that the contours commonly found in California English (e.g., low rise L-H%, level boundary tone H-L%) were also observed in heritage Spanish. While heritage speakers’ production of uptalk may be due to influence from English (i.e., majority language), a careful examination of heritage speakers’ homeland varieties should take place beforehand to confirm whether similar patterns of uptalk occur in monolingual speech. The objective of this study is to identify areas of divergence in heritage Spanish uptalk as a first step toward understanding the sources of divergence. In the remainder of this section, we present the experimental design of the study. In Section3, we (1) confirm whether monolingual speakers of Mexican Spanish with little knowledge of English produce uptalk and (2) compare the phonology and phonetics of uptalk produced by heritage speakers and monolingual speakers of Mexican Spanish. In Section4, we discuss the differences and similarities between the two groups and suggest avenues for future research to identify the sources of divergence. Lastly, in Section5 we present the conclusion of the study.

2.1. Participants In this study we collected speech data of 16 heritage speakers (12F, 4M) and 16 monolingual speakers of Mexican Spanish (8F, 8M). The heritage speakers were Mexican Americans born and raised in Southern California, whose parents (i.e., their primary caregivers) im- migrated to the US as adults from various parts of Mexico3. All of the heritage speakers acquired both Spanish and English before age 5 and none of them had lived in a Spanish- speaking foreign country for more than 1 year. Heritage speakers’ language dominance was evaluated using the Bilingual Language Proﬁle (BLP) (Birdsong et al. 2012) which is a questionnaire that generates a continuous score from −218 to 218 based on participants’ responses to questions regarding their language history, language use, language proﬁ- ciency, and language attitudes in their two languages. Positive scores indicate dominance in English and negative scores indicate dominance in Spanish. A score of zero or close to zero indicates balanced bilingualism. Based on the BLP scores, 12 heritage speakers were English-dominant (M = 42.7, SD = 19.4) and 4 speakers were balanced bilinguals (M = −5.7, SD = 2.6). All of the heritage speakers were undergraduate students at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). The Spanish monolingual speakers were Mexicans born and raised in central Mexico. All of them, except for two speakers, were undergraduate students at the National School of Anthropology and History (ENAH). The other two speakers were undergraduate students at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) and the National Polytechnic Institute of Mexico (IPN). All three universities are renowned public higher education institutions based in Mexico City and are either tuition-free or with low tuition, which makes their education and service easily accessible to students of low-income families. The monolingual speakers reported that they exclusively use Spanish on a daily basis (98.6%).

3 The parents of seven heritage speakers were from central Mexico (e.g., Mexico City, Puebla, Morelos) and the parents of an additional seven heritage speakers were from the western region (e.g., Jalisco, Michoacán). The parents of the remaining two heritage speakers were from the southern region (e.g., Oaxaca, Guerrero). In this study, we only controlled for parents’ country of origin (i.e., Mexico) and did not take into account possible regional variations of uptalk in Mexican Spanish. However, as one of the reviewers pointed out, parents’ regional varieties may have an effect on heritage speakers’ realization of uptalk. We further examined this factor in Section 3.3 and discuss the ﬁndings in Section 4.2. Languages 2021, 6, 13 8 of 27

Although some of the speakers learned a foreign language at school (i.e., English), they reported that they had little knowledge of it. None of them learned English before age 10 or have lived in a foreign country for more than a month. Table1 summarizes participants’ language profile. As demonstrated in Table1, the heritage speakers clearly differed from their monolingual peers in the age of acquisition of English and in their language use. As for Spanish proficiency, we conducted an oral picture-naming task to measure heritage speakers’ lexical knowledge, which is a powerful diagnostic of heritage language proficiency (Polinsky and Kagan 2007), and compared their accuracy (i.e., percentage of correct responses) and response time (i.e., speed of lexical activation of correct responses in seconds) to those of the monolingual speakers. Results of independent samples t-tests in R (R Development Core Team 2020) showed that heritage speakers had significantly fewer correct responses (88.31%) than the monolinguals (98%) (t(30) = −7.321, p < 0.001) and they took significantly longer (0.96 s) in answering correct responses than the monolinguals (0.49 s) (t(30) = 5.842, p < 0.001). Heritage speakers’ accuracy and response time did not show any significant correlation with their use of Spanish or English (ps > 0.4). These findings suggest that the heritage speakers in this study had lower proficiency in Spanish than the monolingual speakers and their proficiency was not related to the amount of Spanish/English use.

Table 1. Participant’s language proﬁle.

Monolingual Speakers Heritage Speakers N 16 (8F, 8M) 16 (12F, 4M) Age (year) 24.4 (2.1) 21.63 (2.47) Spanish AOA (year) 0 (0) 0.38 (0.88) English AOA (year) 15.57 (2.82) 3.56 (1.5) Spanish Use 98.56% (2.85) 35.5% (20.72) English Use 1.44% (2.85) 63.63% (20.41) Spanish Prof: Accuracy 98% (0.89) 88.31% (5.22) Spanish Prof: RT (second) 0.49 (0.12) 0.96 (0.3) (AOA: Age of Acquisition; Prof: Proﬁciency; RT: Response Time).

2.2. Procedures Before the study started, the participants read and signed a written informed consent form in the language they preferred (i.e., Spanish or English). After signing the consent form, the participants completed a dyadic interaction task in which they worked in pairs and discussed social issues of their respective cities (i.e., Los Angeles for the heritage speakers and Mexico City for the monolingual speakers) in Spanish. The topics included racism, undocumented immigrants, safety of women, maintenance of Spanish language, and housing. Spontaneous speech during the interactions was recorded using two AKG C520 head-mounted microphones and a Zoom H4n digital recorder with a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz and a sample size of 16 bits. After the dyadic interaction task, the participants completed a picture-naming task, the results of which were used as a proxy for Spanish proficiency (see Section 2.1), the BLP (Birdsong et al. 2012)4, and a language background questionnaire. Heritage speech data were collected at UCLA by Mexican American research assistants who are native Spanish-English bilingual speakers and the monolingual speech data were collected at ENAH by the first author who is a fluent L2 speaker of Spanish. All instructions were provided in Spanish and data collection in both testing sites was conducted in sound-attenuated rooms.

2.3. Coding and Analysis We analyzed the phonological and phonetic properties of rising intonation contours at the end of an Intonation Phrase (IP) regardless of the sentence type. IP-ﬁnal boundary

4 The Bilingual Language Proﬁle was only administered to the heritage speakers. Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 29 Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 29 Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 29 Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 29

proficiency (see Section 2.1), the BLP (Birdsong et al. 2012)4, and a language background proficiency (see Section 2.1), the BLP (Birdsong et al. 2012)4, and a language background proficiency (see Section 2.1), the BLP (Birdsong et al. 2012)4, and a language background questionnaire.proficiency (see Heritage Section 2.1),speech the dataBLP were(Birdsong collected et al. at 2012) UCLA4, and by a Mexican language American background re- questionnaire. Heritage speech data were collected at UCLA by Mexican American re- searchquestionnaire. assistants Heritage who are speech native dataSpanish were-English collected bilingual at UCLA speakers by Mexican and the Americanmonolingual research assistants who are native Spanish-English bilingual speakers and the monolingual speechsearch assistantsdata were who collected are native at ENAH Spanish by-English the first bilingual author whospeakers is a andfluent the L2 monolingual speaker of speech data were collected at ENAH by the first author who is a fluent L2 speaker of Spanish.speech data All instructions were collected were at provided ENAH by in theSpanish first andauthor data who collection is a fluent in both L2 testing speaker sites of Spanish. All instructions were provided in Spanish and data collection in both testing sites wasSpanish. conducted All instructions in sound -wereattenuated provided rooms. in Spanish and data collection in both testing sites was conducted in sound-attenuated rooms. 2.3. Coding and Analysis 2.3. Coding and Analysis Languages2.3.2021 Coding, 6, 13 and Analysis 9 of 27 We analyzed the phonological and phonetic properties of rising intonation contours We analyzed the phonological and phonetic properties of rising intonation contours at theWe end analyzed of an Intonation the phonological Phrase (IP) and regardless phonetic propertiesof the sentence of rising type. intonation IP-final boundary contours at the end of an Intonation Phrase (IP) regardless of the sentence type. IP-final boundary correspondsat the end of toan theIntonation level 4 breakPhrase index (IP) regardless(i.e., strong of disjuncture the sentence with type. clear IP- ftonalinal boundary and seg- corresponds to the level 4 break index (i.e., strong disjuncture with clear tonal and seg- mentalcorresponds evidence) to the in level thecorresponds Spanish4 break indexTones to the (i.e.,and level strongBreak 4 break Indicesdisjuncture index (Sp_ToBI) (i.e., with strong clear annotation disjuncturetonal and system seg- with clear tonal and segmental evidence) in the Spanish Tones and Break Indices (Sp_ToBI) annotation system (Beckmanmental evidence) et al. 2002; in the Prietomental Spanish and evidence) RoseanoTones and in 2010). the Break Spanish Although Indices Tones there(Sp_ToBI) and areBreak va annotationrious Indices cues tosystem (Sp_ToBI) into- annotation system (Beckman et al. 2002; Prieto and Roseano 2010). Although there are various cues to intonational(Beckman phrasing et al. 2002; (e.g., Prieto( Beckmanpause, and pitch Roseano et al. reset, 2002 2010). pre; Prieto-boundary Although and Roseano lengthening) there 2010are va). rious(Frota Although cues et al. thereto 2007), into- are various cues to intonational phrasing (e.g., pause, pitch reset, pre-boundary lengthening) (Frota et al. 2007), innational this study phrasing we used (e.g., nationalpause pause, at pitch phrasingthe rightreset, (e.g.,edge pre- pause,boundaryof the pitchphrase lengthening) reset, as the pre-boundary main (Frota cue et to al. lengthening) IP 2007),-final (Frota et al. 2007), in this study we used pause at the right edge of the phrase as the main cue to IP-final boundaryin this study. Pauses we used often inpause surface this at study as the a stretchright we used edge of silence pause of the ator phrase theglottalization right as edgethe mainin of the the cue speech phrase to IP signal- asfinal the, main cue to IP-final boundary. Pauses often surface as a stretch of silence or glottalization in the speech signal, butboundary we also. Pauses included often casesboundary. surface in which as Pausesa stretch the oftenpauses of silence surface were or asclearly glottalization a stretch perceivable, of silence in the although speech or glottalization signal such, in the speech signal, but we also included cases in which the pauses were clearly perceivable, although such acousticbut we also manifestations included casesbut were we in not alsowhich present. included the pauses These cases were cases in which clearly usually the perceivable, pausesinvolved were additional although clearly perceivable,suchpro- although such acoustic manifestations were not present. These cases usually involved additional pro- sodicacoustic cues, manifestations such as pitchacoustic were reset not and manifestations present. pre-boundar These werey caseslengthening. not present.usually The Theseinvolved utterance cases additional usually types involved werepro- additional prosodic sodic cues, such as pitch reset and pre-boundary lengthening. The utterance types were classifiedsodic cues, as such either as uptalkpitchcues, reset (i.e., such andnon as pre- pitchquestions)-boundar reset and ory lengthening.questions, pre-boundary and The lengthening. the utterance location The typesof the utterance were rise types were classified classified as either uptalk (i.e., non-questions) or questions, and the location of the rise onsetclassified was asannotated either uptalk byas counting either (i.e., non uptalk the-questions) number (i.e., non-questions) of or words questions, and orsyllables and questions, the fromlocation and the therightof the location edge rise of the rise onset was onset was annotated by counting the number of words and syllables from the right edge ofonset the wasIP (i.e., annotated Nth word byannotated andcounting Nth syl bythelable counting number from of thethe words numberend). and of syllables words and from syllables the right from edge the right edge of the IP of the IP (i.e., Nth word and Nth syllable from the end). of theThe IP (i.e.,intonation Nth word contours(i.e., and Nth Nthof IP word syl-finallable and rises from Nth were syllablethe labeled end). from using the the end). Sp_ToBI labeling con- The intonation contours of IP-final rises were labeled using the Sp_ToBI labeling con- ventionsThe intonation(Beckman etcontours al. 2002;The of deIP intonation -lafinal Mota rises et contours were al. 2010; labeled of Estebas IP-final using-Vilaplana the rises Sp_ToBI were andlabeled labeling Prieto using20 con-09; the Sp_ToBI labeling ventions (Beckman et al. 2002; de la Mota et al. 2010; Estebas-Vilaplana and Prieto 2009; Prietoventions and (Beckman Roseano et2010). al.conventions 2002; First, de a lalimited ( BeckmanMota setet al.of et 2010;possible al. 2002 Estebas ;n Deuclear la-Vilaplana Mota configurations et al.and 2010 Prieto ;of Estebas-Vilaplana rising2009; and Prieto Prieto and Roseano 2010). First, a limited set of possible nuclear configurations of rising contoursPrieto and were Roseano determined 2010).2009 First, ; withPrieto aspecial limited and Roseano reference set of possible2010 to ).the First, n onesuclear a limitedreported configurations set in of monolingual possible of rising nuclear configurations of contours were determined with special reference to the ones reported in monolingual Mexicancontours Spanishwere determined (de larising Mota with contourset al. special 2010) were and reference determined heritage to Mexican the with ones special Spanish reported reference (Rao in 2016;monolingual to the Robles ones reported- in monolingual Mexican Spanish (de la Mota et al. 2010) and heritage Mexican Spanish (Rao 2016; Robles- PuenteMexican 2014). Spanish Table (de 2 la presentsMexican Mota et al. Spanishthe 2010) nuclear (andDe configura laheritage Mota et Mexicantions al. 2010 considered )Spanish and heritage (Raoin this 2016; Mexican study. Robles The Spanish- (Rao 2016; Robles- Puente 2014). Table 2 presentsPuente 2014 the ).nuclear Table2 configurapresentstions the nuclear considered configurations in this study. considered The in this study. The descriptionPuente 2014). of Tableeach nuclear 2 presents configuration the nuclear is configuraadapted fromtions Aguilar considered et al. in (2009). this study. The description of each nucleardescription configuration of each is nuclear adapted configuration from Aguilar is adaptedet al. (2009). from Aguilar et al.(2009). Table 2. Types of nuclear configuration considered in the present study. Table 2. Types of nuclear configuration considered in the present study. Table 2. Types of nuclearTable configuration 2. Types of nuclearconsidered configuration in the present considered study. in the present study. TableNuclear 2. Types Configuration of nuclear configurationSchematic considered Representation in the present study. Description Nuclear Configuration Schematic Representation Description Nuclear Configuration Schematic Representation Description NuclearNuclear Configuration Configuration Schematic Representation Low plateauDescription during the Description stressed Low plateau during the stressed L* (H)H% Lowsyllable plateau followed during by the a rise stressed to a L* (H)H% Lowsyllable plateau followed during by the a rise stressed to a L* (H)H% Lowsyllable plateau followedhigh during level. by the a rise stressed to a syllable followed by a rise L* (H)H%L* (H)H% syllable followedhigh level. by a rise to a high level. to a high level. high level. Rise during the stressed syllable Rise during the stressed syllable L+H* LH% Risefollowed during by the a fall stressed to a low syllable level L+H* LH% RiseRisefollowed duringduring by thethe a fall stressedstressed to a low syllablesyllable level followed by a fall to a low L+H*L+H* LH% LH% followedand a riseby a to fall a highto a lowlevel. level L+H* LH% followedand a riseby a levelto fall a highto and a lowlevel. a rise level to a high level. and a rise to a high level. and a rise to a high level. Rise during the stressed syllable Rise during the stressed syllable L+H* (H)H% thatRiseRise continuesduring during the the into stressed stressed the following syllable syllable that continues into the L+H*L+H* (H)H% (H)H% thatRise continuesduring the into stressed the following syllable L+H* (H)H% that continuessyllables. into thefollowing following syllables. Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW syllables. 10 of 29 Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW syllables. 10 of 29 Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW syllables. 10 of 29

Rise during the stressed syllable L+H*L+H* !H% !H% RiseRise duringduring the the stressed stressed syllable syllable followed by a high plateau. L+H* !H% Risefollowed during bythe a stressed high plateau. syllable L+H* !H% followed by a high plateau. Lowfollowed plateau by during a high the plateau. stressed Lowfollowed plateau by during a high the plateau. stressed L* M% Lowsyllable plateau followed during by the a mid stressed or a L* M% Lowsyllable plateau followed during by the a mid stressed or a syllable followed by a mid L* M%L* M% syllable followedhigh plateau. by a mid or a high plateau.or a high plateau. high plateau. High plateau during the stressed High plateau during the stressed !H* H% HighHighsyllable plateauplateau followed duringduring by thethe a rise stressedstressed to a syllable followed by a rise 4 !H* H%!H* H% syllable followed by a rise to a 4 The Bilingual Language Profile was only!H* administe H% red to the heritage speakers. syllable followedhigh level. by toa rise a high to a level. 4 The Bilingual Language Profile was only administered to the heritage speakers. 4 The Bilingual Language Profile was only administered to the heritage speakers. high level. The Bilingual Language Profile was only administered to the heritage speakers. high level. Low plateau during the stressed Low plateau during the stressed syllableLow plateau which during extends the to stressed the fol- syllable which extends to L* LH%L* LH% syllable which extends to the fol- L* LH% syllablethelowing following which syllable syllableextends and then andto the pitch then fol- pitch rises to a high level. L* LH% lowing syllable and then pitch lowingrises syllable to a high and level.then pitch rises to a high level. rises to a high level. Fall during the stressed syllable H+L* (H)H% Fall during the stressed syllable H+L* (H)H% followedFall during by thea rise stressed to a high syllable level. H+L* (H)H% followed by a rise to a high level. followed by a rise to a high level.

Fall during the stressed syllable Fall during the stressed syllable H+L* LH% Fallfollowed during by the a lowstressed plateau syllable and H+L* LH% followed by a low plateau and H+L* LH% followedthen a riseby a to low a high plateau level. and then a rise to a high level. then a rise to a high level. Intonation contours that are dif- Intonation contours that are dif- Other Intonationferent from contours the classifications that are dif- Other ferent from the classifications Other ferentabove fromor that the are classifications ambiguous. above or that are ambiguous. above or that are ambiguous. The two authors independently annotated a subset of the data taken from both The two authors independently annotated a subset of the data taken from both speakerThe groups two authors (i.e., 229 independently tokens; 27.7% annotatedof the entire a data). subset In of order the datato avoid taken tonal from crowd- both speaker groups (i.e., 229 tokens; 27.7% of the entire data). In order to avoid tonal crowding,speaker which groups may (i.e.,result 229 in tokens;temporal 27.7% reorganization of the entire of data). the tonal In order gestures to avoid (Prieto tonal 2002), crowd- we ing, which may result in temporal reorganization of the tonal gestures (Prieto 2002), we excludeding, which tokens may resultin which in temporalthe syllable reorganization bearing the nuclear of the tonalpitch acgesturescent coincided (Prieto 2002),with that we excluded tokens in which the syllable bearing the nuclear pitch accent coincided with that ofexcluded the boundary tokens tone,in which as in the the syllable cases of bearing monosyllabic the nuclear words pitch (e.g., ac máscent ‘more’) coincided and withoxytones that of the boundary tone, as in the cases of monosyllabic words (e.g., más ‘more’) and oxytones (e.g.,of the comuni boundarydad ‘community’)tone, as in the atcases the ofend monosyllabic of an IP. Intercoder words (e.g., reliability más ‘more’) of the andclassification oxytones (e.g., comunidad ‘community’) at the end of an IP. Intercoder reliability of the classification of(e.g., nuclear comuni configurationsdad ‘community’) was at tested the end using of an Cohen’s IP. Intercoder Kappa, reliabilitywhich was of performedthe classification using of nuclear configurations was tested using Cohen’s Kappa, which was performed using theof nuclear irr package configurations (Gamer et al.was 2019) tested in Rusing (R Development Cohen’s Kappa, Core whichTeam 2020).was performed Results showed using the irr package (Gamer et al. 2019) in R (R Development Core Team 2020). Results showed thatthe irr there package was a(Gamer substantial et al. agreement2019) in R ( Rbetween Development the two Core coders Team (κ 2020).= 0.761, Results p < 0.001), showed ac- that there was a substantial agreement between the two coders (κ = 0.761, p < 0.001), ac- cordingthat there to wasLandis a substantial and Koch’s agreement (1977) interpretation between the of two the codersKappa (κcoefficient = 0.761, .p Thus, < 0.001), we ac-di- cording to Landis and Koch’s (1977) interpretation of the Kappa coefficient. Thus, we di- videdcording the to annotation Landis and of Koch’s the remainder (1977) interpretation of the data. of the Kappa coefficient. Thus, we divided the annotation of the remainder of the data. videdWith the annotationregard to the of thephonetic remainder properties of the ofdata. rising contours, we analyzed pitch excur- With regard to the phonetic properties of rising contours, we analyzed pitch excursion With(i.e., magnituderegard to the of rise)phonetic and propertiesrise slope (i.e.,of rising steepness contours of rise)., we analyzedTo measure pitch the excur- pitch sion (i.e., magnitude of rise) and rise slope (i.e., steepness of rise). To measure the pitch excursion,sion (i.e., magnitude we extracted of therise) f0 and (Hz) rise of theslope tonal (i.e., peaks steepness and valleys of rise). of Tothe measureareas correspond- the pitch excursion, we extracted the f0 (Hz) of the tonal peaks and valleys of the areas correspond- ingexcursion, to the nuclear we extracted configurations the f0 (Hz) using of the a scripttonal peaksin Praat and (Boersma valleys ofand the Weenink areas correspond- 2020). We ing to the nuclear configurations using a script in Praat (Boersma and Weenink 2020). We thening to calculated the nuclear the configurations differences between using athe script two inpoints, Praat and (Boersma converted and theWeenink values 2020). into sem- We then calculated the differences between the two points, and converted the values into sem- ithentones calculated (st) (=12 the* log2[F0max/ differencesF0min]), between whichthe two is points, a logarithmic and converted scale that the isvalues considered into sem- to itones (st) (=12 * log2[F0max/F0min]), which is a logarithmic scale that is considered to bestitones reflect (st) (=12 listeners’ * log2[F0max/ intuitionsF0min]), about intonational which is a logarithmicequivalence scale (Nolan that 2003; is considered Pépiot 2014; to best reflect listeners’ intuitions about intonational equivalence (Nolan 2003; Pépiot 2014; Simpsonbest reflect 2009). listeners’ The exact intuitions locations about of intonationalthe tonal peaks equivalence and valleys (Nolan were 2003;determined Pépiot semi2014;- Simpson 2009). The exact locations of the tonal peaks and valleys were determined semi- automaticallySimpson 2009). by The selecting exact locations the regions of thein which tonal thesepeaks points and valleys were identified.were determined We excluded semi- automatically by selecting the regions in which these points were identified. We excluded tokensautomatically in which by theselecting tonal peaksthe regions or valleys in which were these located points within were a identified. voiceless segmentWe excluded or if tokens in which the tonal peaks or valleys were located within a voiceless segment or if thetokens segment in which was the produced tonal peaks with ora creak.valleys For were the located rise slope, within the apitch voic elessexcursion segment (st) orwas if the segment was produced with a creak. For the rise slope, the pitch excursion (st) was dividedthe segment by the was duration produced in seconds with a creak.(s) between For the the rise tonal slope, peaks the and pitch valleys. excursion All statistical (st) was divided by the duration in seconds (s) between the tonal peaks and valleys. All statistical analysesdivided by and the plotting duration were in secondsperformed (s) betweenusing R ( theR Developm tonal peaksent and Core valleys. Team 2020?All statistical). analyses and plotting were performed using R (R Development Core Team 2020?). 3. Results 3. Results In total, 828 cases of rising terminals were obtained from the dyadic discussion task. In total, 828 cases of rising terminals were obtained from the dyadic discussion task. AmongIn total, them, 828 795 cases tokens of rising were terminalsuptalks and were 33 obtainedtokens were from questions. the dyadic Due discussion to the small task. Among them, 795 tokens were uptalks and 33 tokens were questions. Due to the small Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 29 Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 29

Low plateau during the stressed Low plateau during the stressed L* M% syllable followed by a mid or a L* M% syllable followed by a mid or a high plateau. high plateau. High plateau during the stressed High plateau during the stressed !H* H% syllable followed by a rise to a Languages 2021, 6, 13!H* H% syllable followed by a rise to a 10 of 27 high level. high level. Low plateau during the stressed Low plateau during the stressed syllable which extends to the fol- L* LH% Table 2. Cont.syllable which extends to the fol- L* LH% lowing syllable and then pitch lowing syllable and then pitch rises to a high level. Nuclear Conﬁguration Schematic Representation rises to a high level. Description

Fall during the stressed syllable H+L* (H)H% FallFall during during the the stressed stressed syllable syllable followed by a rise to a high H+L*H+L* (H)H% (H)H% followed by a rise to a high level. followed by a rise to a highlevel. level.

Fall during the stressed syllable FallFall duringduring thethe stressedstressed syllablesyllable followed by a low plateau H+L*H+L* LH% LH% followed by a low plateau and H+L* LH% followed by aand low then plateau a rise and to a high level. then a rise to a high level. then a rise to a high level. IntonationIntonation contours contours that are that dif- are different from the Other Intonation contours that are dif- Other ferentclassifications from the classifications above or that are ambiguous. Other ferent from the classifications above or that are ambiguous. above or that are ambiguous. The two authors independently annotated a subset of the data taken from both speaker The two authors independently annotated a subset of the data taken from both The two authors groupsindependently (i.e., 229 annotatedtokens; 27.7% a subset of the entire of the data). data In taken order from to avoid both tonal crowding, which speaker groups (i.e., 229 tokens; 27.7% of the entire data). In order to avoid tonal crowd- speaker groups (i.e., 229may tokens; result 27.7% in temporal of the entire reorganization data). In order of the to tonalavoid gestures tonal crowd- (Prieto 2002), we excluded ing, which may result in temporal reorganization of the tonal gestures (Prieto 2002), we ing, which may result tokensin temporal in which reorganization the syllable of bearing the tonal the gestures nuclear (Prieto pitch accent 2002), coincided we with that of the excluded tokens in which the syllable bearing the nuclear pitch accent coincided withmás that excluded tokens in whichboundary the syllable tone, bearing as in the the cases nuclear of monosyllabic pitch accent wordscoincided (e.g., with that‘more’) and oxytones (e.g., of the boundary tone, ascomuni in thedad cases‘community’) of monosyllabic at the words end of(e.g., an más IP. Intercoder ‘more’) and reliability oxytones of the classification of of the boundary tone, as in the cases of monosyllabic words (e.g., más ‘more’) and oxytones (e.g., comunidad ‘community’)nuclear at configurations the end of an wasIP. Intercoder tested using reliability Cohen’s of Kappa, the classification which was performed using the (e.g., comunidad ‘community’) at the end of an IP. Intercoder reliability of the classification of nuclear configurationsirr packagewas tested (Gamer using et Cohen’s al. 2019) Kappa, in R (R Developmentwhich was performed Core Team using 2020 ). Results showed that of nuclear configurations was tested using Cohen’s Kappa, which was performed using the irr package (Gamerthere et al. was2019) a substantialin R (R Development agreement Core between Team the 2020). two Results coders (showedκ = 0.761, p < 0.001), according the irr package (Gamer et al. 2019) in R (R Development Core Team 2020). Results showed that there was a substantialto Landis agreement and Koch between(1977) the interpretation two coders of(κ the = 0.761, Kappa p < coefficient. 0.001), ac- Thus, we divided the that there was a substantial agreement between the two coders (κ = 0.761, p < 0.001), according to Landis and annotationKoch’s (1977) of theinterpretation remainder ofof thethe data.Kappa coefficient. Thus, we di- cording to Landis and Koch’s (1977) interpretation of the Kappa coefficient. Thus, we divided the annotation of the Withremainder regard of to the the data. phonetic properties of rising contours, we analyzed pitch excursion vided the annotation of the remainder of the data. With regard to the(i.e., phonetic magnitude properties of rise) of and rising rise slopecontours (i.e.,, steepnesswe analyzed of rise). pitch To excur- measure the pitch excursion, With regard to the phonetic properties of rising contours, we analyzed pitch excursion (i.e., magnitude ofwe rise) extracted and rise the slope f0 (Hz) (i.e., of steepness the tonal of peaks rise). and To valleysmeasure of the the pitch areas corresponding to the sion (i.e., magnitude of rise) and rise slope (i.e., steepness of rise). To measure the pitch excursion, we extractednuclear the f0 (Hz) configurations of the tonal usingpeaks aand script valleys in Praat of the ( areasBoersma correspond- and Weenink 2020). We then excursion, we extracted the f0 (Hz) of the tonal peaks and valleys of the areas corresponding to the nuclear configurationscalculated theusing differences a script in between Praat (Boersma the twopoints, and Weenink and converted 2020). We the values into semitones ing to the nuclear configurations using a script in Praat (Boersma and Weenink 2020). We then calculated the differences(st) (=12 between * log2[F0max/F0min]), the two points, which and converted is a logarithmic the values scale into that sem- is considered to best reflect then calculated the differences between the two points, and converted the values into semitones (st) (=12 * log2[F0max/listeners’F0min]), intuitions which about is intonationala logarithmic equivalence scale that (Nolanis considered 2003;P é topiot 2014; Simpson 2009). itones (st) (=12 * log2[F0max/F0min]), which is a logarithmic scale that is considered to best reflect listeners’ intuitionsThe exact about locations intonational of the tonal equivalence peaks and (Nolan valleys 2003; were Pép determinediot 2014; semi-automatically best reflect listeners’ intuitions about intonational equivalence (Nolan 2003; Pépiot 2014; Simpson 2009). The exactby selectinglocations of the the regions tonal peaks in which and thesevalleys points were were determined identified. semi We- excluded tokens in Simpson 2009). The exact locations of the tonal peaks and valleys were determined semi- automatically by selectingwhich the the regions tonal in peaks which or valleysthese points were were located identified. within a We voiceless excluded segment or if the segment automatically by selecting the regions in which these points were identified. We excluded tokens in which the tonalwas peaks produced or valleys with a were creak. located For the within rise slope, a voic theeless pitch segment excursion or if (st) was divided by the tokens in which the tonal peaks or valleys were located within a voiceless segment or if the segment was producedduration with in a secondscreak. For (s) the between rise slope, the tonal the pitch peaks excursion and valleys. (st) Allwas statistical analyses and the segment was produced with a creak. For the rise slope, the pitch excursion (st) was divided by the durationplotting in seconds were (s) performed between usingthe tonal R ( Rpeaks Development and valleys. Core All Team statistical 2020). divided by the duration in seconds (s) between the tonal peaks and valleys. All statistical analyses and plotting were performed using R (R Development Core Team 2020?). analyses and plotting were3. Results performed using R (R Development Core Team 2020?). 3. Results In total, 828 cases of rising terminals were obtained from the dyadic discussion task. 3. Results Among them, 795 tokens were uptalks and 33 tokens were questions. Due to the small In total, 828 cases of rising terminals were obtained from the dyadic discussion task. In total, 828 cases numberof rising ofterminals question were tokens obtained (4%)5, from we will the focusdyadic on discussion the findings task. of uptalks. The heritage Among them, 795 tokens were uptalks and 33 tokens were questions. Due to the small Among them, 795 tokensspeakers were produceduptalks and fewer 33 tokens cases of were uptalks questions. (M = 17.2 Due times, to the SD small = 7.2) than the monolingual speakers (M = 34.8 times, SD = 17.5), but their speech was also shorter (M = 307 s, SD = 163.1) than the monolinguals (M = 436.4 s, SD = 171.9)6. Thus, we calculated the number of uptalks per second (s) as a measure of normalization. According to the results obtained from an independent samples t-test, there was no significant difference between the normalized frequency of uptalks between the heritage speakers (M = 0.06 time/s, SD = 0.02) and the monolingual speakers (M = 0.08 time/s, SD = 0.03) (t(30) = −1.708, p = 0.098).

5 The low number of question tokens obtained in our data is possibly due to the discussion nature of the task, in which the participants mainly conveyed their opinions and expressed agreement or disagreement to the interlocutor’s opinions, rather than asking questions to each other. 6 Here we only measured the duration of non-question speech where uptalks can appear. Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 29 Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 29 Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 29 Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 29 Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 29 Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 29 Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 29 Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEWnumber of question tokens (4%)5, we will focus on the findings of uptalks. The heritage11 of 29 number of question tokens (4%)5, we will focus on the findings of uptalks. The heritage numberspeakers of produced question fewer tokens cases (4%) of5, uptalkswe will (focusM = 17.2 on times,the findings SD = 7.2) of uptalks.than the monolingualThe heritage speakersnumber ofproduced question fewer tokens cases (4%) of5, uptalkswe will ( Mfocus = 17.2 on times,the findings SD = 7.2) of thanuptalks. the monolingualThe heritage speakersnumber ofproduced(M question = 34.8 fewertimes, tokens cases SD (4%) = of17.5),5 ,uptalks we butwill (their Mfocus = 17.2speech on times,the was findings SD also = 7.2) shorterof thanuptalks. (theM =monolingualThe 307 heritage s, SD = speakersnumber of produced(M question = 34.8 times,fewer tokens casesSD (4%) = of17.5),5, uptalkswe butwill their (focusM = 17.2speech on times,the was findings SD also = 7.2) shorterof thanuptalks. (theM =monolingualThe 307 heritage s, SD = speakers163.1)numberspeakers than of (producedM questionthe = 34.8monolinguals times,fewer tokens casesSD (4%) =(M of17.5),5 , = uptalkswe 436.4 butwill s, their( focusMSD = =17.2speech 171.9)on times,the 6was . findingsThus, SD also = we 7.2) shorterof calculated thanuptalks. (theM =monolingualThe the307 heritagenumber s, SD = 163.1)numberspeakers than of produced(M questionthe = 34.8monolinguals fewertimes, tokens cases SD (4%) (=M of17.5),5 , = uptalkswe 436.4 butwill s, ( their focusMSD = =17.2speech on171.9) times,the 6 was. findingsThus, SD also = we 7.2) shorterof calculated thanuptalks. (theM =monolingualThe the307 heritagenumber s, SD = 163.1)ofspeakers uptalks than produced( Mper the = second 34.8monolinguals fewertimes, (s) as casesSD a measure (=M of17.5), = uptalks 436.4 butof normalization.s, (their MSD = = 17.2speech 171.9) times, 6was. AccordingThus, SD also = we 7.2) shorter calculated to than the ( theresultsM =monolingual the 307 obtained number s, SD = ofspeakers163.1) uptalks than produced( Mper the = second 34.8monolinguals fewertimes, (s) as casesSD a measure =( M of17.5), =uptalks 436.4 butof normalization. s, (theirM SD = 17.2=speech 171.9) times, 6was .According Thus, SD also = we7.2) shorter calculatedto than the (the resultsM =monolingual the307 obtained number s, SD = offromspeakers163.1) uptalks an than independent ( Mper the = second 34.8monolinguals times, (s)samples as SD a measure =(tM -17.5),test, = 436.4 there ofbut normalization. s, theirwas SD =nospeech 171.9) significant 6was .According Thus, also difference we shorter calculatedto the between( resultsM = the307 obtained thenumber s, SDnor- = fromspeakers163.1)of uptalks an than independent ( Mper the = second 34.8monolinguals times, samples(s) as SD a measure (=tM -17.5),test, = 436.4 there butof normalization.s, theirwas SD =nospeech 171.9) significant 6was. AccordingThus, also difference we shorter calculated to the between( Mresults = the307 obtained thenumber s, SDnor- = frommalized163.1)of uptalks an than independentfrequency per the second monolinguals of samples(s)uptalks as a measure (betwtM-test, = een436.4 there of the normalization.s, was heritageSD no= 171.9) significant speakers6. AccordingThus, difference( Mwe = calculated 0.06to the time/s,between results the SD obtained thenumber = 0.02)nor- malized163.1)offrom uptalks an than independentfrequency per the second monolinguals of (s)samplesuptalks as a measure ( betwMt-test, = een436.4 there of the normalization.s, washeritageSD =no 171.9) significant speakers6. AccordingThus, (difference Mwe = calculated 0.06to the time/s, between results the SD obtained numberthe = 0.02) nor- malizedandoffrom uptalks the an monolingualfrequencyindependent per second of speakers(s)uptalkssamples as a measure betw t(-Mtest, =een 0.08 there of the time/s,normalization. washeritage no SD significant =speakers 0.03) According (t(30) (differenceM = = − 0.06to1.708 the time/s, ,between resultsp = 0.098). SD obtained the = 0.02) nor- andoffrommalized uptalks the an monolingual independentfrequency per second of speakers (s)samplesuptalks as a measure betwt(-Mtest, =een 0.08 there of the time/s,normalization. was heritage no SD significant = speakers 0.03) According (t(30) difference(M = = − to0.061.708 the time/s,between, resultsp = 0.098). SD obtained the = 0.02)nor- andfrommalized the an monolingualindependentfrequency of speakers samplesuptalks betw(tM-test, =een 0.08 there the time/s, washeritage noSD significant = speakers 0.03) (t(30) difference(M = = − 1.7080.06 time/s,,between p = 0.098). SD the = 0.02)nor- frommalizedand the an monolingualindependentfrequency of speakerssamplesuptalks betw t(-Mtest, =een 0.08 there the time/s, washeritage no SD significant =speakers 0.03) (t(30) difference(M = = − 0.061.708 time/s,between, p = 0.098). SD the = 0.02)nor- Languages 2021, 6, 13 3.1.malizedand Intonationthe monolingualfrequency Contours of speakersuptalks of Uptalk betw (M =een 0.08 the time/s, heritage SD =speakers 0.03) (t(30) (M = = − 0.061.708 time/s,, p = 0.098). SD = 0.02)11 of 27 3.1.malizedand Intonationthe monolingualfrequency Contours of speakersuptalks of Uptalk betw (M =een 0.08 the time/s, heritage SD =speakers 0.03) (t(30) (M = = − 0.061.708 time/s,, p = 0.098). SD = 0.02) 3.1.and Intonationthe monolingual Contours speakers of Uptalk (M = 0.08 time/s, SD = 0.03) (t(30) = −1.708, p = 0.098). and3.1. IntonationtheTable monolingual 3 demonstrates Contours speakers of Uptalk the frequency (M = 0.08 oftime/s, nuclear SD configurations= 0.03) (t(30) = −in1.708 uptalks, p = produced0.098). by 3.1. IntonationTable 3 demonstrates Contours of Uptalk the frequency of nuclear configurations in uptalks produced by the3.1. monolingualIntonationTable 3 demonstrates Contours speakers of Uptalk theand frequency the heritage of nuclear speakers. configurations In the “other” in uptalks category, produced we found by the3.1. monolingualIntonationTable 3 demonstrates Contours speakers of Uptalk theand frequency the heritage of nuclear speakers. configurations In the “other” in uptalks category, produced we found by the3.1.H* LH% monolingualIntonationTable (N 3 =demonstrates 3)Contours and speakers L*+H of Uptalk theandHH% frequency the contours heritage of (N nuclear speakers. = 5), which configurations In thewe will“other” not in uptalks category,analyze produced further we found due by H*the3.1. LH%monolingualTable Intonation (N 3 =demonstrates 3) and Contoursspeakers L*+H of theHH%and Uptalk frequency the contours heritage of (N nuclear speakers. = 5), whichconfigurations In wethe will“other” not in uptalks analyzecategory, produced further we found due by H*tothe small LH% monolingualTable sample(N 3 =demonstrates 3) size.and speakers L*+H theHH%and frequency the contours heritage of (N nuclear speakers. = 5), which configurations In wethe will“other” not in uptalks analyzecategory, produced further we found due by totheH* small LH%monolingualTableTable sample (N 3 demonstrates=3 3)demonstrates size.and speakers L*+H theandHH% the frequency the frequency contours heritage of of(Nnuclear speakers. nuclear = 5), whichconfigurations configurations In thewe will“other” notin inuptalks category,analyze uptalks produced further produced we found due by by totheH* small LH%monolingual sample (N = 3) size.and speakers L*+H andHH% the contours heritage (N speakers. = 5), which In thewe will“other” not category,analyze further we found due theH*to thesmall LH%monolingual monolingual sample(N = 3) size.and speakers speakers L*+H HH%and and the thecontours heritage heritage (N speakers. speakers.= 5), which In In thewe the will“other” “other” not category,analyze further wewe foundfound due H* TableH*to small LH% 3. Productions sample(N = 3) size.and of L*+H nuclear HH% configurations contours in(N up = talks5), which. we will not analyze further due TableH*to LH%small LH% 3. Productions (N sample(N = = 3)3) and size.and of L*+H L*+H nuclear HH%HH% configurations contourscontours (Nin(N up == 5),talks5), whichwhich. wewe willwill notnot analyzeanalyze furtherfurther duedue to Tableto small 3. Productions sample size. of nuclear configurations in uptalks. toTable Nuclearsmall 3. Productions sample Configu- size. of nuclearSchematic configurations Representa- in uptalks. Monolingual Heritage Speak- TableNuclear 3. Productions Configu- of nuclearSchematic configurations Representa- in uptalks. Monolingual Heritage Speak- TableNuclear 3. Productionsration Configu- of nuclearSchematic configurationstion Representa- in uptalks. MonolingualSpeakers Heritageers Speak- TableNuclear 3. Productionsration Configu- of nuclearSchematic configurationstion Representa- in uptalks. MonolingualSpeakers Heritageers Speak- TableNuclearTable 3. Productions 3.rationProductions Configu- of ofnuclear nuclearSchematic configurations configurationstion Representa- in inup uptalks.talks. MonolingualSpeakers Heritageers Speak- Nuclearration Configu- Schematiction Representa- MonolingualSpeakers Heritageers Speak- Nuclearration Configu- Schematiction Representa- MonolingualSpeakers Heritageers Speak- NuclearL+H*rationNuclear (H)H%Configu- SchematicSchematiction Representa- MonolingualMonolingual180Speakers (33%) Heritage78 (31.2%)ers Speak- L+H*ration (H)H% tion 180Speakers (33%) Heritage78 (31.2%)ers Speakers L+H*Configurationration (H)H% Representationtion Speakers180Speakers (33%) 78 (31.2%)ers L+H* (H)H% 180 (33%) 78 (31.2%) L+H* (H)H% 180 (33%) 78 (31.2%) L+H* (H)H% 180 (33%) 78 (31.2%) L+H* (H)H% 180 (33%) 78 (31.2%) L+H*L+H* (H)H% (H)H% 180180 (33%) (33%) 78 78 (31.2%) (31.2%) L* (H)H% 111 (20.4%) 85 (34%) L* (H)H% 111 (20.4%) 85 (34%) L* (H)H% 111 (20.4%) 85 (34%) L* (H)H% 111 (20.4%) 85 (34%) L* (H)H% 111 (20.4%) 85 (34%) L* (H)H% 111 (20.4%) 85 (34%) L* (H)H%L* (H)H% 111111 (20.4%) (20.4%) 85 85 (34%) (34%) L* (H)H% 111 (20.4%) 85 (34%) L* LH% 62 (11.4%) 15 (6%) L* LH% 62 (11.4%) 15 (6%) L* LH% 62 (11.4%) 15 (6%) L* LH% 62 (11.4%) 15 (6%) L* LH% 62 (11.4%) 15 (6%) L* L*LH% LH% 6262 (11.4%) (11.4%) 15 15 (6%) (6%) L* LH% 62 (11.4%) 15 (6%) L* LH% 62 (11.4%) 15 (6%) L+H* LH% 57 (10.5%) 4 (1.6%) L+H* LH% 57 (10.5%) 4 (1.6%) L+H* LH% 57 (10.5%) 4 (1.6%) L+H* LH% 57 (10.5%) 4 (1.6%) L+H*L+H* LH% LH% 5757 (10.5%) (10.5%) 4 4(1.6%) (1.6%) L+H* LH% 57 (10.5%) 4 (1.6%) L+H* LH% 57 (10.5%) 4 (1.6%) L+H* LH% 57 (10.5%) 4 (1.6%) H+L* LH% 54 (9.9%) 7 (2.8%) H+L* LH% 54 (9.9%) 7 (2.8%) H+L* LH% 54 (9.9%) 7 (2.8%) H+L*H+L* LH% LH% 5454 (9.9%) (9.9%) 7 7(2.8%) (2.8%) H+L* LH% 54 (9.9%) 7 (2.8%) H+L* LH% 54 (9.9%) 7 (2.8%) H+L* LH% 54 (9.9%) 7 (2.8%) H+L* LH% 54 (9.9%) 7 (2.8%) L+H* !H% 46 (8.4%) 32 (12.8%) L+H* !H% 46 (8.4%) 32 (12.8%) L+H*L+H* !H% !H% 4646 (8.4%)(8.4%) 32 32 (12.8%) (12.8%) L+H* !H% 46 (8.4%) 32 (12.8%) L+H* !H% 46 (8.4%) 32 (12.8%) L+H* !H% 46 (8.4%) 32 (12.8%) L+H* !H% 46 (8.4%) 32 (12.8%) L+H* !H% 46 (8.4%) 32 (12.8%) L* M% 10 (1.8%) 17 (6.8%) L* L*M% M% 1010 (1.8%) (1.8%) 17 17 (6.8%) (6.8%) L* M% 10 (1.8%) 17 (6.8%) L* M% 10 (1.8%) 17 (6.8%) L* M% 10 (1.8%) 17 (6.8%) Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW L* M% 10 (1.8%) 17 (6.8%)12 of 29 L* M% 10 (1.8%) 17 (6.8%) L* M% 10 (1.8%) 17 (6.8%) H+L*H+L* (H)H% (H)H% 1010 (1.8%) (1.8%) 3 3(1.2%) (1.2%) H+L* (H)H% 10 (1.8%) 3 (1.2%) H+L* (H)H% 10 (1.8%) 3 (1.2%) H+L* (H)H% 10 (1.8%) 3 (1.2%) H+L* (H)H% 10 (1.8%) 3 (1.2%) H+L* (H)H% 10 (1.8%) 3 (1.2%) H+L* (H)H% 10 (1.8%) 3 (1.2%) 5 The low number of question tokens H+L* !H* obtained !H*(H)H% H% H% in our data is possibly due to the discussion9109 (1.7%) (1.7%)(1.8%) nature of the task,37 7(1.2%)(2.8%) in (2.8%) which the 5 The low number of question tokens obtained in our data is possibly due to the discussion nature of the task, in which the 5 Theparticipants low number mainly of conveyed question their tokens opinions obtained and in expressed our data agreement is possibly or due disagreement to the discussion to the interlocu nature tor’s of the opinions, task, in rather which than the 5 participantsThe low number mainly of conveyed question their tokens opinions obtained and in expressed our data agreement is possibly or due disagreement to the discussion to the interlocu nature tor’s of the opinions, task, in rather which than the 5 participantsaskingThe low questions number mainly to of eachconveyed question other. their tokens opinions obtainedOther and in expressed our data agreement is possibly or duedisagreement to the discussion to the 6 (1.1%) interlocu nature tor’s of the opinions, task, 2 in (0.8%) rather which than the 5 askingTheparticipants low questions number mainly to of each conveyed question other. theirtokens opinions obtainedOther and in expressed our data agreement is possibly or due disagreement to the discussion to the6 (1.1%) interlocu nature tor’s of the opinions, task,2 (0.8%) in rather which than the 65 askingHereTheparticipants lowwe questions only number mainly measured to of eachconveyed question theother. duration their tokens opinions of obtained nonTotal- andquestion in expressed our speech data agreement is where possibly uptalks or due disagreement can to theappear. discussion to the 545 interlocu nature tor’s of the opinions, task, in 250 rather which than the 65 HereTheparticipantsasking lowwe questions only number mainly measured to of eachconveyed question theother. duration their tokens opinions of obtained non- andquestion in expressed our speech data agreement is where possibly uptalks or due disagreement can to theappear. discussion to the interlocu nature tor’s of the opinions, task, in rather which than the 6 Hereparticipantsasking we questions only mainly measured to eachconveyed the other. duration their opinions ofTotal non- questionand expressed speech agreement where uptalks or disagreement can appear. to the 545interlocu tor’s opinions,250 rather than 6 participantsaskingHere we questions only mainly measured to eachconveyed theother. duration their opinions of non -andquestion expressed speech agreement where uptalks or disagreement can appear. to the interlocutor’s opinions, rather than 6 askingHere we questions only measured to each theother. duration of non-question speech where uptalks can appear. 6 askingHere we questions only measured to each theother. duration Forof non both-question speaker speech groups, where the uptalks two most can appear. frequently used nuclear configurations when 6 Here we only measured the duration of non-question speech where uptalks can appear. 6 Here we only measured the durationproducing of non- uptalksquestion werespeech L+H* where (H)H% uptalks andcan appear. L* (H)H%, which comprised more than 50% ofFor the both data. speaker When comparing groups, the the two nuclear most frequently configurations usedof nuclear the two configurations groups, we observed when producingthat certain uptalks intonation were L+H* contours (H)H% were and used L* (H)H%, more frequently which comprised in one group more thanthan the50% other. of theFor data. instance, When comparing the monolingual the nuclear speakers configurations produced of bitonal the two boundary groups, we tones observed (e.g., that LH%) certainmore intonation frequently contours than the were heritage used speakersmore frequently and the in heritage one group speakers than the produced other. For level instance,boundary the tonesmonolingual (e.g., !H%, speakers M%) produced more frequently bitonal thanboundary the monolingual tones (e.g., LH%) speakers more (see frequentlyTable3). than Similarly, the heritage the monolingual speakers and speakers the heritage produced speakers bitonal produced pitch accents level boundary (e.g., L*+H, tonesH+L*) (e.g., more !H%, frequently M%) more than frequently the heritage than speakers the monolingual and the heritage speakers speakers (see Table produced 3). Similarly,monotonal the pitch monolingual accents (e.g., speakers L*, !H*) produced more frequently bitonal pitch than accents the monolingual (e.g., L*+H, speakers. H+L*) moreSince frequently nuclear configurations than the heritage are combinations speakers and of boundary the heritage tones speakers and pitch produced accents, we monotonal pitch accents (e.g., L*, !H*) more frequently than the monolingual speakers. Since nuclear configurations are combinations of boundary tones and pitch accents, we conducted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests using the mantelhaen.test function in the stats package (R Development Core Team 2020) to examine whether there is an association between speaker group and IP boundary tones while controlling for the pitch accents, and whether there is an association between speaker group and pitch accents while controlling for the boundary tones. Due to small cell counts in some nuclear configurations, we used simplified boundary tones (i.e., non-bitonal rising, bitonal rising, and level) and pitch accents (i.e., monotonal and bitonal). A three-way contingency table with group, simplified boundary tone, and simplified pitch accent is shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Cross-tabulation of group, boundary tone (simplified), and pitch accent (simplified).

Monolingual Speakers Heritage Speakers Boundary Tone Boundary Tone

Non-bitonal Bitonal Bitonal Level Total Level Non-bitonal Rising Total Rising Rising Rising

Pitch Accent: 10 120 62 92 15 192 17 (13.7%) 124 Monotonal (5.2%) (62.5%) (32.3%) (74.2%) (12.1%)

Pitch Accent: 46 190 111 32 81 11 347 124 Bitonal (13.3%) (54.8%) (32%) (25.8%) (65.3%) (8.9%)

Results showed that there was a significant relationship between groups and boundary tones when controlling for the pitch accents (χ2 (2, N = 787) = 49.459, p < 0.001). We conducted a post-hoc analysis with chi-square tests with the Bonferroni correction using the groupwiseCMH function in the rcompanion package (Mangiafico 2020), which revealed that the significant relationship between groups and boundary tones remained in both pitch accents (adj.ps < 0.001). Thus, we further compared the proportions of the boundary tones between the two groups in each pitch accent condition using Fisher’s exact test with the Bonferroni correction. Results confirmed that, regardless of the pitch accent, the monolingual speakers produced significantly more bitonal rising boundary tones than the heritage speakers (monotonal pitch accent: 32.3% vs. 12.1%, adj.p < 0.001; bitonal pitch accent: 32% vs. 8.9%, adj.p < 0.001) and they produced significantly fewer level boundary tones than the heritage speakers (monotonal pitch accent: 5.2% vs. 13.7%, adj.p < 0.05; bitonal pitch accent: 13.3% vs. 25.8%, adj.p < 0.01). However, no significant difference was found between monolingual speakers’ and heritage speakers’ use of non- Languages 2021, 6, 13 12 of 27

conducted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests using the mantelhaen.test function in the stats package (R Development Core Team 2020) to examine whether there is an association between speaker group and IP boundary tones while controlling for the pitch accents, and whether there is an association between speaker group and pitch accents while controlling for the boundary tones. Due to small cell counts in some nuclear configurations, we used simplified boundary tones (i.e., non-bitonal rising, bitonal rising, and level) and pitch accents (i.e., monotonal and bitonal). A three-way contingency table with group, simplified boundary tone, and simplified pitch accent is shown in Table4.

Table 4. Cross-tabulation of group, boundary tone (simpliﬁed), and pitch accent (simpliﬁed).

Monolingual Speakers Heritage Speakers Boundary Tone Boundary Tone Non-Bitonal Bitonal Non-Bitonal Bitonal Level Total Level Total Rising Rising Rising Rising Pitch Accent: 10 120 62 17 92 15 192 124 Monotonal (5.2%) (62.5%) (32.3%) (13.7%) (74.2%) (12.1%) Pitch Accent: 46 190 111 32 81 11 347 124 Bitonal (13.3%) (54.8%) (32%) (25.8%) (65.3%) (8.9%)

Results showed that there was a significant relationship between groups and boundary tones when controlling for the pitch accents (χ2 (2, N = 787) = 49.459, p < 0.001). We conducted a post-hoc analysis with chi-square tests with the Bonferroni correction using the groupwiseCMH function in the rcompanion package (Mangiafico 2020), which revealed that the significant relationship between groups and boundary tones remained in both pitch accents (adj.ps < 0.001). Thus, we further compared the proportions of the boundary tones between the two groups in each pitch accent condition using Fisher’s exact test with the Bonferroni correction. Results confirmed that, regardless of the pitch accent, the monolingual speakers produced significantly more bitonal rising boundary tones than the heritage speakers (monotonal pitch accent: 32.3% vs. 12.1%, adj.p < 0.001; bitonal pitch accent: 32% vs. 8.9%, adj.p < 0.001) and they produced significantly fewer level boundary tones than the heritage speakers (monotonal pitch accent: 5.2% vs. 13.7%, adj.p < 0.05; bitonal pitch accent: 13.3% vs. 25.8%, adj.p < 0.01). However, no significant difference was found between monolingual speakers’ and heritage speakers’ use of non-bitonal rising boundary tones (monotonal pitch accent: 62.5% vs. 74.2%, adj.p = 0.185; bitonal pitch accent: 54.8% vs. 65.3%, adj.p = 0.246). Regarding the association between groups and pitch accents, results showed that the relationship between these two variables was significant when controlling for the boundary tones (χ2 (1, N = 787) = 17.062, p < 0.001). A post-hoc analysis with chi-square tests with the Bonferroni correction revealed that the significant relationship between groups and pitch accents held for non-bitonal rising boundary tones (adj.p < 0.01), but not for bitonal rising (p = 0.166) and level boundary tones (p = 0.243). We compared the proportions of the pitch accents between the two groups in non-bitonal rising boundary tones using Fisher’s exact test with the Bonferroni correction. Results confirmed that, in non-bitonal rising boundary tones, the monolingual speakers produced significantly more bitonal pitch accents than the heritage speakers (61.3% vs. 46.8%, adj.p < 0.01) and they produced significantly fewer monotonal pitch accents than the heritage speakers (38.7% vs. 53.2%, adj.p < 0.01). The higher proportions of bitonal rising boundary tones and bitonal pitch accents and the lower proportions of level boundary tones in monolingual speech suggest that the monolingual speakers produced uptalks with more dynamic contours than the heritage speakers. Figure1 demonstrates the frequency of boundary tones and pitch accents in the two groups. Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 29

bitonal rising boundary tones (monotonal pitch accent: 62.5% vs. 74.2%, adj.p = 0.185; bitonal pitch accent: 54.8% vs. 65.3%, adj.p = 0.246). Regarding the association between groups and pitch accents, results showed that the relationship between these two variables was significant when controlling for the boundary tones (χ2 (1, N = 787) = 17.062, p < 0.001). A post-hoc analysis with chi-square tests with the Bonferroni correction revealed that the significant relationship between groups and pitch accents held for non-bitonal rising boundary tones (adj.p < 0.01), but not for bitonal rising (p = 0.166) and level boundary tones (p = 0.243). We compared the proportions of the pitch accents between the two groups in non-bitonal rising boundary tones using Fisher’s exact test with the Bonferroni correction. Results confirmed that, in non-bitonal rising boundary tones, the monolingual speakers produced significantly more bitonal pitch accents than the heritage speakers (61.3% vs. 46.8%, adj.p < 0.01) and they produced significantly fewer monotonal pitch accents than the heritage speakers (38.7% vs. 53.2%, adj.p < 0.01). The higher proportions of bitonal rising boundary tones and bitonal pitch accents and the lower proportions of level boundary tones in monolingual speech suggest that the Languages 2021, 6, 13 monolingual speakers produced uptalks with more dynamic contours than the heritage13 of 27 speakers. Figure 1 demonstrates the frequency of boundary tones and pitch accents in the two groups.

(a) (b)

FigureFigure 1. (a 1.) Frequency(a) Frequency of boundary of boundary tones tones across across pitch pitch accents; accents; (b) Frequency (b) Frequency of pitch of pitchaccents accents in in nonnon-bitonal-bitonal rising rising boundary boundary tones. tones.

WithWith regard regard to tothe the questions, questions, very very few few cases cases were were obtained inin ourour data data (33 (33 tokens, tokens, 4%), 4%),thus, thus, we we did did not not conduct conduct statistical statistical analysis analysis on theon the question question data. data. Nonetheless, Nonetheless, we foundwe founda pattern a pattern that that was was similar similar to theto the case case of of uptalks; uptalks; L* L* (H)H% (H)H% and and L+H* L+H* (H)H% (H)H% were were the thetwo two most most frequently frequently produced produced nuclear nuclear conﬁgurations configurations by both by the both monolingual the monolingual speakers speakers(L* (H)H% (L* (H)H%:: N = 6, N 40%; = 6, L+H*40%; L+H* (H)H%: (H)H%: N = 7, N 46.7%) = 7, 46.7%) and the and heritage the heritage speakers speakers (L* (H)H%: (L* (H)H%:N = 8 N, 44.4%; = 8, 44.4%; L+H* L+H* (H)H%: (H)H%: N = N 6, = 33.3%). 6, 33.3%). Other Other nuclear nuclear conﬁgurations configurations observed observed were wereH+L* H+L* (H)H% (H)H% (N (N = 1) = and1) and L+H* L+H* LH% LH% (N =(N 1) = in 1) the in monolingualthe monolingual speaker speaker data anddata !H*and H% !H*(N H% = 3)(N and = 3) L+H* and L+H* !H% (N!H% = (N 1) in = 1) the in heritage the heritage speaker speaker data. data.

3.2.3.2. Phonetic Phonetic Realization Realization of Uptalks of Uptalks ForFor the the analysis analysis of the of the phonetic phonetic properties properties of rising of rising contours contours,, out out of the of the 828 828 cases, cases, wewe excludedexcluded 340 340 tokens tokens due due to missing to missing f0 peaks f0 peaks and and f0 valleys f0 valleys (see (see exclusion exclusion criteria criteria above). above). Moreover,Moreover, we we only only considered considered paroxytones paroxytones in nuclear in nuclear position position in order in order to control to control for forthe the numbernumber of syllables of syllables between between the thef0 peaks f0 peaks and and f0 v f0alleys. valleys. In this In this process process we we additionally additionally excludedexcluded 40 40tokens tokens in inwhich which the the nuclear nuclear stress stress fell fell on on proparoxytones proparoxytones (N (N = = 41) 41) or or on on non non-IP-- final words (N = 5). This left us with 443 tokens to analyze, among which 428 tokens were uptalks (monolingual speakers: 300 tokens, heritage speakers: 128 tokens) and 15 tokens were questions (monolingual speakers: 6 tokens, heritage speakers: 9 tokens). Figure2 demonstrates the pitch excursion and the rise slope of uptalks produced by the monolingual speakers and the heritage speakers. To examine the effect of group on these measures, we conducted linear mixed-effects modeling using the lmer function in the lme4 package (Bates et al. 2015). The speaker groups (i.e., monolingual speakers vs. heritage speaker) were compared using simple coding in which each level is compared to the reference level and the intercept is the grand mean. For pitch excursion, the model included participant and item as random effects. The best fitting model through backward elimination of random-effect terms included random intercepts for participant and item without any random slope. Results showed that the monolingual speakers (i.e., the reference level) produced uptalks with greater pitch excursions (M = 8.4 st, SD = 4.3) than the heritage speakers (M = 7 st, SD = 4.7), a trend that approached significance (β = −1.466, SE = 0.786, t = −1.865, p = 0.072). Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 29

IP-final words (N = 5). This left us with 443 tokens to analyze, among which 428 tokens were uptalks (monolingual speakers: 300 tokens, heritage speakers: 128 tokens) and 15 tokens were questions (monolingual speakers: 6 tokens, heritage speakers: 9 tokens). Figure 2 demonstrates the pitch excursion and the rise slope of uptalks produced by the monolingual speakers and the heritage speakers. To examine the effect of group on these measures, we conducted linear mixed-effects modeling using the lmer function in the lme4 package (Bates et al. 2015. The speaker groups (i.e., monolingual speakers vs. heritage speaker) were compared using simple coding in which each level is compared to the reference level and the intercept is the grand mean. For pitch excursion, the model included participant and item as random effects. The best fitting model through backward elimination of random-effect terms included random intercepts for participant and item without any random slope. Results showed that the monolingual speakers (i.e., the reference level) produced uptalks with greater pitch excursions (M = 8.4 st, SD = 4.3) than the heritage speakers (M = 7 st, SD = 4.7), a trend that approached significance (β = −1.466, SE = 0.786, t = −1.865, p = 0.072). With regard to the rise slope, due to extremely low item-level variation in this measure (= 0.00), the inclusion of both participant and item as random effects resulted in a singular fit. Thus, in this model we only included participant as a random effect. The best fitting model included random intercept for participant without any random slope. Re- Languages 2021, 6, 13 sults showed that the monolingual speakers produced significantly steeper uptalks (M14 = of 27 32.3 st/s, SD = 19.2) than the heritage speakers (M = 23.5 st/s, SD = 16.4) (β = −8.891, SE = 3.033, t = −2.932, p < 0.01)7.

(a) (b)

FigureFigure 2. (a) 2. Pitch(a) Pitch excursion excursion (st) of (st) uptalks of uptalks by group; by group; (b) Rise (b) Riseslope slope of uptalks of uptalks (st/s) (st/s) by group. by group.

WithWith respect regard to tothe the questions, rise slope, due due to to the extremely small sample low item-level size (15 variation tokens, 3.4% in this of measure the data),(=0.00), we only the present inclusion the of results both participant of descriptive and item statistics. as random The mean effects pitch resulted excursion in a singular was fit. 7.2 stThus, (SD = in 4.4) this for model the monolingual we only included speakers participant and 5.7 asst (SD a random = 1.5) for effect. the heritage The best speakers fitting model. The includedmean rise random slope was intercept 23.3 st/s for participant(SD = 14.7) withoutfor the monolingual any random slope.speakers Results and showed24.4 st/s that (SD the= 9.5) monolingual for the heritage speakers speakers. produced While significantly more data steeperare needed uptalks to test (M the = 32.3 significance st/s, SD =of 19.2) the differences,than the heritage these values speakers were (M between = 23.5 st/s, the SDuptalks = 16.4) of (monolingualsβ = −8.891, SE and = 3.033,those tof = her-−2.932, 7 itagep speakers.< 0.01) . With respect to the questions, due to the small sample size (15 tokens, 3.4% of the 3.3. data),Individual we onlyVariation present in Heritage the results Spanish of descriptive Uptalks statistics. The mean pitch excursion was 7.2 st (SD = 4.4) for the monolingual speakers and 5.7 st (SD = 1.5) for the heritage speakers. Since the heritage speakers varied in the degree of language dominance and parents’ The mean rise slope was 23.3 st/s (SD = 14.7) for the monolingual speakers and 24.4 st/s regions of origin, we further examined possible effects of these factors on the use of (SD = 9.5) for the heritage speakers. While more data are needed to test the significance of the differences, these values were between the uptalks of monolinguals and those of 7 We additionally compared the riseheritage duration speakers. between the two groups using linear mixed effects modeling with group as a fixed effect and participant and item as random effects. The best fitting model included random intercepts for participant and item without any random slope. Results3.3. did Individual not show any Variation significant in Heritage difference Spanish between Uptalks the heritage speakers (M = 0.315 s, SD = 0.096) and the monolingual speakers (M = 0.298 s, SD = 0.122) (p = 0.3), suggesting that both groups spent similar time in producing the Since the heritage speakers varied in the degree of language dominance and parents’ uptalks. regions of origin, we further examined possible effects of these factors on the use of boundary tones and pitch accents that were found to be distinct from the monolingual speakers: bitonal rising boundary tones (monolingual speakers > heritage speakers), level boundary tones (monolingual speakers < heritage speakers), and bitonal pitch accents with non-bitonal rising boundary tones (monolingual speakers > heritage speakers). We performed logit mixed-effects modeling with BLP scores and parents’ regions of origin (i.e., central vs. non-central) as fixed effects and participant as a random effect8. The best fitting models included random intercept for participant without any random slope. Results showed that language dominance did not have an effect on the frequency of bitonal boundary tones (see Figure3a), while it did on the frequency of level boundary tones (β = 0.033, SE = 0.026, z = 2.625, p < 0.01; see Figure3b) and bitonal pitch accents ( β = 0.037, SE = 0.01, z = 3.718, p < 0.001; see Figure3c). That is, the heritage speakers demonstrated conflicting patterns in that those who are more English-dominant (i.e., higher BLP scores) produced both level boundary tones (i.e., less monolingual-like) and bitonal pitch accents (i.e., more monolingual-like) more frequently than those who are less English-dominant.

7 We additionally compared the rise duration between the two groups using linear mixed effects modeling with group as a fixed effect and participant and item as random effects. The best fitting model included random intercepts for participant and item without any random slope. Results did not show any significant difference between the heritage speakers (M = 0.315 s, SD = 0.096) and the monolingual speakers (M = 0.298 s, SD = 0.122) (p = 0.3), suggesting that both groups spent similar time in producing the uptalks. 8 Similar to the case of rise slope in Section 3.2, in all three models the inclusion of both participant and item as random effects resulted in singular fits due to extremely low item-level variation (=0.00). This was also the case for the phonetic properties of uptalks (i.e., pitch excursion, rise slope). Thus, we only included participant as a random effect. Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 29

boundary tones and pitch accents that were found to be distinct from the monolingual speakers: bitonal rising boundary tones (monolingual speakers > heritage speakers), level boundary tones (monolingual speakers < heritage speakers), and bitonal pitch accents with non-bitonal rising boundary tones (monolingual speakers > heritage speakers). We performed logit mixed-effects modeling with BLP scores and parents’ regions of origin (i.e., central vs. non-central) as fixed effects and participant as a random effect8. The best fitting models included random intercept for participant without any random slope. Re- sults showed that language dominance did not have an effect on the frequency of bitonal boundary tones (see Figure 3a), while it did on the frequency of level boundary tones (β = 0.033, SE = 0.026, z = 2.625, p < 0.01; see Figure 3b) and bitonal pitch accents (β = 0.037, SE Languages 2021, 6, 13 = 0.01, z = 3.718, p < 0.001; see Figure 3c). That is, the heritage speakers demonstrated15 con- of 27 flicting patterns in that those who are more English-dominant (i.e., higher BLP scores) produced both level boundary tones (i.e., less monolingual-like) and bitonal pitch accents (i.e., more monolingual-like) more frequently than those who are less English-dominant. Parents’Parents’ region region of of origin origin (i.e., (i.e., whether they areare fromfrom centralcentral MexicoMexico or or not) not) did did not not have have an aneffect effect on on any any of of the the models. models.

(a) (b) (c)

FigureFigure 3. 3. (a()a Frequency) Frequency of of bitonal bitonal rising rising boundary boundary tones by languagelanguage dominancedominance (BLP); (BLP); ( b(b) Frequency) Fre- quencyof level of boundary level boundary tones bytones language by language dominance dominance (BLP); (BLP); (c) Frequency (c) Frequency of bitonal of bitonal pitch accents pitch ac- (with centsnon-bitonal (with non rising-bitonal boundary rising boundary tones) by languagetones) by dominancelanguage dominance (BLP). (BLP).

WithWith regard regard to to the phoneticphonetic realizationrealization of of uptalks, uptalks, we we examined examined the the effects effects of the of samethe samefactors factors (i.e., language(i.e., language dominance, dominance, parents’ parents’ place ofplace origin) of onorigin) pitch on excursion pitch excursion and rise slopeand riseusing slope linear using mixed-effects linear mixed modeling-effects modeling with participant with participant as a random as a effect. random The effect. best fitting The bestmodels fitting included models randomincluded interceptrandom intercept for participant for participant without without any random any random slope. Resultsslope. Resultsshowed showed that the that effect the ofeffect language of language dominance dominance was significant was significant or approached or approached significance significance(pitch excursion: (pitch excursion:β = −0.053, β = −0.053, SE = SE 0.022, = 0.022, t = −t =2.447, −2.447,p

8 Similar to the case of rise slope in Section 3.2, in all three models the inclusion of both participant and item as random effects resulted in singular fits due to extremely low item-level variation (=0.00). This was also the case for the phonetic properties of uptalks (i.e., pitch excursion, rise slope). Thus, we only included participant as a random effect.

(a) (b)

FigureFigure 4. 4. (a()a Pitch) Pitch excursion excursion (st) (st) of of uptalks uptalks by by language language dominance dominance (BLP); (BLP); (b ()b Rise) Rise slope slope of of uptalks uptalks (st/s)(st/s) by by language language dominance dominance (BLP). (BLP).

4.4. Discussion Discussion InIn this this study, study, we we examined examined the the variation variation of of uptalks uptalks produced produced by by heritage heritage speakers speakers andand monolingual monolingual speakers speakers of of Mexican Mexican Spanish. Spanish. Spanish Spanish-English-English bilinguals’ bilinguals’ use use of of uptalk uptalk inin Spanish Spanish has has often often been been regarded regarded as as an an indication indication of of transfer transfer from from English English intonation intonation (Buck(Buck 2016; 2016 Henriksen; Henriksen et al. et 2010; al. 2010 Méndez;M éndez Seijas Seijas 2019; 2019 Trimble; Trimble 2013; Zárate2013;Z-Sándezárate-S á2018).ndez This2018 is). This because is because uptalk uptalk is generally is generally associated associated with with English, English, especially especially the the valley valley girl girl speechspeech in in California California English English (Ritchart (Ritchart and and Arvaniti Arvaniti 201 20144; Tyler; Tyler 2015). 2015). Althou Althoughgh uptalk uptalk has has attracted little attention in Spanish intonation literature, some studies have reported the use of uptalk in spontaneous speech9 (Henriksen 2017; Holguín-Mendoza 2011; Martínez- Gómez 2018; Vergara 2015). Particularly in Mexican Spanish, which is the dialect that the heritage speakers in this study use, uptalk is a stereotypical feature of fresa-style speech (Holguín-Mendoza 2011; Martínez-Gómez 2018), although it occurs in both fresa- and non- fresa-style speech (Martínez-Gómez 2018). Thus, in this study we compared heritage speakers’ speech to that of monolingual speakers of Mexican Spanish with the goal to determine whether uptalk in heritage Spanish is a divergent feature. Here we would like to underline that the comparison with monolingual speakers was not to test whether heritage speakers successfully acquired target linguistic features, but to confirm whether heritage speakers diverge from monolingual speakers in these features. We believe that this is a preliminary step that heritage language research should take before discussing the source(s) of divergence, especially if the target linguistic features in monolingual varieties are not well understood. One of the objectives of our study was to confirm whether monolingual speakers of Mexican Spanish with little knowledge of English produce uptalk. Using spontaneous speech data, we found that the monolingual speakers also used uptalks and they did so with similar (normalized) frequencies as the heritage speakers. While uptalk is generally associated with fresa-style speech in Mexico, we do not believe that the participants in our study used uptalk to express a fresa persona. Most of the heritage speakers and the monolingual speakers were from working class families, according to their parents’ highest level of education and occupation. Moreover, all participants demonstrated activist views toward racism and classism during their interactions, which does not conform to the fresa

9 We believe that speech style has a large effect on the occurrence of uptalk. For instance, in the Transcription of Intonation of the Spanish Language (Prieto and Roseano 2010), which provides an extensive description of the intonation patterns across Spanish dialects, high rising terminals in statements were not found in any dialects, except for the Cibaeño variety of Dominican Spanish (Willis 2010), which demonstrated H+L* H% and L+H* H% contours for broad focus statements, L+H* H% for statements of the obvious, and L+H* LH% for narrow focus and exclamative statements. These studies used a guided questionnaire to elicit intonation patterns of specific discourse functions. In a pilot study, we applied the same methodology to heritage Spanish, but did not find any instances of uptalk. Thus, it appears that the use of uptalk is limited to spontaneous speech. Languages 2021, 6, 13 16 of 27

attracted little attention in Spanish intonation literature, some studies have reported the use of uptalk in spontaneous speech9 (Henriksen 2017; Holguín-Mendoza 2011; Martínez- Gómez 2018; Vergara 2015). Particularly in Mexican Spanish, which is the dialect that the heritage speakers in this study use, uptalk is a stereotypical feature of fresa-style speech (Holguín-Mendoza 2011; Martínez-Gómez 2018), although it occurs in both fresa- and non-fresa-style speech (Martínez-Gómez 2018). Thus, in this study we compared heritage speakers’ speech to that of monolingual speakers of Mexican Spanish with the goal to determine whether uptalk in heritage Spanish is a divergent feature. Here we would like to underline that the comparison with monolingual speakers was not to test whether heritage speakers successfully acquired target linguistic features, but to confirm whether heritage speakers diverge from monolingual speakers in these features. We believe that this is a preliminary step that heritage language research should take before discussing the source(s) of divergence, especially if the target linguistic features in monolingual varieties are not well understood. One of the objectives of our study was to confirm whether monolingual speakers of Mexican Spanish with little knowledge of English produce uptalk. Using spontaneous speech data, we found that the monolingual speakers also used uptalks and they did so with similar (normalized) frequencies as the heritage speakers. While uptalk is generally associated with fresa-style speech in Mexico, we do not believe that the participants in our study used uptalk to express a fresa persona. Most of the heritage speakers and the monolingual speakers were from working class families, according to their parents’ highest level of education and occupation. Moreover, all participants demonstrated activist views toward racism and classism during their interactions, which does not conform to the fresa identity that supports capitalism and expresses commodified upper class lifestyles (Holguín-Mendoza 2011; Martínez-Gómez 2018). Thus, the monolingual data in our study support Martínez-Gómez(2018) who demonstrated that uptalk is found in both fresa- and non-fresa-style speech.

9 We believe that speech style has a large effect on the occurrence of uptalk. For instance, in the Transcription of Intonation of the Spanish Language (Prieto and Roseano 2010), which provides an extensive description of the intonation patterns across Spanish dialects, high rising terminals in statements were not found in any dialects, except for the Cibaeño variety of Dominican Spanish (Willis 2010), which demonstrated H+L* H% and L+H* H% contours for broad focus statements, L+H* H% for statements of the obvious, and L+H* LH% for narrow focus and exclamative statements. These studies used a guided questionnaire to elicit intonation patterns of speciﬁc discourse functions. In a pilot study, we applied the same methodology to heritage Spanish, but did not ﬁnd any instances of uptalk. Thus, it appears that the use of uptalk is limited to spontaneous speech. Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 29

identity that supports capitalism and expresses commodified upper class lifestyles (Hol- guín-Mendoza 2011; Martínez-Gómez 2018). Thus, the monolingual data in our study support Martínez-Gómez (2018) who demonstrated that uptalk is found in both fresa- and non-fresa-style speech.

4.1. Similarities and Differences between Heritage Speakers and Monolingual Speakers We compared the phonological and phonetic properties of uptalks produced by heritage speakers and monolingual speakers. First we examined the nuclear configurations of the uptalks. For both the heritage speakers and the monolingual speakers the two most common patterns were L+H* (H)H% and L* (H)H%. However, when comparing the boundary tones, we found that, regardless of the pitch accents, the heritage speakers produced bitonal rising boundary tones (e.g., LH%) less frequently (10.5%) than the monolingual speakers (32.1%), and produced level boundary tones (e.g., !H%, M%) more frequently (19.8%) than the monolingual speakers (10.4%). With regard to the non-bitonal rising boundary tones (e.g., (H)H%), the heritage speakers produced them slightly more frequently (69.8%) than the monolingual speakers (57.5%), but the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant. We found a similar pattern when examining the pitch accents. That is, the heritage speakers produced bitonal pitch accents (e.g., L+H*, H+L*) less frequently (50%) than the monolingual speakers (64.4%) and produced monotonal pitch accents (e.g., L*, H*) more frequently (50%) than the monolingual speakers (35.6%). The group difference was statistically significant only with non-bitonal rising boundary tones. These findings suggest that the monolingual speakers produced uptalks Languages 2021, 6, 13 17 of 27 with more dynamic contours than the heritage speakers. Figure 5 presents the distribution of intonation contours that represent different combinations of simplified pitch accents (i.e., bitonal and non-bitonal) and boundary tones tones(i.e., bitonal, (i.e., bitonal, non-bitonal non-bitonal rising, rising,and non and-bitonal non-bitonal level). The level). colors The in Figure colors 5 in indicate Figure 5in- indicatetonation intonation contours contoursfrom the frommost the complex most complex (in black) (in to black) the simplest to the simplest (in light (in grey). light grey).While Whilethe heritage the heritage speakers speakers and the and monolingual the monolingual speakers speakers showed showed similar similar distributions distributions of mis- of mismatchingmatching pitch pitch accents accents and and boundary boundary tones tones (in (in grey), grey), they they showed showed a aclear clear distinction distinction in inthe the two two extreme extreme cases. cases. That That is, compared is, compared to the to monolingual the monolingual speakers, speakers, the heritage the heritage speak- speakersers produced produced the simplest the simplest contour contour (i.e., non (i.e.,-bitonal non-bitonal pitch accent pitch accentss with non with-bitonal non-bitonal bound- boundaryary tones) tones) more morefrequently frequently and produced and produced the most the mostcomplex complex contour contour (i.e., (i.e.,bitonal bitonal pitch pitchaccent accentss with bitonal with bitonal boundary boundary tones) tones)less frequently. less frequently. This pattern This suggests pattern suggests that the herit- that theage heritage speakers speakers produced produced uptalks uptalkswith less with pitch less movement pitch movement than the thanmonolingual the monolingual speakers. speakers.Figure 6 demonstrates Figure6 demonstrates an example an of example the L+H* of LH% the L+H*nuclear LH% configuration nuclear configuration (i.e., complex (i.e.,contour) complex of a contour)monolingual of a monolingualspeaker and an speaker example and of an the example L* M% of nuclear the L* configuration M% nuclear configuration(i.e., simple contour) (i.e., simple of a heritage contour) speaker. of a heritage Here only speaker. the tones Here associated only the tones with associatedthe nuclear withconfigurations the nuclear are configurations annotated. are annotated.

Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 29

FigureFigure 5. 5.Frequency Frequency of of simpliﬁed simplified intonation intonation contours contours (PA: (PA: Pitch Pitch accent; accent; BT: BT Boundary: Boundary tone; tone; non-bi: non- Non-bitonal;bi: Non-bitonal; bi: Bitonal). bi: Bitonal).

(a) (b)

FigureFigure 6. 6. (a()a )Example Example of of the the L+H* L+H* LH% LH% nuclear nuclear conﬁgurationconfiguration (i.e.,(i.e., complex complex contour) contour) of of a monolinguala monolingualspeaker. speaker.que que le le estoy estoy dando dando vida vida‘to ‘to whomwhom I am am giving giving life life’;’; (b (b) )Example Example of ofthe the L* L*M% M% nuclear nuclear configurationconﬁguration (i.e., (i.e., simple simple contour) contour) of of a a heritage heritage speaker. speaker. para mejorar lala comidacomida ‘to‘to improveimprove the the food’). food’). Heritage speakers’ preference for simple intonation contours is very similar to the patternsHeritage found speakers’ in North preference American for English. simple Inintonation North American contours English, is very thesimilar three to mainthe patternsvariants found of uptalk in North boundary American tones English. that have In beenNorth reported America aren English, high rising the (H-H%),three main low variantsrising (L-H%), of uptalk and boundary level tones tones (H-L%), that whichhave been are followed reported by are monotonal high rising pitch (H- accentsH%), low (L*, risingH*) ( Di(L- GioacchinoH%), and level and tones Jessop (H 2010-L%),; Prechtel which are and followed Clopper by2016 monotonal; Ritchart pitch and Arvanitiaccents (L*,2014 H*)). To(Di our Gioacchino knowledge, and no Crook study Jessop has reported 2010; Prechtel productive and usage Clopper of bitonal 2016; Ritchart pitch accents and Arvanitior bitonal 2014). boundary To our tones knowledge, in the uptalks no study of has North reported American productive English usage that resemble of bitonal the pitch ones accentsfound or in bitonal our study. boundary tones in the uptalks of North American English that resemble the ones found in our study. Heritage speakers’ use of monotonal pitch accents in Spanish is in line with the findings of previous studies on heritage speakers of Mexican Spanish (Colantoni et al. 2016; Robles-Puente 2014). Robles-Puente (2014) found that, while heritage speakers produced the typical English H* pitch accent in Spanish in both nuclear and prenuclear positions, this pitch accent rarely appeared in the speech of long-term and recent immigrants from Mexico. Similarly, Colantoni et al. (2016) found that, although the most commonly used prenuclear pitch accent in Spanish was L+H* for both heritage speakers and long-term immigrants, the heritage speakers produced H* more often than the long-term immigrants. With regard to the boundary tones, we found that the heritage speakers produced significantly more level boundary tones than the monolingual speakers. Several studies on uptalks in North American English have shown that level boundary tones are used as productively as rising boundary tones (Armstrong et al. 2015; Di Gioacchino and Crook Jessop 2010; Henriksen 2017; Podesva 2011; Prechtel and Clopper 2016). In line with the dynamicity of pitch movement, another noteworthy difference between the uptalks in heritage speakers’ and monolingual speakers’ speech was that in some cases the heritage speakers initiated the rise in non-final words. Unlike the monolingual speakers whose rise onset always occurred in the last word of the IP, some heritage speakers produced uptalks with the rise starting from a non-IP-final word, ranging from the second to the fourth word from the end. Figure 7 shows an example of uptalk with early rise produced by a heritage speaker, in which the nuclear pitch accent falls on the second to the last content word of the IP (raíces ‘roots’) and the last content word (español ‘Spanish’) is deaccented. Here, only the tones associated with the nuclear configuration are annotated. Languages 2021, 6, 13 18 of 27

Heritage speakers’ use of monotonal pitch accents in Spanish is in line with the findings of previous studies on heritage speakers of Mexican Spanish (Colantoni et al. 2016; Robles-Puente 2014). Robles-Puente(2014) found that, while heritage speakers produced the typical English H* pitch accent in Spanish in both nuclear and prenuclear positions, this pitch accent rarely appeared in the speech of long-term and recent immigrants from Mexico. Similarly, Colantoni et al.(2016) found that, although the most commonly used prenuclear pitch accent in Spanish was L+H* for both heritage speakers and long-term immigrants, the heritage speakers produced H* more often than the long-term immigrants. With regard to the boundary tones, we found that the heritage speakers produced significantly more level boundary tones than the monolingual speakers. Several studies on uptalks in North American English have shown that level boundary tones are used as productively as rising boundary tones (Armstrong et al. 2015; Di Gioacchino and Jessop 2010; Henriksen 2017; Podesva 2011; Prechtel and Clopper 2016). In line with the dynamicity of pitch movement, another noteworthy difference between the uptalks in heritage speakers’ and monolingual speakers’ speech was that in some cases the heritage speakers initiated the rise in non-final words. Unlike the monolingual speakers whose rise onset always occurred in the last word of the IP, some heritage speakers produced uptalks with the rise starting from a non-IP-final word, ranging from the second to the fourth word from the end. Figure7 shows an example of uptalk with early rise Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEWproduced by a heritage speaker, in which the nuclear pitch accent falls on the second19 toof the29

last content word of the IP (raíces ‘roots’) and the last content word (español ‘Spanish’) is deaccented. Here, only the tones associated with the nuclear conﬁguration are annotated.

Figure 7. Example of an early rise produced by a heritage speaker. para que reconozcas *los raíces del Figure 7. Example of an early rise produced by a heritage speaker. para que reconozcas *los raíces del españolespañol ‘‘soso that that you you recognize recognize the the roots roots of of Spanish Spanish’.’. Although uptalks with early rise occurred in only 3.2% of the heritage speaker data Although uptalks with early rise occurred in only 3.2% of the heritage speaker data (i.e., 8 out of 248 cases), this ﬁnding merits attention. According to Jun(2014), both Spanish (i.e., 8 out of 248 cases), this finding merits attention. According to Jun (2014), both Spanish and English are head-prominence languages, but Spanish is more macro-rhythmic than and English are head-prominence languages, but Spanish is more macro-rhythmic than English in that the domain of pitch accent in Spanish is approximately one content word, English in that the domain of pitch accent in Spanish is approximately one content word, whereas in English it is often larger than a word. That is, unlike Spanish, in which each whereas in English it is often larger than a word. That is, unlike Spanish, in which each content word bears a pitch accent (i.e., more regular interval), not every content word content word bears a pitch accent (i.e., more regular interval), not every content word carries a pitch accent in English (i.e., less regular interval). Moreover, as mentioned above, carriescompared a pitch to accent English in phrase-medial English (i.e., less pitch regular accents interval). that are Moreover, most commonly as mentioned level above, tones compared(e.g., H*, L*), to Spanish English frequently phrase-medial employs pitch rising accents tones that (e.g., are L+

4.2. Toward an Understanding of the Sources of Divergence in Heritage Speakers’ Uptalks Based on our findings, the heritage speakers showed more differences from the monolingual speakers than similarities when producing uptalks. While in this study we identified some areas of divergence in the phonology and phonetics of heritage Spanish uptalk, we would like to emphasize that our findings alone do not account for the exact

10 Note that the L-H% boundary tone in English is based on the Mainstream American English (MAE)_ToBI annotation system and it is different from the LH% boundary tone of the Sp_ToBI system. While the MAE_ToBI L-H% boundary tone represents a low rise irrespective of the alignment of the rise onset, the Sp_ToBI LH% boundary tone represents a late rise in the post-tonic syllable that reaches a high level in the speaker’s pitch range. Languages 2021, 6, 13 19 of 27

speakers’ uptalks was ﬂatter (23.5 st/s) and, to some extent, smaller (7 st) compared to the uptalks produced by the monolingual speakers (steepness: 32.3 st/s, magnitude: 8.4 st). Since the heritage speakers produced more cases of level boundary tones, which tend to be lower in pitch compared to rising boundary tones, we further analyzed the group difference only in rising boundary tones using linear mixed effects modeling. Results showed that while the magnitude of the rise was not different between the two groups (p = 0.149), the difference in slope remained signiﬁcant (β = −8.141, SE = 3.238, t = −2.514, p < 0.05). Although we did not make a distinction between high and low rises, it is possible that the heritage speakers produced the uptalks with a low rising tone similar to the English L-H% boundary tone10.

4.2. Toward an Understanding of the Sources of Divergence in Heritage Speakers’ Uptalks Based on our findings, the heritage speakers showed more differences from the monolingual speakers than similarities when producing uptalks. While in this study we identified some areas of divergence in the phonology and phonetics of heritage Spanish uptalk, we would like to emphasize that our findings alone do not account for the exact sources of divergence. Although they appear to be pointing toward influence from English intonation, majority language influence can occur in various forms. In this section, we suggest avenues for future research toward the identification of the sources of divergence in heritage Spanish uptalk. First, it is important to determine whether majority language influence occurs speaker- internally or speaker-externally. That is, heritage speakers may diverge from monolingual speakers because of cross-linguistic influence between their two language systems (i.e., effect of bilingualism) and/or because they are exposed to a different linguistic variety that is contact-induced (i.e., effect of the type of input). One way to test the effect of bilingualism is to see whether more English-dominant heritage speakers demonstrate more English-like patterns (i.e., stronger cross-linguistic influence) and diverge more from monolingual speakers. In this study, we operationalized the degree of language dominance using the Bilingual Language Profile (BLP; Birdsong et al. 2012). Our data demonstrated that the heritage speakers who are more English-dominant (i.e., higher BLP scores) indeed produced uptalks with more level boundary tones (i.e., less monolingual-like) than those who are less English-dominant. However, at the same time, these speakers did not produce fewer cases of bitonal rising boundary tones, which would have been the case had they diverged more from the monolingual speakers. Moreover, they produced more cases of bitonal pitch accents (i.e., more monolingual-like). In other words, more English- dominant speakers demonstrated more variable intonation contours than those who are less English-dominant. With regard to the phonetic realization of uptalks, we found a positive relationship between English dominance and divergence from monolinguals. That is, more English-dominant speakers produced uptalks with smaller and, to some extent, flatter rises. Based on these findings, it appears that cross-linguistic influence may occur when heritage speakers produce uptalk in Spanish, but in a gradient manner. As for the English-like tonal categories observed in our data (e.g., level boundary tones), it is unclear whether they are replicas of English categories or, as Kupisch(2020) argued, an artifact of heritage speakers’ exploitation of language-inherent variation as a way to avoid complex intonation contours (i.e., marked forms). If the latter was the case, cross-linguistic influence may serve as a catalyst reinforcing the variation of intonation contours that already exist in Spanish. Although in the present study we found that more English-dominant heritage speakers demonstrated more variable intonation contours, we acknowledge that our data do not present a comprehensive picture of the effect of bilingualism, since the heritage speakers in this study ranged between English-dominant (12 speakers) and balanced bilinguals

(4 speakers). Thus, future research should examine the patterns of uptalk produced by heritage speakers of a wide spectrum of language dominance, including those who are Spanish-dominant. Another way to test whether heritage speakers’ divergent patterns of uptalk are due to cross-linguistic influence is to examine their production of uptalk in English. This process will be helpful in determining whether English-like patterns in heritage speakers’ uptalk in Spanish are indeed present in their uptalk in English. As presented in Section 1.1, heritage speakers may create new tonal categories through hybridization of heritage and majority language categories (Queen 2001; Rao 2016), take intonation patterns or prosodic strategies from both languages (Bullock 2009; Kim 2019; Robles-Puente 2014), or demonstrate fine-grained acoustic properties that are similar to or approaching those in the majority language (Colantoni et al. 2016; Kim 2020; Zuban et al. 2020). Thus, by comparing heritage speakers’ uptalks in Spanish and English, we would be able to explain whether heritage speakers share the same categories in their two languages, add some English categories to the Spanish uptalk inventory, or maintain separate categories, but the Spanish categories show phonetic assimilation to the ones in English. As different annotation systems are used to transcribe intonation contours in English (MAE-ToBI) and in Spanish (Sp_ToBI), cross-linguistic comparisons should be accompanied by the application of a unified annotation system such as the International Prosodic Alphabet (IPrA) (Hualde and Prieto 2016; Jun et al. 2015). With regard to the effect of the type of input, heritage speakers’ use of Spanish generally occurs during interactions with family members, especially those of older generations, in informal settings (Pires and Rothman 2009). Therefore, it is likely that their main source of Spanish input comes from these speakers. Although in this study we controlled for the country of origin of heritage speakers’ parents (i.e., Mexico), we did not take into account possible regional variations of uptalk within Mexican Spanish (see Section 4.3 below). The parents of the heritage speakers came from different states in Mexico and the majority of them (87.5%) were either from the central or the western regions. In Section 3.3, we examined the phonological and phonetic properties of heritage speakers’ uptalks based on their parents’ regions of origin (i.e., central vs. non-central). However, we did not find any differences between heritage speakers whose parents were from central Mexico (i.e., same as the monolinguals) and those whose parents were from other regions. Compared to the other group (6.3 st), the pitch excursion of the central Mexico group (8.05 st) was closer to that of the monolingual speakers (8.4 st), but their rise slope was still much flatter (26.1 st/s) than the monolingual speakers (32.3 st/s). Although we cannot completely rule out the effects of parents’ regional varieties of Mexican Spanish, it appears that factors other than these may have a greater role in heritage speakers’ realization of uptalk. Polinsky and Scontras(2020) put forth that heritage language input is both quanti- tatively and qualitatively different from the input of monolingual speakers. Apart from receiving less input (i.e., reduced input quantity), heritage speakers are exposed to fewer registers and fewer speakers than monolingual speakers (i.e., narrower input breadth). Gollan et al.(2015) found that in some aspects the size of heritage speakers’ speech community resulted to be a stronger predictor of heritage language proficiency than the frequency of heritage language use. This finding suggests that speech community size is just as important, if not more so, than the amount of input when identifying the sources of heritage speakers’ divergent grammars. The heritage speakers in our study were raised in neighborhoods in which the majority of the residents are Latinos (e.g., East LA, South Central, San Fernando Valley). In these neighborhoods, Spanish is used productively across registers thanks to the large speech community size. Thus, although heritage speakers’ main source of Spanish input may be from their family members, it is likely that they are also largely exposed to varieties other than their family’s regional varieties. It is noteworthy to mention that heritage speakers are not only exposed to Spanish of older generations, but also to Spanish of their peers, which often involves code-switching with English. Research on heritage language phonetics and phonology has shown that the Languages 2021, 6, 13 21 of 27

effect of peer groups during (pre-)adolescence becomes a key aspect in bilingual language development (Morris 2017; Nance 2015, 2020). For instance, Nance(2020) investigated the speech of Gaelic-English child bilinguals between 7 and 11 years of age and found that heritage language input at home was not a predictor of their production of Gaelic stops and laterals. Regardless of the amount of home language exposure, bilinguals’ production of these consonants leveled out by pre-adolescence, suggesting that heritage language phonological systems orient toward peer models. According to Queen(2012), heritage speakers are able to use resources available in their two languages and capitalize on the cross-linguistic differences by conventionalizing them into a novel intonation system. Bullock(2009) also argued that, although prosody in language contact situations is prone to change over a short period of time due to its malleable nature, there are “clear tendencies in the manner in which speakers perceptually map intonational structure to intonational meaning (Bolinger 1978; Vaissière 2005)” (Bullock 2009). Since uptalk is mainly observed in spontaneous speech, it is possible that English-like uptalk patterns in informal registers have permeated the vernacular Spanish, especially the speech of Latino youth. Future research should examine whether the same patterns are shared across members of heritage speakers’ speech communities, especially among their peers. If the variability found in heritage Spanish uptalk shows systematicity within and across speakers and if such variability is recognized and understood by other members of the speech community, we can assume that these speakers have a shared set of grammars that are distinct from the grammars of homeland speakers.

4.3. Importance of the Study on Monolingual Varieties in Heritage Language Research As mentioned above, heritage speakers do not receive the same input as monolingual speakers. Therefore, comparisons with monolingual speakers do not inform us whether heritage speakers successfully acquired the heritage language. However, if the goal is to understand the sources of heritage speakers’ divergent grammars, it is paramount to first identify areas of divergence from monolingual grammars, which requires research on monolingual varieties. Uptalk in Spanish is very little understood. Thus, as a first step we analyzed the phonological and phonetic properties of uptalk in Spanish produced by monolingual speakers of Mexican Spanish to compare them with those of heritage speakers of Mexican Spanish. This by no means suggests that the uptalk patterns observed in our monolingual data (i.e., Central Mexican Spanish) are applicable to other regional varieties of Mexican Spanish. Although we did not find an effect of parents’ regions of origin on heritage Spanish uptalk, it is important to further examine possible regional variations. In this section, we compare our findings to previous research on the intonation of Mexican Spanish. One of the clearest distinctions that we found between the monolingual speakers and the heritage speakers was that the monolingual speakers produced more dynamic intonation contours than the heritage speakers. The contours with the most dynamic pitch movement were found in the forms of L+H* LH% (rise-fall-rise) and H+L* LH% (fall-rise). While these contours only comprised approximately 20% of the monolingual data, their presence was much more noticeable in monolinguals’ speech than in the speech of the heritage speakers who rarely used them (4.4%). Although we interpreted this distinction as an area of divergence, one may think that the complex intonation contours in the monolingual data are specific to Central Mexican Spanish. For instance, the rise-fall-rise contour of L+H* LH% resembles that of the L+¡H* LH% circumflex contour typical of Central Mexican Spanish (Martín Butragueño 2004). According to Martín Butragueño(2004) , this contour is observed more in male than in female speech and it is generally associated with low social class. While the monolingual speakers in our study shared similar backgrounds with the speakers in Martín Butragueño(2004), it does not appear that the L+H* LH% configuration in our study represents the same contour as the L+¡H* LH% configuration in Martín Butragueño(2004). In Mart ín Butragueño(2004), the L+¡H* LH% configuration was produced with a heightened rise across the stressed syllable (hence the upstepped ¡H*), in Languages 2021, 6, 13 22 of 27

which the f0 peaks (4 st) were higher than the final boundary tones (2.7 st). However, in our study the boundary tones were produced with much higher pitch. We used the same semitone scale as in Martín Butragueño(2004) and found that the peaks of the pitch accents were on average 2.8 st (SD = 1.3) and the boundary tones were on average 8.8 st (SD = 4.1). Without an exception all speakers produced the boundary tones with higher pitch than the pitch accents. Moreover, the female speakers produced this contour slightly more (13.5%) than the male speakers (6.4%). Thus, the L+H* LH% contour in our data is a clear case of uptalk which does not seem to index the same social meanings as the L+¡H* LH% circumflex contour in Mexico City Spanish (Martín Butragueño 2004). With regard to H+L* LH%, this contour has been frequently observed in the Juarez variety of Mexican Spanish (Holguín-Mendoza 2011), thus, we do not believe that it is specific to Central Mexican Spanish. When comparing our results to the acoustic properties of uptalk of non-fresa-style speech in Guadalajara Spanish (Jalisco) reported in Martínez-Gómez(2018) (see Section 1.3), we did not find a noticeable difference in pitch excursion between the two varieties (Central Mexican Spanish: 8.4 st, Guadalajara Spanish: 8 st), whereas the rise slope was steeper in Central Mexican Spanish (32.3 st/s) than in Guadalajara Spanish (25.4 st/s). However, direct comparisons between the two studies, especially the rise slope, should be interpreted with caution due to different data analysis methods (e.g., number of syllables between tonal peak and valley). To our knowledge, no study has compared the realization of uptalks across Mexican varieties using the same methods in data collection and analysis. Thus, with the assumption in mind that there may be regional variations, heritage language research should take a microscopic perspective and either include monolingual speakers of the regional varieties of heritage speakers’ caregivers or control for the regional variety. Moreover, it is important to further address the social meanings of uptalk. In this study we did not examine the effects of social factors (e.g., gender, social class, age) on the production of uptalk. As uptalk in Mexican Spanish is generally associated with fresa-style speech (Holguín-Mendoza 2011; Martínez-Gómez 2018), future research should examine sociolinguistic variation of uptalk. As “intonation is simultaneously connected to multiple levels of linguistic structure, meaning, and types of affect” (Queen 2012), the study of uptalk in heritage Spanish should be accompanied by the analysis of discourse function. The discourse functions of uptalk in North American English has been extensively studied (uncertainty, continuation, enthusiasm, solidarity, among many others) (Armstrong et al. 2015; Hirschberg and Ward 1995; Cran and MacNeil 2005; McLemore 1991; Ritchart and Arvaniti 2014). With regard to Mexican Spanish, to our knowledge, Holguín-Mendoza(2011) is the only study that discusses the discourse functions of uptalk11. Holguín-Mendoza(2011) found that upper- class female speakers in Juárez, Mexico, used uptalk to express politeness and affiliation, similar to Texas sorority girls reported in McLemore(1991). However, the speakers in Holguín-Mendoza(2011) frequently visit Texas for school and for leisure, and are fluent Spanish-English bilinguals. Thus, it is unclear whether these functions are applicable to monolingual varieties of Mexican Spanish. In order to understand whether the form- meaning association in heritage Spanish uptalk is subject to influence from English, future research should first examine whether the discourse functions of uptalk in heritage Spanish are distinct from those in monolingual varieties of Mexican Spanish.

5. Conclusions Heritage speakers demonstrate both convergence to and divergence from monolingual speakers. Identifying the source of divergence has been the focus of many heritage language studies and majority language inﬂuence is often brought up as the strongest candidate. This is especially the case when the linguistic feature of interest shows patterns that

11 Vergara(2015) also discusses the discourse functions of uptalk in Peninsular Spanish. He found that Peninsular Spanish speakers use uptalk to hold the ﬂoor, to show camaraderie, to soften a command, and as a ﬂirting gesture (in the case of women). Languages 2021, 6, 13 23 of 27

resemble those in the majority language. While the general assumption is that the same patterns are not present in monolingual grammars, many studies do not go through the process of confirming this assumption, given that variation in monolingual grammars are seldom the focus of heritage language research. However, like bilingual speakers, monolingual speakers show variability that is conditioned by multiple linguistic and extralinguistic factors. Thus, investigation of monolingual grammars should be of interest to heritage language research, not to set them as the baseline to see whether heritage speakers successfully acquired target linguistic features, but to answer the question of whether heritage speakers diverge from monolingual speakers. This extra step is even more important if the linguistic feature of interest is not well understood in monolingual varieties. In this study we examined the production of uptalk in Spanish by heritage speakers of Mexican Spanish in Southern California. Uptalk is frequently associated with English, especially with California English (Armstrong et al. 2015; Barry 2007; Ritchart and Arvaniti 2014; Tyler 2015), but it has also been observed in Mexican Spanish (Holguín-Mendoza 2011; Martínez-Gómez 2018). Since very little is known about uptalk in Spanish, we examined spontaneous speech of both heritage speakers and monolingual speakers to confirm whether uptalk in monolingual Spanish is as productive as in heritage Spanish and, if so, whether they show different intonation patterns. Our findings showed that there were more differences than similarities between the two groups. Overall heritage speakers produced uptalks with less dynamic intonation contours and produced them with flatter rises than monolingual speakers. The divergent patterns observed in heritage speakers’ speech shared some similarities with the patterns in English. While our findings invite majority language influence as a reasonable explanation to heritage speakers’ divergence from monolingual speakers, there are various forms that majority language influence takes, which should be teased apart. Thus, future research should approach heritage Spanish uptalk from various angles to have a better understanding of the source(s) of divergence.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.Y.K. and G.R.-P.; Data curation, J.Y.K.; Formal analysis, J.Y.K.; Investigation, J.Y.K.; Methodology, J.Y.K. and G.R.-P.; Project administration, J.Y.K.; Resources, J.Y.K.; Validation, J.Y.K.; Visualization, J.Y.K. and G.R.-P.; Writing—original draft, J.Y.K. and G.R.-P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of California, Los Angeles (protocol code: 17-000417; approval date: 29 March 2017). Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest.

References Aguilar, Lourdes, Carme De la Mota, and Pilar Prieto. 2009. Sp_ToBI Training Materials. Available online: http://prosodia.upf.edu/ sp_tobi/ (accessed on 19 July 2020). Amengual, Mark. 2012. Interlingual Influence in Bilingual Speech: Cognate Status Effect in a Continuum of Bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15: 517–30. Amengual, Mark. 2016. Acoustic Correlates of the Spanish Tap-Trill Contrast: Heritage and L2 Spanish Speakers. Heritage Language Journal 13: 88–112. Armstrong, Meghan, Page Piccinini, and Amanda Ritchart. 2015. The Phonetics and Distribution of Non-Question Rises in Two Varieties of American English. In Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Edited by the Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015. Glasgow: The University of Glasgow, p. 0927. Barranco Márquez, Karla Y. 2015. Uptalk in Southern Californian English and Mexican Spanish. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 13: 2383. Barry, Angela S. 2007. The Form, Function, and Distribution of High Rising Intonation in Southern California and Southern British English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. Languages 2021, 6, 13 24 of 27

Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker, and Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67: 1–48. Beckman, Mary, Julia Hirschberg, and Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel. 2005. The Original ToBI System and the Evolution of the ToBI Framework. In Prosodic Typology. The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 9–54. Beckman, Mary, Manuel Díaz Campos, Julia T. McGory, and Terrell A. Morgan. 2002. Intonation across Spanish in the Tones and Break Indices Framework. Probus 14: 9–36. Benmamoun, Elabbas, Silvina Montrul, and Maria Polinsky. 2013. Defining an “Ideal” Heritage Speaker: Theoretical and Methodologi- cal Challenges. Reply to Peer Commentaries. Theoretical Linguistics 39: 259–94. Birdsong, David, Libby M. Gertken, and Mark Amengual. 2012. Bilingual Language Profile: An Easy-to-Use Instrument to Assess Bilingualism. Austin: University of Texas at Austin. Available online: https://sites.la.utexas.edu/bilingual/ (accessed on 1 November 2017). Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink. 2020. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer. Computer Program. Version 5.1.31. Available online: http://www.praat.org/ (accessed on 19 July 2020). Bolinger, D. 1978. Intonation across Languages. In Universals of Human Language, Vol 1.2 Phonology. Edited by Joseph Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson and Edith A. Moravcsk. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 471–524. Buck, Gavin. 2016. Systematic Transfer of ‘Uptalk’ from English (L1) to Spanish (L2) for Native English Speakers: A Developmental Study. Undergraduate. Senior thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Bullock, Barbara E. 2009. Prosody in Contact in French: A Case Study from a Heritage Variety in the USA. International Journal of Bilingualism 13: 165–94. Chang, Charles B., Erin F. Haynes, Yao Yao, and Russell Rhodes. 2009. A Tale of Five Fricatives: Consonantal Contrast in Heritage Speakers of Mandarin. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 15: 37–43. Chang, Charles B., Yao Yao, Erin F. Haynes, and Russell Rhodes. 2011. Production of Phonetic and Phonological Contrast by Heritage Speakers of Mandarin. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 129: 3964. [PubMed] Colantoni, Laura, Alejandro Cuza, and Natalia Mazzaro. 2016. Task-Related Effects in the Prosody of Spanish Heritage Speakers and Long-Term Immigrants. In Intonational Grammar in Ibero-Romance: Approaches across Linguistic Subfields. Edited by Maria del Mar Vanrell, Meghan E. Armstrong and Nicholas Henriksen. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–24. Córdova Abundis, Patricia, and María Antonieta Corona Zenil. 2002. El Habla Coloquial en el Discurso de las Niñas Bien de Guadalupe Loaeza. Signos Linguísticos 4: 51–61. Cran, William, and Robert MacNeil. 2005. Do You Speak American? Television series. New York: WNET. Cruttenden, Alan. 1997. Intonation, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cummings Ruiz, Laura D. 2019. North Midland /u/-Fronting and Its Effects on Heritage Speakers of Spanish. In Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Edited by Sasha Calhoun, Paola Escudero, Marija Tabain and Paul Warren. Canberra: Australasian Speech Science and Technology Association Inc., pp. 1099–103. De la Mota, Carme, Pedro Martín Butragueño, and Pilar Prieto. 2010. Mexican Spanish Intonation. In Transcription of Intonation of the Spanish Language. Edited by Pilar Prieto and Paolo Roseano. Münich: Lincom, pp. 319–50. Dehé, Nicole. 2018. The Intonation of Polar Questions in North American (“Heritage”) Icelandic. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 30: 213–59. Di Gioacchino, Martina, and Lorena Crook Jessop. 2010. Uptalk-Towards a Quantitative Analysis. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 33: 1–16. Einfeldt, Marieke, Joost van de Weijer, and Tanja Kupisch. 2019. The Production of Geminates in Italian-Dominant Bilinguals and Heritage Speakers of Italian. Language, Interaction and Acquisition 10: 177–203. Elias, Vanessa, Sean McKinnon, and Ángel Milla-Muñoz. 2017. The Effects of Code-Switching and Lexical Stress on Vowel Quality and Duration of Heritage Speakers of Spanish. Languages 2: 29. Enbe, Claudia, and Yishai Tobin. 2008. Sociolinguistic Variation in the Prosody of Buenos Aires Spanish According to the Theory of Phonology as Human Behavior. In Selected Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Laboratory Approaches to Spanish Phonology. Edited by Laura Colantoni and Jeffrey Steele. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 140–54. Estebas-Vilaplana, Eva, and Pilar Prieto. 2009. La Notación Prosódica en Español. Una Revisión de Sp_ToBI. Estudios de Fonética Experimental 18: 117–46. Flege, James E. 1995. Second-language Speech Learning: Theory, Findings, and Problems. In Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Edited by Winifred Strange. Timonium: York Press, pp. 229–73. Frota, Sónia, Mariapaola D’Imperio, Gorka Elordieta, Pilar Prieto, and Marina Vigário. 2007. The Phonetics and Phonology of Intonational Phrasing in Romance. In Segmental and Prosodic Issues in Romance Phonology. Edited by Pilar Prieto, Joan Mascaró and Maria-Josep Solé. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 131–53. Gamer, Matthias, Jim Lemon, Ian Fellows, and Puspendra Singh. 2019. irr: Various Coefficients of Interrater Reliability and Agreement. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=irr (accessed on 15 July 2019). Godson, Linda. 2004. Vowel Production in the Speech of Western Armenian Heritage Speakers. Heritage Language Journal 2: 44–69. Gollan, Tamar H., Jennie Starr, and Victor S. Ferreira. 2015. More than Use it or Lose it: The Number of Speakers Effect on Heritage Language Proficiency. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 22: 147–55. Languages 2021, 6, 13 25 of 27

Henriksen, Nicholas C. 2013. Style, Prosodic Variation, and the Social Meaning of Intonation. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 43: 153–93. Henriksen, Nicholas C. 2015. Acoustic Analysis of the Rhotic Contrast in Chicagoland Spanish: An Intergenerational Study. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5: 285–321. Henriksen, Nicholas C. 2017. Non-question Rises in L2 Spanish: Data from the Study Abroad Context. Paper presented at the Hispanistentag 2017, Munich, Germany, March 31. Henriksen, Nicholas C., Kimberly L. Geeslin, and Erik W. Willis. 2010. The Development of L2 Spanish Intonation during a Study Abroad Immersion Program in León, Spain: Global Contours and Final Boundary Movements. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 3: 113–62. Hirschberg, Julia, and Gregory Ward. 1995. The Influence of Pitch Range, Duration, Amplitude, and Spectral Features on the Interpretation of the Rise-fall-rise Contour in English. Journal of Phonetics 20: 241–51. [CrossRef] Holguín-Mendoza, C. 2011. Language, Gender, and Identity Construction: Sociolinguistic Dynamics in the Borderlands. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, OH, USA. Hoot, Bradley. 2017. Narrow Presentational Focus in Heritage Spanish and the Syntax-discourse Interface. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 7: 63–95. [CrossRef] House, Jill. 2007. The Role of Prosody in Constraining Context Selection: A Procedural Approach. Nouveux Cahiers de Linguistique Française 28: 369–83. Hualde, José Ignacio, and Pilar Prieto. 2016. Towards an International Prosodic Alphabet (IPrA). Laboratory Phonology 7: 5. [CrossRef] Jun, Sun-Ah. 2014. Prosodic Typology: By Prominence Type, Word Prosody, and Marco-Rhythm. In Prosodic Typology II. Edited by Sun-Ah Jun. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 520–39. Jun, Sun Ah, José Ignacio Hualde, and Pilar Prieto. 2015. Working Proposal on Tonal Labels for Phrasal/Boundary Tones. Paper presented at the Workshop on Developing an International Prosodic Alphabet (IPrA) within the AM Framework (Satellite Meeting of ICPhS 2015), Glasgow, Scotland, August 12. Kan, Rachel. 2020. Suprasegmental and Prosodic Features Contributing to Perceived Accent in Heritage Cantonese. In Proceedings 10th International Conference on Speech Prosody. International Speech Communication Association (ISCA) Online Archive, pp. 101–5. Available online: https://www.isca-speech.org/archive/SpeechProsody_2020/abstracts/97.html (accessed on 12 January 2021). Kang, Yoonjung, and Naomi Nagy. 2016. VOT Merger in Heritage Korean in Toronto. Language Variation and Change 28: 249–72. [CrossRef] Kim, Ji Young. 2011. L1-L2 Phonetic Interference in the Production of Spanish Heritage Speakers in the US. The Journal of Hispanic Studies 4: 1–28. Kim, Ji Young. 2019. Heritage Speakers’ Use of Prosodic Strategies in Focus Marking in Spanish. International Journal of Bilingualism 23: 986–1004. [CrossRef] Kim, Ji Young. 2020. Discrepancy between Heritage Speakers’ Use of Suprasegmental Cues in the Perception and Production of Spanish Lexical Stress. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 23: 233–50. [CrossRef] Kim, Ji Young, and Gemma Repiso-Puigdelliura. 2018. Understanding the Shapes and Meanings of uptalk in heritage speakers of Spanish. Paper presented at Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, Austin, TX, USA, October 25–27. Kuhl, Patricia K., Karen A. Williams, Francisco Lacerda, Kenneth N. Stevens, and Björn Lindblom. 2012. Linguistic Experience Alters Phonetic Perception in Infants by 6 Months of Age. Science 255: 606–8. [CrossRef][PubMed] Kupisch, Tanja. 2020. Towards Modelling Heritage Speakers’ Sound Systems. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 23: 29–30. [CrossRef] Kupisch, Tanja, Dagmar Baraton, Katja Hailer, Ewgenia Klaschik, Ilse Stangen, Tatjana Lein, and Joost van de Weijer. 2014. Foreign Accent in Adult Simultaneous Bilinguals. Heritage Language Journal 11: 123–50. Landis, J. Richard, and Gary G. Koch. 1977. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics 33: 159–74. [CrossRef] Łyskawa, Paulina, Rurth Maddeaux, Emilia Melara, and Naomy Nagy. 2016. Heritage Speakers Follow All The Rules. Language Contact and Convergence in Polish Devoicing. Heritage Language Journal 13: 219–44. Mangiafico, Salvatore. 2020. Rcompanion: Functions to Support Extension Education Program Evaluation. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rcompanion/index.html (accessed on 17 July 2020). Martín Butragueño, Pedro. 2004. Circumflex Configurations in the Intonation of Mexican Spanish. Revista de Filologia Espanola 84: 347–73. [CrossRef] Martínez-Gómez, Rebeca. 2018. Fresa Style in Mexico: Sociolinguistic Stereotypes and the Variability of Social Meanings. Ph.D. dissertation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA. Mayr, Robert, and Aysha Siddika. 2018. Inter-Generational Transmission in a Minority Language Setting: Stop Consonant Production by Bangladeshi Heritage Children and Adults. International Journal of Bilingualism 22: 255–84. [CrossRef] McLemore, Cynthia Ann. 1991. The Pragmatic Interpretation of English Intonation: Sorority Speech. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA. Méndez Seijas, J. A. 2019. Second Language Spanish Intonation: Systemic and Realizational Dimensions of its Acquisition. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA. Morris, Jonathan. 2017. Sociophonetic Variation in a Long-Term Language Contact Situation: /l/-Darkenng in Welsh-English Bilingual Speech. Journal of Sociolinguistics 21: 183–207. [CrossRef] Languages 2021, 6, 13 26 of 27

Nance, Claire. 2015. ‘New’ Scottish Gaelic Speakers in Glasgow: A Phonetic Study of Language Revitilisation. Language in Society 44: 553–79. [CrossRef] Nance, Claire. 2020. Bilingual Language Exposure and the Peer Group: Acquiring Phonetics and Phonology in Gaelic Medium Education. International Journal of Bilingualism 24: 360–75. [CrossRef] Nolan, Francis. 2003. Intonational Equivalence: An Experimental Evaluation of Pitch Scales. In Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Edited by Josep M. Solé, Daniel Recasens and Joaquin Romero. London: International Phonetic Association, pp. 771–74. Parodi, Claudia. 2014. El Español de Los Ángeles: Koineización y Diglosia. In Lenguas, Estructuras y Hablantes: Estudios en Homenaje a Thomas C. Smith Stark. Edited by Rebeca Barriga Villanueva and Esther Herrera Zendejas. Mexico City: El Colegio de México Centro de Estudios Lingüísticos y Literarios, pp. 1101–23. Pépiot, Erwan. 2014. Male and Female Speech: A Study of Mean f0, f0 Range, Phonation type and Speech Rate in Parisian French and American English Speakers. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Speech Prosody. Edited by Nick Campbell, Dafydd Gibbon and Daniel Hirst. International Speech Communication Association (ISCA) Online Archive, pp. 305–9. Available online: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved= 2ahUKEwiw86Wai5buAhXMx4UKHWc-Ay8QFjAAegQIAxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fhalshs.archives-ouvertes.fr%2Fhalshs- 00999332%2Fdocument&usg=AOvVaw18T7fT70IoPMrj2paNyDk1 (accessed on 12 January 2021). Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 1980. The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. Pierrehumbert, Janet B., and Mary E. Beckman. 1988. Japanese Tone Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press. Pires, Acrisio, and Jason Rothman. 2009. Disentangling Sources of Incomplete Acquisition: An Expalnation for Competence Divergence across Heritage Grammars. International Journal of Bilingualism 13: 211–38. [CrossRef] Podesva, Robert J. 2011. Salience and the Social Meaning of Declarative Contours: Three Case Studies of Gay Professionals. Journal of English Linguistics 39: 233–64. [CrossRef] Polinsky, Maria, and Olga Kagan. 2007. Heritage Languages: In The ‘Wild’ and in the Classroom. Language and Linguistics Compass 1: 368–95. [CrossRef] Polinsky, Maria, and Gregory Scontras. 2020. Understanding Heritage Languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 23: 4–20. [CrossRef] Prechtel, Christine, and Cynthia G. Clopper. 2016. Uptalk in Midwestern American English. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Speech Prosody. Edited by Jon Barnes, Alejna Burgos, Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel and Nanette Veilleux. International Speech Communication Association (ISCA) Online Archive, pp. 133–37. Available online: https://www.isca-speech.org/archive/ SpeechProsody_2016/abstracts/302.html (accessed on 12 January 2021). Prieto, Pilar. 2002. Coarticulation and Stability Effects in Tonal Clash Contexts in Catalan. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Speech Prosody. Edited by Bernard Bell and Isabelle Marlien. International Speech Communication Association (ISCA) Online Archive, pp. 587–90. Available online: https://www.isca-speech.org/archive_open/sp2002/sp02_587.html (accessed on 12 January 2021). Prieto, Pilar, and Paolo Roseano. 2010. Transcription of Intonation of the Spanish Language. München: Lincom Europa. Queen, Robin M. 2001. Bilingual Intonation Patterns: Evidence of Language Change from Turkish-German. Language in Society 30: 55–80. [CrossRef] Queen, Robin M. 2012. Turkish-German bilinguals and their intonation: Triangulating evidence about contact-induced language change. Language 8: 791–816. [CrossRef] R Development Core Team. 2020. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Available online: https://www.r-project. org/ (accessed on 19 December 2020). Rao, Rajiv. 2016. On the Nuclear Intonational Phonology of Heritage Speakers of Spanish. In Advances in Spanish as a Heritage Language. Edited by Diego Pascual y Cabo. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 51–80. Rao, Rajiv, and Rebecca Ronquest. 2015. The Heritage Spanish Phonetic/Phonological System: Looking Back and Moving Forward. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 8: 403–14. [CrossRef] Repiso-Puigdelliura, Gemma, and Ji Young Kim. 2020. The Missing Link in Spanish Heritage Trill Production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1–13. [CrossRef] Ritchart, Amanda, and Amalia Arvaniti. 2014. The Form and Use of Uptalk in Southern Californian English. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Speech Prosody. Edited by Nick Campbell, Dafydd Gibbon and Daniel Hirst. International Speech Communication Association (ISCA) Online Archive, pp. 20–23. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/33 7708461_The_form_and_use_of_uptalk_in_Southern_Californian_English (accessed on 12 January 2021). Robles-Puente, Sergio. 2014. Prosody in Contact: Spanish in Los Angeles. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Ronquest, Rebecca. 2013. An Acoustic Examination of Unstressed Vowel Reduction in Heritage Spanish. In Selected Proceedings of the 15th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Edited by Chad Howe, Sarah E. Blackwell and Margaret Lubbers Quesada. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Projects, pp. 151–71. Ronquest, Rebecca. 2016. Stylistic Variation in Heritage Spanish Vowel Production. Heritage Language Journal 13: 275–97. [CrossRef] Languages 2021, 6, 13 27 of 27

Savino, Michelina. 2012. The Intonation of Polar Questions in Italian: Where is the Rise? Journal of the International Phonetic Association 42: 23–48. [CrossRef] Shepherd, Michael A. 2011. Functional Signiﬁcance of Rising-intonation Declaratives in Settings with Special Discursive Norms. LSA Annual Meeting Extended Abstracts 2: 10–11. [CrossRef] Shin, Eurie. 2005. The Perception of Foreign Accents in Spoken Korean by Prosody: Comparison of Heritage and Non-heritage Speakers. The Korean Language in America 10: 103–18. Shokeir, Vanessa. 2008. Evidence for the Stable Use of Uptalk in South Ontario English. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 16–24. Simpson, Adrian P. 2009. Phonetic Differences between Male and Female Speech. Language and Linguistics Compass 3: 621–640. [CrossRef] Stangen, Ilse, Tanja Kupisch, Anna Lia, Proietti Ergün, and Marina Zielke. 2015. Foreign Accent in Heritage Speakers of Turkish in Germany. In Transfer Effects in Multilingual Language Development. Edited by Hagen Peukert. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 87–108. Trimble, John C. 2013. Acquiring Variable L2 Spanish Intonation in a Study Abroad Context. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, MN, USA. Tyler, Joseph C. 2015. Expanding and Mapping the Indexical Field: Rising Pitch, the Uptalk Stereotype, and Perceptual Variation. Journal of English Linguistics 43: 284–310. [CrossRef] Vaissière, Jacqueline. 2005. Perception of Intonation. In The Handbook of Speech Perception. Edited by David B. Pisoni and Robert E. Remez. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 236–63. Vanrell, Maria del Mar, Meghan E. Armstrong, and Pilar Prieto. 2014. The Role of Prosody in the Encoding of Evidentiality. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Speech Prosody. Edited by Nick Campbell, Dafydd Gibbon and Daniel Hirst. International Speech Communication Association (ISCA) Online Archive, pp. 1022–26. Available online: http://meghanarmstrong.weebly. com/uploads/4/2/6/8/4268188/vanrelletal2014.pdf (accessed on 12 January 2021). Vergara, Daniel. 2015. Uptalk in Spanish Dating Shows. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 187–196. Warren, Paul. 2016. Uptalk: The Phenomenon of Rising Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Werker, Janet F., and Richard C. Tees. 1984. Cross-language Speech Perception: Evidence for Perceptual Reorganization during the First Year of Life. Infant Behavior and Development 7: 49–63. [CrossRef] Wichmann, Anne, and Johanneke Caspers. 2001. Melodic Cues to Turn-Taking in English: Evidence from Perception. Proceedings of the Second SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue 16: 1–6. Willis, Erik. 2010. Dominican Spanish Intonation. In Transcription of Intonation of the Spanish Language. Edited by Pilar Prieto and Paolo Roseano. Munich: Lincom, pp. 123–54. Yaeger-Dror, Malcah. 2002. Register and Prosodic Variation, a Cross Language Comparison. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1495–536. [CrossRef] Zárate-Sández, Germán. 2018. Production of Final Boundary Tones in Declarative Utterances by English-Speaking Learners of Spanish. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Speech Prosody. International Speech Communication Association (ISCA) Online Archive, pp. 927–31. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325744465_Production_of_ﬁnal_boundary_ tones_in_declarative_utterances_by_English-speaking_learners_of_Spanish (accessed on 12 January 2021). Zuban, Yulia, Tamara Rathcke, and Sabine Zerbian. 2020. Intonation of Yes-No Questions by Heritage Speakers of Russian. In Proceedings 10th International Conference on Speech Prosody. International Speech Communication Association (ISCA) Online Archive, pp. 96–100. Available online: https://www.isca-speech.org/archive/SpeechProsody_2020/abstracts/67.html (accessed on 12 January 2021).