sign in sign up
<<
Home , American English, California English, Chain shift, Fronting (sound change), General American English, Korean phonology

ArticleArticleArticleArticle (Divergent)(Divergent)(Divergent)(Divergent) ParticipationParticipationParticipation Participation ininin inthethethe CaliforniaCaliforniaCalifornia VowelVowelVowel ShiftShiftShiftShift bybyby by KoreanKoreanKorean Korean AmericansAmericansAmericans ininin inSouthernSouthernSouthern Southern CaliforniaCaliforniaCalifornia California

1, 2 JiJiJi Young YoungYoungJi Young Kim KimKim Kim 1, 1,1,1,*** and andand* Nicole NicoleNicoleand NicoleWong WongWong 2 22Wong2 1 Department of Spanish and Portuguese, University of California, , CA 90095, USA 111 1 Department Department Department Department of ofofof Spanish SpanishSpanishSpanish and andandand Portuguese, Portuguese,Portuguese,Portuguese, Univer UniverUniverUniversitysitysity of ofof California, California,California, Los LosLos Angeles, Angeles,Angeles, CA CACA 90095, 90095,90095, USA USAUSA 2 Independent Scholar, Santa Clara, CA 95050, USA; [email protected] 222 2 Independent Independent Independent Independent Scholar, Scholar,Scholar,Scholar, Santa SantaSantaSanta Clara, Clara,Clara,Clara, CA CACA 95050, 95050,95050, USA; USA;USA; [email protected] [email protected]@gmail.com * Correspondence: [email protected] *** Correspondence:Correspondence:Correspondence:Correspondence: [email protected] [email protected]@[email protected]  Received:Received:Received:Received: 24 2424 September SeptemberSeptember 24 September 2020; 2020;2020; 2020;Accepted: Accepted:Accepted: Accepted: 2 22 November NovemberNovember 2 November 2020; 2020;2020; Published:2020; Published:Published: Published: 6 66 November NovemberNovember 6 November 2020 20202020 2020 

Abstract:Abstract:Abstract:Abstract: ThisThisThisThis studystudystudy study investigatesinvestigatesinvestigates investigates thethethe the participationparticipationparticipation inininin the thethethe California CaliforniaCaliforniaCalifornia Vowel VowelVowelVowel Shift ShiftShiftShift by Korean bybyby KoreanKoreanKorean Americans AmericansAmericansAmericansin Los in inin Angeles. Los LosLos Angeles. Angeles.Angeles. Five Five FiveFive groups groups groupsgroups of of ofof subjects subjects subjectssubjects participated participated participatedparticipated in inin a a picture picturepicture picture narrative narrativenarrative narrative task: task:task: task: first-, first-,first-, first-, 1.5- 1.5-1.5- 1.5-, ,,, , andandandandand second-generation second-generationsecond-generationsecond-generation second-generation KoreanKoreanKoreanKorean ,Americans,Americans,Americans, Americans, Anglo- Anglo-Anglo-Anglo- Anglo-Californians,Californians,Californians,Californians, and andand (non-immigrant)and(non-immigrant)(non-immigrant) (non-immigrant) KoreanKoreanKorean Korean latelatelate late learnerslearnerslearnerslearnerslearners ofofofof English.English.English.English. of English. ResultsResultsResultsResults Results showedshowedshowedshowed showed aaaa clearclearclearclear a clear distinctiondistinctiondistinctiondistinction distinction betweenbetweenbetweenbetween between earlyearlyearlyearly early vs.vs.vs.vs. latelatelatelate vs. bilinguals;bilinguals;bilinguals; latebilinguals; bilinguals; whilewhilewhilewhile while thethethethe the first-generationfirst-generationfirst-generationfirst-generation Korean KoreanKorean Korean Americans AmericansAmericans Americans and andand the the andthe late latelate the lear learlear latenersnersners learners showed showedshowed showed apparent apparentapparent apparent signs signssigns signs of ofof Korean KoreanKorean of Korean influence, influence,influence, influence, thethethe 1.5- 1.5-1.5-the and andand 1.5- the thethe and second-generation second-generationsecond-generation the second-generation Korean KoreanKorean Korean Americans AmericansAmericans Americans participated participatedparticipated participated in inin most mostmost in most patterns patternspatterns patterns of ofof the thethe of California CaliforniaCalifornia the California VowelVowelVowelVowel Shift.Shift.Shift. Shift. However,However,However, However, divergencedivergencedivergence divergence fromfromfrom from thethethe Anglo-CaliforniansAnglo-CaliforniansAnglo-Californians the Anglo-Californians waswaswas observedobserved wasobserved observed ininin earlyearlyearly in early bilinguals’bilinguals’bilinguals’ bilinguals’ speech.speech.speech.speech. Similar SimilarSimilar Similar to toto the thethe to late latelate the bilinguals, bilinguals,bilinguals, late bilinguals, the thethe 1.5-generation 1.5-generation1.5-generation the 1.5-generation speakers speakersspeakers speakers did diddid not notnot did systematically systematicallysystematically not systematically distinguish distinguishdistinguish distinguish prenasalprenasalprenasalprenasal andandand andnon-prenasalnon-prenasalnon-prenasal non-prenasal /æ/./æ/./æ/. / æTheTheThe/. The second-genersecond-genersecond-gener second-generationationationation speakersspeakersspeakers speakers demonstrateddemonstrateddemonstrated demonstrated aaa split-/æ/ asplit-/æ/split-/æ/ split-/æ system,/system,system,system, but butbutbut ititit was waswas less lessless pronouncedpronouncedpronouncedpronounced than thanthanthan for forforfor the thethethe Anglo-Californians. Anglo-Californians.Anglo-Californians.Anglo-Californians. These TheseTheseThese findings findingsfindingsfindings suggest suggestsuggestsuggest that thatthatthat age ageageage of of arrivalofof arrivalarrivalarrivalhas has hashas a strong a aa strong strongstrong eff ecteffect effecteffect on on immigrantonon immigrant immigrantimmigrant minority minority minorityminority speakers’ speakers’ speakers’speakers’ participation participation participationparticipation in local in inin local locallocal sound sound soundsound change. change. change.change. In the In InIn case thethethe case casecaseof the of ofof the the second-generationthe second-generation second-generationsecond-generation Korean Korean KoreanKorean Americans, AmericanAmerican certains,s,s, certain certaincertain patterns patterns patternspatterns of of ofof the the thethe California California CaliforniaCalifornia Vowel Vowel VowelVowel Shift Shift ShiftShiftwere werewerewereeven eveneveneven more moremoremore pronounced pronouncedpronouncedpronounced than thanthanthan for forforfor the thethethe Anglo-Californians Anglo-CaliforniansAnglo-CaliforniansAnglo-Californians (.e.,(i.e.,(i.e., ///ɪɪɪ/-lowering,ɪ//-lowering,/-lowering,-lowering, ////ɑɑɑ/-//-//-//-/ɔɔɔ/// merger,merger,merger, ///ʊʊʊ/-/-//-- and andandand ///ʌʌʌ/-).//-fronting)./-fronting).-fronting). Moreover, Moreover,Moreover,Moreover, the thethethe entire entireentireentire vowel vowelvowelvowel space spacespacespace of the ofofof the second-generationthethe second-generationsecond-generationsecond-generation Korean KoreanKoreanKorean Americans, Americans,Americans,Americans, especially especiallyespeciallyespeciallyfemale femalefemalefemale speakers, speakers,speakers,speakers, was more waswaswas fronted moremoremore frontedfrontedfronted than that thanthanthan of that thethatthatthat Anglo-Californians. ofofofof thethethethe Anglo-Californians.Anglo-Californians.Anglo-Californians.Anglo-Californians. These findings TheseTheseTheseThese findingsfindingsfindingsfindings suggest that suggestsuggestsuggestsecond-generation thatthatthat second-generationsecond-generationsecond-generation Korean Americans KoreanKoreanKorean Americans mayAmericansAmericans be in a may moremaymay be advancedbebe ininin aaa moremoremore stage advancedadvancedadvanced of the California stagestagestage Vowelofofof thethethe Shift CaliforniaCaliforniaCaliforniathan Anglo-Californians VowelVowelVowel ShiftShiftShift thanthanthan Anglo-Californians orAnglo-CaliforniansAnglo-Californians the California Vowel ororor thethethe Shift CaliforniaCaliforniaCalifornia is on a di ffVowelVowelVowelerent trajectory ShiftShiftShift isisis ononon for aaa these differentdifferentdifferent speakers. trajectorytrajectorytrajectoryPossible forforfor explanations thesethesethese speakers.speakers.speakers. in relation PossiblePossiblePossible to second-generation explanatexplanatexplanationsionsionsions inininin Korean relationrelationrelationrelation Americans’ totototo second-generationsecond-generationsecond-generationsecond-generation intersecting gender, KoreanKoreanKoreanKorean ethnic, Americans’Americans’Americans’and racial intersecting intersectingintersecting identities, gender, gender,gender, and suggestions ethnic, ethnic,ethnic, and andand for racial racialracial future identities,identities, identities,identities, research andand andand are suggestions suggestionssuggestions discussed.suggestions forfor forfor future futurefuturefuture research researchresearchresearch are areareare discussed.discussed.discussed. Keywords: Korean Americans; California ; second ; bilingualism; Keywords:Keywords:Keywords:immigrant KoreanKoreanKorean minority Americans;Americans;Americans; speakers; CaliforniaCaliforniaCalifornia VowelVowelVowel Shift;Shift;Shift; secondsecondsecond languagelanguagelanguage phonology;phonology;phonology; bilingualism;bilingualism;bilingualism; immigrantimmigrantimmigrantimmigrant minority minorityminorityminority speakers; speakers;speakers;speakers; sound soundsoundsound change changechangechange

1. Introduction 1.1.1. Introduction IntroductionIntroduction 1.1. Introduction IntroductionOver the past few decades, research on (L2) phonology has provided empirical OverevidenceOverOver the thethe past past thatpast few earlyfewfew decades, decades,decades, bilinguals research researchresearch are generally on onon second secondsecond more languagelanguage languagelanguage successful (L2) (L2)(L2)(L2) in phonology phonologyphonologyphonology acquiring has hashas L2 provided speechprovidedprovided sounds empirical empiricalempirical than late evidenceevidenceevidencebilinguals that thatthat early earlyearly (Flege bilinguals bilingualsbilinguals et al. 1995 are areare, 1997 ge gegenerallynerallynerally; Flege more moremore and MacKaysuccessful successfulsuccessful 2011 in inin acquiring; acquiring acquiringStevens 1999 L2 L2L2 speech speechspeech; Yeni-Komshian sounds soundssounds than thanthan et late al.latelate 2000 ). bilingualsbilingualsbilingualsModels (Flege (Flege(Flege in L2 et etet phonology, al. al.al. 1995, 1995,1995, 1997; 1997;1997; such Flege FlegeFlege as Flege and andand(1995 MacKay MacKayMacKay) Speech 2011; 2011;2011; Learning Stevens StevensStevens Model 1999; 1999;1999; Yeni-Komshian (SLM)Yeni-KomshianYeni-Komshian and Best et andetet al. al.al. Tyler 2000). 2000).2000).(2007 ) ModelsModelsModelsPerceptual in inin L2 L2L2 phonology, phonology,phonology, such suchsuch Model as asas Flege’s Flege’sFlege’s (PAM)-L2, (1995) (1995)(1995) posit Speech SpeechSpeechSpeech that Learning bilinguals’LearningLearningLearning Model ModelModelModel L1 and (SLM) (SLM)(SLM)(SLM) L2 phones and andandand Best BestBest interactBest and andandandin Tyler’s Tyler’sTyler’sTyler’s a common (2007)(2007)(2007)phonological PerceptualPerceptualPerceptual AssimilationAssimilation space.Assimilation Thus, ModeltheModelModel development (PAM)-L2, (PAM)-L2,(PAM)-L2,of posiposiposi L2ttsoundst thatthatthat bilinguals’bilinguals’bilinguals’ would depend L1L1L1 andandand on L2L2L2 the phonesphonesphones perceptual interactinteractinteract similarity ininin aaa common commoncommonto existing phonological phonologicalphonological L1 sounds. space. space.space. That Thus, Thus,Thus, is, bilinguals the thethe development developmentdevelopment would assimilate ofof ofof L2L2 L2L2 soundssounds soundssounds an L2 wouldwould wouldwould sound dependdepend dependdepend to an L1 onon onon sound thethe thethe perceptualperceptual perceptualperceptual if the two are similaritysimilaritysimilarityperceived tototo existingexistingexisting identical L1L1L1 sounds. orsounds.sounds. if the ThatThat L2That sound is,is,is, bilingualbilingualbilingual is perceivedsss wouldwouldwould as assimilateassimilate aassimilate deviant anvariantanan L2L2L2 soundsoundsound of the tototo L1 ananan sound. L1L1L1 soundsoundsound However, ififif thethethe twotwotwoif an are areare L2 perceivedperceivedperceived sound is identical identicalidentical perceptually ororor if ifif thethethe distinct L2 L2L2 soundsoundsound from isisis existing perceivedperceivedperceivedperceived L1 as asasas sounds, a aaa deviant deviantdeviantdeviant bilinguals variantvariantvariantvariant ofofof wouldof thethethethe L1 L1L1L1 create sound. sound.sound.sound. a new However,However,However,category. if ifif an anan Early L2 L2L2 sound soundsound bilinguals is isis perceptually perceptuallyperceptually tend to be distinct successfuldistinctdistinct from fromfrom at simultaneouslyexisting existingexisting L1 L1L1 sounds, sounds,sounds, maintaining bilinguals bilingualsbilinguals language-internal would wouldwould create createcreate a aa and newnewnew category.cross-linguistic category.category. Early EarlyEarly bilinguals bilinguals contrastsbilinguals (tend tendtendChang to toto be bebe et successful al.successfulsuccessful 2011) because at atat simultaneously simultaneouslysimultaneously begin maintaining maintaining establishingmaintaining language-internal language-internallanguage-internal L2 sounds when they andandand cross-linguisticarecross-linguisticcross-linguistic still in the process contrastscontrastscontrasts of acquiring (Chang(Chang(Chang etetet language-general al.al.al. 2011)2011)2011) becausebecausebecause fine-grained theytheythey beginbeginbegin establishingestablishingestablishing acoustic features L2L2L2 soundssoundssounds (Kuhl when etwhenwhen al. 1992 ;

LanguagesLanguagesLanguages 2020 20202020,,, , 5 55,,, , x;x; x;x; doi:doi: doi:doi: FORFOR FORFOR PEERPEER PEERPEER REVIEWREVIEW REVIEWREVIEW www.mdpi.com/journwww.mdpi.com/journwww.mdpi.com/journal/languagesal/languagesal/languages Languages 2020, 5, 53; doi:10.3390/languages5040053 www.mdpi.com/journal/languages Languages 2020, 5, 53 2 of 27

Werker and Tees 1984). For late bilinguals, on the other hand, L2 sounds are introduced to an already established L1 sound system. Thus, influence from L1 speech sounds would occur to a larger extent for late bilinguals than for early bilinguals. In the case of immigrant populations, first-generation speakers (i.e., late bilinguals) are prone to having a foreign accent in the societal language despite long residence in the host country (Divergent)(Baker Participation and Trofimovich 2005 )in. With the respect California to children of immigrants Vowel who are early bilinguals of their language and the societal language, the situation becomes complicated. Some speakers do Shift by Koreannot show any Americans signs of foreign accent in inSouthern the societal language California (Lloyd-Smith et al. 2020), while others demonstrate phonetic features that are different from local mainstream varieties. For instance, Ji Young Kim 1,* and Nicole Wong 2 immigrant minority speakers who acquired the societal language natively may use phonetic features 1 Department of Spanishthat are and present Portuguese, in their Univer parents’sity foreign-accentedof California, Los Angeles, speech, regardlessCA 90095, USA of whether they speak their parents’ 2 Independent Scholar,language Santa (Clara,Fought CA 2003 95050,; Mendoza-Denton USA; [email protected] 1999; Mendoza-Denton and Iwai 1993; Tsukada et al. 2005). * Correspondence:Thus, [email protected] while neurological maturation associated with age of acquisition plays an important role in L2 Received: 24 Septemberpronunciation, 2020; Accepted: there 2 November are various 2020; extralinguistic Published: 6 factorsNovember other 2020 than age of acquisition that contribute to the development of L2 speech sounds (e.g., quantity/quality of L2 input, relative use of L1/L2, language Abstract: This studyattitude, investigates identity, speechthe participation register) (Jia in and the Aaronson California 2003 Vowel; Flege 1999Shift; Zampiniby Korean 2008 ). Americans in Los Angeles. Five groups of subjects participated in a picture narrative task: first-, 1.5- 1.1. Ethnicity and Participation in Local Sound Change , and second-generation Korean Americans, Anglo-Californians, and (non-immigrant) Korean late learners of English. ResultsSince theshowed foundational a clear distinction work onAfrican between American early vs. Englishlate bilinguals; by Labov while(1972 the), ethnicity has been first-generation Koreanconsidered Americans as and of the the key late factors, learners along showed with apparent age, gender, signs and of Korean social class, influence, that condition language the 1.5- and the second-generationvariation in a speech Korean community Americans (Boberg participated 2004). Within most regard patterns to immigrant of the California minority groups in North Vowel Shift. However,America divergence with non-English from the speakingAnglo-Californians backgrounds, was native-bornobserved in childrenearly bilinguals’ tend to display less ethnic speech. Similar toidentification the late bilinguals, than theirthe 1.5-generation foreign-born parentsspeakers (Ho didff mannot systematically and Walker 2010 distinguish; Weinfeld 1985, pp. 71–77). prenasal and non-prenasalThus, apart /æ/. from The producing second-gener moreation native- speakers speech demonstrated sounds in a English,split-/æ/ theysystem, demonstrate stronger but was less pronouncedassimilation than to local for mainstreamthe Anglo-Californians. norms. Nevertheless, These findings studies suggest have shown that thatage evenof those who were arrival has a strongborn effect and on raised immigrant in North minority America speakers’ and speak participation English natively in local demonstrate sound change. some In speech patterns that the case of the second-generationare distinct from theKorean local American mainstreams, certain varieties. patterns For instance, of the California Casillas and Vowel Simonet Shift(2016 ) examined the were even more pronouncedproduction (and than perception) for the Anglo-Californians of the English low (i.e., /ɪ/-lowering,/æ/ and /ɑ/-// byɔ/ twomerger, groups /ʊ/-of Spanish-English and /ʌ/-fronting).sequential Moreover, bilinguals the entire residingvowel space in Southern of the second-generation Arizona: Mexican Korean Americans Americans, born and raised in the US especially female Southwestspeakers, was by Spanish-speakingmore fronted than parents that of fromthe Anglo-Californians. Northern Mexico (i.e., These native-born) findings and late English suggest that second-generationlearners born and Korean raised Americans in Spanish-speaking may be in countries, a more whoadvanced moved stage to the of US the Southwest and lived California Vowelthere Shift around than Anglo-Californians 10 years (i.e., foreign-born). or the California Both groups Vowel acquired Shift Spanish is on asa theirdifferent L1, but the native-born trajectory for thesespeakers speakers. became Possible more dominant explanat inions English in relation as they grewto second-generation up to the point that theyKorean were no longer able to Americans’ intersectingactively gender, communicate ethnic, inand Spanish. racial identities, Unlike Spanish and suggestions which has onlyfor future one low research vowel are/a/ , Southern Arizona discussed. English has two low vowels, / / and /æ/, the latter of which is lowered in non-prenasal contexts, similar to (see Section 1.2). Casillas and Simonet(2016) found that, although the bilinguals were Keywords: Koreanable Americans; to distinguish California the two Vowel vowel Shift; categories, second the language phonetic phonology; realizations bilingualism; of these vowels were different immigrant minorityfrom speakers; the local sound mainstream change norms. Both groups produced more fronted / / than English monolinguals, assimilating to the Spanish central /a/. Regarding /æ/, the foreign-born speakers produced this vowel more back than the English monolinguals (i.e., assimilation to the Spanish central /a/), whereas the native-born speakers produced it higher (i.e., weaker /æ/-lowering). These findings suggest that, even 1. Introduction after shift to English occurs, the speech of native-born speakers may diverge from local mainstream Over the past normsfew decades, either byresearch demonstrating on second patterns language that (L2) are phonology traceable to has their provided heritage empirical language or by participating evidence that earlyto bilinguals a lesser extent are ge innerally the sound more change successful of the in localacquiring mainstream L2 speech variety. sounds than late bilinguals (Flege et al. 1995,From 1997; a developmental Flege and MacKay point of 2011; view, Stevens it is important 1999; Yeni-Komshian to note that immigrant et al. 2000). minority speakers who Models in L2 phonology,no longer such speak as Flege’s their heritage (1995) Speech language Learning or have Model only passive (SLM)knowledge and Best and of itTyler’s may use speech patterns (2007) Perceptual Assimilationthat differentiate Model themselves (PAM)-L2, from posi speakerst that bilinguals’ of other L1 ethnicities. and L2 phones According interact to inLabov (2001, p. 506) , a common phonological“[a]ll speakersspace. Thus, who the are development socially defined of L2 assounds white, would mainstream, depend on or the Euro-American, perceptual are involved in similarity to existing[regional L1 sounds. sound] That changes is, bilingual to one degrees would or assimilate another.” Certainan L2 sound patterns to ofan regional L1 sound sound if change may also the two are perceivedappear identical in the or speech if the ofL2 some sound ethnic is perceived minority as speakers a deviant that variant American of the society L1 sound. defines as “non-white” However, if an L2 sound is perceptually distinct from existing L1 sounds, bilinguals would create a new category. Early bilinguals tend to be successful at simultaneously maintaining language-internal and cross-linguistic contrasts (Chang et al. 2011) because they begin establishing L2 sounds when

Languages 2020, 5, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/languages Languages 2020, 5, 53 3 of 27

(e.g., Black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian). However, it is unlikely that ethnic minority speakers converge with Anglo-Americans in all aspects of their speech (Labov 2001, p. 507). Rather, they often take a different trajectory in regional sound change. For instance, studies have shown that US-born ArticleArticle Latinos tend to resist prenasal /æ/- (i.e., split between prenasal and non-prenasal /æ/) and (Divergent)(Divergent) Participation Participation in inthe the California California/u/-fronting, Vowel which Vowel are features that occur in many varieties of (Carter et al. 2020; Fought 1999; Roeder 2010; Thomas 2001). Carter et al.(2020 ) examined the speech of -born ShiftShift by by Korean Korean Americans Americans in inSouthern SouthernLatinos California whose California parents immigrated from various Latin American countries and found that their Article English /u/ was more back than that of Anglo-Americans. Moreover, although the speakers distinguished prenasal and non-prenasal /æ/, their /æ/ in both environments were more back than their Ji YoungJi Young Kim Kim 1,* and 1,* andNicole Nicole Wong Wong 2 2 (Divergent) ParticipationAnglo counterparts. in the California Resistance to prenasal Vowel/æ/-raising and /u/-fronting, which may be due to influence 1 Department1 Department of Spanish of Spanish and Portuguese,andShift Portuguese, byUniver Univer Koreansity ofsity California, of California, Americans Los Angeles,Losfrom Angeles, theCA Spanish90095,CA in 90095, USA Southern low USA California/a/ and high /u/, has also been reported in the speech 2 Independent2 Independent Scholar, Scholar, Santa Santa Clara, Clara, CA 95050,CA 95050, USA; USA; [email protected] [email protected] in other regions (California: Fought(1999, 2003), Michigan: Roeder(2010) , * Correspondence:* Correspondence: [email protected] [email protected] : Thomas(2000, 2001), Washington DC: (Tseng 2015)), although in some cases these patterns Ji Young Kim 1,* and Nicole Wong 2 Received:Received: 24 September 24 September 2020; 2020; Accepted: Accepted: 2 November 2 November 2020; 2020; Published: Published: 6 November 6are November conditioned 2020 2020 by social factors such as gender, social class, and group affiliation (Fought 1999; 1 Department of Spanish and Portuguese,Roeder University 2010 of; California,Tseng 2015 Los). Angeles, CA 90095, USA Abstract:Abstract: This This study study investigates investigates2 Independent the theparticipation Scholar,participation Santa in Clara, thein the CaliforniaCA 95050,California ComparedUSA; Vowel [email protected] Shift to Shift African by Koreanby AmericanKorean English and English, little research has been conducted AmericansAmericans in Los in LosAngeles. Angeles. Five* Five Correspondence:groups groups of subjects of subjects [email protected] participated participated in a inpicture on a picture English narrative narrative spoken task: bytask: first-, Asian first-, 1.5- Americans.1.5- However, studies have found that , , and, andsecond-generation second-generation Korean KoreanReceived: Americans, Americans, 24 September Anglo- Anglo- 2020;Californians,Californians, Accepted: and 2 Novemberlike and(non-immigrant) other (non-immigrant) ethnic2020; Published: minority Korean Korean 6 speakers, November late late show 2020 a combination of resistance and assimilation to local sound learnerslearners of English. of English. Results Results showed showed a clear a clear distinction distinction between between earlychange early vs. latevs. (Cheng latebilinguals; bilinguals; 2016; Hall-Lew while while the 2009 the; Hall-Lew and Starr 2010; Hoffman 2010; Ito 2010; Lee 2000, 2016). first-generationfirst-generation Korean Korean Americans AmericansAbstract: and andtheThis late the study latelear nerslear investigatesners showed showed apparent the Forapparent participation instance, signs signs of Hall-Lew Korean of in Korean the influence,(2009 California influence,) found that Vowel Chinese Shift Americans by Korean in participated in back vowel the 1.5-the and1.5- andthe second-generationthe second-generationAmericans Korean Korean in Americans Los Americans Angeles. participated Five participated groups infronting mostof in subjects most patterns and patterns participated low of back the of Californiathe vowel inCalifornia a merger,picture whichnarrative are task: two soundfirst-, 1.5- changes that characterize California English. VowelVowel Shift. Shift. However, However, divergence divergence, and second-generationfrom from the Anglo-Californiansthe Anglo-Californians Korean Americans, wasHowever, wasobserved observedAnglo- at in theCalifornians, early in same early bilinguals’ time, bilinguals’ and Chinese (non-immigrant) Americans Korean in this late region produce coda /l/-vocalization (e.g., speech.speech. Similar Similar to the to latethe latebilinguals, learnersbilinguals, the of 1.5-generationEnglish.the 1.5-generation Results speakers showed speakers did a pronouncingclear notdid systematicallynot distinction systematicallycold betweenand distinguishskill distinguish earlyas code vs. andlate bilinguals;skew), which while most the likely is due to influence from Chinese prenasalprenasal and andnon-prenasal non-prenasal /æ/.first-generation /æ/.The Thesecond-gener second-gener Koreanation Americansation speakers speakers and demonstratedphonology the demonstrated late lear that nersa split-/æ/ lacks a showed split-/æ/ -final system, apparent system, / lsigns / (Hall-Lew of Korean and influence, Starr 2010 ). This pattern appears even in speakers but butit was it wasless lesspronounced pronounced thanthe than1.5- for and thefor theAnglo-Californians.the second-generation Anglo-Californians. These Korean Thesebeyond findings Americans findings the suggest second participatedsuggest that generation thatage in ageof most whoof patterns are English of the monolingualCalifornia speakers. Ito(2010) examined the arrivalarrival has ahas strong a strong effect effect on immigrantVowel on immigrant Shift. minority However, minority speakers’ divergence speakers’ participation participation fromvowels the in Anglo-Californians of local in Hmong local sound sound Americans change. change. was In in observed the In Twin Citiesin early area bilinguals’ in Minnesota, and found that 1.5 generation and the casethe case of the of second-generationthe second-generationspeech. Korean SimilarKorean American to American the lates, certain bilinguals,s, certain patterns patterns thesecond-generation of1.5-generation the of Californiathe California speakers speakersVowel Vowel Shiftdid were Shiftnot accommodating systematically distinguish to the local /æ/-fronting, but distinguished the low werewere even even more more pronounced pronounced prenasalthan than for theandfor Anglo-Californiansthe non-prenasal Anglo-Californians /æ/. The(i.e., second-gener(i.e., /backɪ/-lowering, /ɪ/-lowering, vowels ation/ɑ/-// and /ɔ ɑ/speakers /-/merger,/ɔ/ moremerger, demonstrated/ʊ clearly/- /ʊ/- than Anglo-Americans a split-/æ/ system, who showed a trend toward near-merger. and and/ʌ/-fronting). /ʌ/-fronting). Moreover, Moreover, thebut entiretheit was entire vowel less vowel pronounced space space of the of than second-generationthe forsecond-generation the Anglo-Californians.With regard Korean Korean to Americans, Korean Americans, These Americans, findings whichsuggest is that the targetage of population of this study, Cheng(2016) especiallyespecially female female speakers, speakers, wasarrival wasmore morehas fronted a strongfronted than effect than that on thatof immigrantthe of Anglo-Californians.the Anglo-Californians.demonstrated minority speakers’ that These KoreanThese participation findings findings Americans in local in California sound change. participated In in some aspects of the California suggestsuggest that thatsecond-generation second-generationthe caseKorean Koreanof the Americans second-generation Americans may may be inKoreanbe ain Vowelmore a American more Shiftadvanced advanced (e.g.,s, certain /stageu/-fronting stage patterns of theof and ofthe the/ /- /California/ merger) Vowel to the Shift same degree as Anglo-Americans, while in CaliforniaCalifornia Vowel Vowel Shift Shift than than wereAnglo-Californians Anglo-Californians even more pronounced or theor theCalifornia than California for otherstheVowel Anglo-CaliforniansVowel their Shift patternsShift is on is aon were different (i.e.,a different either /ɪ/-lowering, more pronounced /ɑ/-/ɔ/ merger, (e.g., /ʊ/-/-fronting) or less pronounced (e.g., split trajectorytrajectory for forthese these speakers. speakers.and Possible /ʌ /-fronting).Possible explanat explanat Moreover,ionsions in therelationin entirerelation betweento vowel second-generationto second-generationspace prenasal of the and second-generation non-prenasalKorean Korean /æ/) Korean than the Americans, Anglo-Americans. Lee(2016) found that Korean Americans’Americans’ intersecting intersecting gender, gender,especially ethnic, ethnic, and female andracial speakers,racial identities, identities, was and more andsuggestions Americans frontedsuggestions thanfor in future for Bergenthat future of research ,the research Anglo-Californians. are New are , which These borders findings City, maintained the / /-/ / contrast discussed.discussed. suggest that second-generation Koreanand Americans raised / / in may accordance be in witha more New advanced York City stage English, of butthe they did not produce the California Vowel Shift than Anglo-CaliforniansEnglish split- or/æ the/ system California (Labov Vowel et al. 2006Shift). is While on a thesedifferent studies did not discuss Korean Americans’ Keywords:Keywords: Korean Korean Americans; Americans;trajectory California California for Vowel these Vowel Shift;speakers. Shift; second second Possible language languagedivergence explanat phonology; phonology; fromions theinbilingualism; relation whitebilingualism; regional to second-generation norms as influence Korean from , it is possible that immigrantimmigrant minority minority speakers; speakers;Americans’ sound sound change changeintersecting gender, ethnic,their and lessracial pronounced identities, and split- suggestions/ae/ system for is relatedfuture research to Korean are vowels which do not demonstrate such discussed. patterns. Thus, it is important to examine Korean-accented English of late bilinguals, particularly that of first-generation Korean immigrants, to see whether Korean Americans’ resistance to sound change Keywords: Korean Americans; Californiain local Vowel mainstream Shift; second varieties language has to phonology; do with their bilingualism; exposure to Korean and Korean-accented English. 1. Introduction1. Introduction immigrant minority speakers; sound change 1.2. California Vowel Shift OverOver the pastthe past few fewdecades, decades, research research on second on second language language (L2) (L2)phonology phonology has providedhas provided empirical empirical evidenceevidence that thatearly early bilinguals bilinguals are gearenerally generally more more successful successful in acquiring in acquiring L2California speech L2 speech sounds English sounds than is easilythan late late exposed to people in other regions through and movies, bilingualsbilinguals (Flege (Flege et al. et 1995, al. 1995, 1997; 1997; Flege Flege and andMacKay MacKay 2011; 2011; Stevens Stevens 1999;and 1999; Yeni-Komshian the Yeni-Komshian speech styles et of al. stereotypicalet 2000). al. 2000). personae portrayed in the media (e.g., Valley 1. Introduction ModelsModels in L2 in phonology, L2 phonology, such such as Flege’s as Flege’s (1995) (1995) Speech Speech Learning Learning Model GirlModel (SLM) and (SLM) Surfer and andBest Dude) Best and are andTyler’s often Tyler’s parodied (Pratt and D’Onofrio 2017). A good example of this are (2007)(2007) Perceptual Perceptual Assimilation Assimilation ModelOver Model (PAM)-L2, the (PAM)-L2, past few posi decades, posit thatt thatbilinguals’ research bilinguals’The on L1 Californianssecond and L1 andL2 language phones L2 phones skits interact (L2) from interact phonology NBC’sin in late-night has provided comedy empirical show Saturday Night Live (SNL). Pratt and a commona common phonological phonological space. space.evidence Thus, Thus, the that developmentthe early development bilinguals of L2 of aresounds L2 ge soundsnerally wouldD’Onofrio would more depend depend(successful2017 on) analyzedthe on perceptualthein acquiring perceptual the vowels L2 speech produced sounds by two than characters late in The Californians, and found that similaritysimilarity to existing to existing L1 sounds. L1 sounds.bilinguals That That is, (Flege bilingual is, bilingual et al.s would1995,s would 1997; assimilate assimilateFlege theandan actorsL2 anMacKay sound L2 talkedsound 2011;to an with to StevensL1 an moresound L1 sound 1999; open if Yeni-Komshian andif protruded jawset al. and 2000). lips to comedically portray the the twothe twoare perceivedare perceived identical identicalModels or if or the in if L2the phonology,sound L2 sound is perceived is such perceived as asFlege’s a asdeviantand a (1995)deviant Surfer variant Speech variant Dude of Learning the personae. of L1the sound. L1 Model Thesound. use (SLM) of such and articulatoryBest and Tyler’s settings resulted in the production of lower However,However, if an if L2 an sound L2 sound is perceptually (2007)is perceptually Perceptual distinct distinct Assimilation from from existing existing Model L1 sounds, L1 (PAM)-L2, sounds, bilinguals bilingualsposit thatwould wouldbilinguals’ create create a L1 a and L2 phones interact in newnew category. category. Early Early bilinguals bilingualsa tend common tend to be to phonologicalsuccessful be successful at simultaneouslyspace. at simultaneously Thus, the maintaining development maintaining language-internal of language-internalL2 sounds would depend on the perceptual and andcross-linguistic cross-linguistic contrasts contrasts similarity(Chang (Chang et to al. etexisting 2011) al. 2011) because L1 sounds.because they Thatthey begin is,begin establishingbilingual establishings would L2 soundsL2 assimilate sounds when whenan L2 sound to an L1 sound if the two are perceived identical or if the L2 sound is perceived as a deviant variant of the L1 sound. LanguagesLanguages 2020 ,2020 5, x;, doi:5, x; FOR doi: FORPEER PEER REVIEWHowever, REVIEW if an L2 sound is perceptually distinctwww.mdpi.com/journwww.mdpi.com/journ from existingal/languages L1al/languages sounds, bilinguals would create a new category. Early bilinguals tend to be successful at simultaneously maintaining language-internal and cross-linguistic contrasts (Chang et al. 2011) because they begin establishing L2 sounds when

Languages 2020, 5, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/languages

Article Article Article(Divergent) (Divergent) Participation Participation in the California in the California Vowel VowelArticle Article (Divergent) Participation in the California Vowel (Divergent) Participation in the California Vowel (Divergent)Shift Participation byShift Korean by in AmericansKorean the California Americans in Southern Vowel in Southern California California Shift by Korean Americans in Southern California Shift by Korean Americans in Southern California Shift by KoreanJi Young Kim Americans 1,Ji* Youngand Nicole Kim Wong1,* and in 2 Nicole Southern Wong 2 California Ji Young Kim 1,* and Nicole Wong 2 Ji Young Kim 1,* and Nicole Wong 2 1 Department of1 Spanish Department and Portuguese, of Spanish andUniver Portuguese,sity of California, University Los of Angeles, California, CA Los 90095, Angeles, USA CA 90095, USA Ji Young Kim 1,* and Nicole Wong 2 12 DepartmentIndependent of Scholar,2 Spanish Independent Santa and Clara,Portuguese, Scholar, CA Santa95050, Univer Clara, USA;sity [email protected] of California, 95050, USA; Los [email protected] Angeles, CA 90095, USA 1 Department of Spanish and Portuguese, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA 1 Department of Spanish2* IndependentCorrespondence: and Portuguese, Scholar,* Correspondence: [email protected] Univer Santasity Clara, of California, [email protected] 95050, LosUSA; Angeles, [email protected] CA 90095, USA 2 Independent Scholar, Santa Clara, CA 95050, USA; [email protected] 2 * Correspondence: [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Independent Scholar,Received: Santa Clara,24 September Received:CA 95050, 2020; 24 USA; SeptemberAccepted: [email protected] 22020; November Accepted: 2020; 2 NovemberPublished: 2020;6 November Published: 2020 6 November 2020 * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 24 September 2020; Accepted: 2 November 2020; Published: 6 November 2020 Received: 24 September 2020; Accepted: 2 November 2020; Published: 6 November 2020 Received: 24 SeptemberAbstract: 2020; Accepted: ThisAbstract: study 2 November investigates This 2020;study Published: the investigates participation 6 November the inparticipation 2020 the California in theVowel California Shift byVowel Korean Shift by Korean Abstract:Americans This in LosAmericans study Angeles. investigates in Five Los groups Angeles. the of participation Fivesubjects groups participated ofin subjects the Californiain participateda picture Vowel narrative in a Shiftpicture task: by first-,narrative Korean 1.5- task: first-,Abstract: 1.5- This study investigates the participation in the California Vowel Shift by Korean Abstract: This studyAmericans, and investigates second-generation in Los, and Angeles.the second-generation participation Korean Five groups Americans, in ofKoreanthe subjects CaliforniaAnglo- Americans, participatedCalifornians, Vowel Anglo- inShift anda Californians,picture by(non-immigrant) Korean narrative and task:(non-immigrant) Korean first-, late1.5- KoreanAmericans late in Los Angeles. Five groups of subjects participated in a picture narrative task: first-, 1.5- Americans in Los Angeles.,learners and second-generation Fiveof English. groupslearners Results of subjectsof Korean English. showed participated Americans, Results a clear showed distinctioninAnglo- a picture aCalifornians, clear between narrative distinction early and task: (non-immigrant)betweenvs. first-, late 1.5- bilinguals; early vs. Korean latewhile bilinguals; latethe while, and the second-generation Korean Americans, Anglo-Californians, and (non-immigrant) Korean late Languages 2020, 5, 53 4 of 27 , and second-generationlearnersfirst-generation Korean ofLanguages English. Americans,first-generation Korean 2020 Results, 5Languages ,Americans x FORAnglo- showed PEER Korean2020Californians, ,REVIEWand 5 ,a x AmericansclearFOR the PEERlate distinction learand REVIEW andners (non-immigrant) the showedbetween late lear apparent earlyners Korean showedvs. signslate late bilinguals; apparentof Korean signs influence,while of theKorean influence,4 learnersof 27 of 4English. of 27 Results showed a clear distinction between early vs. late bilinguals; while the learners of English.first-generationthe Results 1.5- and showed thethe second-generationKorean 1.5-a clear and Americans distinction the second-generation Korean and between the Americans late early lear Koreanners vs. participated showedlate Americans bilinguals; apparent in participatedmost while signs patterns the of inKorean of most the Californiapatternsinfluence, of the Californiafirst-generation Korean Americans and the late learners showed apparent signs of Korean influence, first-generation KoreantheVowel 1.5- Americans Shift.andlower the However,Vowel second-generation andand morethe Shift.andlower divergence late retracted more However, learandners retracted more Korean fromfront showed divergence retracted thevowels frontAmericans Anglo-Californiansapparent vowels frontand from participatedmore andvowelssigns the more frAnglo-Californians ofonted and Korean fronted was inmore back most observed influence, back frvowels patternsonted vowels in was backwhen earlyof when observedthe vowels the bilinguals’ California theactors when actorsin playedearly the played bilinguals’actors thesethe these 1.5- played characters and thesethe second-generation Korean Americans participated in most patterns of the California the 1.5- and the second-generationVowelspeech. Shift. Similarcharacters However,speech. toKorean the than late thancharactersSimilar divergenceAmericans bilinguals,when when to thethey theythan participatedfrom latethe playedplayedwhen 1.5-generationbilinguals,the Anglo-Californians non-Californiantheynon-Californ in most playedthe 1.5-generationspeakerspatterns iannon-Californ characters. characters.of didwas the not observed Californiaspeakers iansystematically Although Althoughcharacters. didin early withoutnot without distinguishsystematicallybilinguals’Although a doubt a doubt without these distinguish these performancesVowel a doubt Shift. these However, are divergence from the Anglo-Californians was observed in early bilinguals’ Vowel Shift. However,speech.prenasal divergence Similar andperformances non-prenasalprenasal to from the late exaggerated,performancesthe andare bilinguals, Anglo-Californians /æ/. exaggerated,non-prenasal The they second-genertheare 1.5-generation reflect exaggerated, they/æ/. was Thereflect theation observed vocalicsecond-gener the they speakersspeakers vo changes reflect incalic early didationdemonstrated changesthe that not bilinguals’ speakers vo aresystematicallycalic underwaythat changes ademonstrated are split-/æ/ underway indistinguish that California, system, are a in split-/æ/underway California, namely speech.system, thein California, California Similar to the late bilinguals, the 1.5-generation speakers did not systematically distinguish speech. Similar to theprenasalbut lateit was bilinguals, andnamely less non-prenasalbut pronounced the theit wasCalifornia 1.5-generationVowelnamely less /æ/. than Shift. thepronounced VowelThe Californiafor second-generspeakers the Shift. Anglo-Californians. than Vowel did for ationnot Shift. the systematically speakers Anglo-Californians. These demonstrated distinguishfindings These suggest a split-/æ/ findings that system, age suggest of thatprenasal age of and non-prenasal /æ/. The second-generation speakers demonstrated a split-/æ/ system, prenasal and non-prenasalbutarrival it was has /æ/. aless strong TheFigurearrival pronounced second-gener effect has1, created aon Figurestrong thanimmigrantation 1from for,effect1, created speakerscreatedthe data minorityon Anglo-Californians. fromimmigrant of fromdemonstrated datamillennial speakers’ data of minority millennial of participationspeakers millenniala Thesesplit-/æ/ speakers’ speakers findingsreported system, speakersin reportedparticipation local suggestin sound reported inD’Onofrio D’Onofrio that inchange. local agein et etsoundD’OnofrioInof al. al. (2019(2019) change.)but 1et1, , demonstrates it al.In was (2019) less 1pronounced, than for the Anglo-Californians. These findings suggest that age of but it was less pronouncedarrivalthe case has ofdemonstrates thanthea strong thesecond-generation for case theeffectthedemonstrates of theAnglo-Californians. theon vocalic vocalic immigrantsecond-generation changesKorean changes the vocalicminority American involved involvedThese changesKorean speakers’ findings ins, incertain the the Americaninvolved California California participation suggestpatterns ins, Vowelcertainthethat ofVowel Californiathe inage Shift. patternslocalCalifornia Shift. of Thesound VowelThe of California VoweltheCalifornia change. Shift. California Shift Vowel TheIn Vowel California Vowel Shift Shiftarrival is Shift characterized Vowel has a Shift strong effect on immigrant minority speakers’ participation in local sound change. In arrival has a strongthewere effect case even on ofis immigrantmorethe characterized weresecond-generation pronounced even minoritybyis characterized more threeby thanthree speakers’pronounced main Korean for main phenomena:the by participation Americanphenomena: Anglo-Californiansthree than main fors, (1) thecertain phenomena:(1)in the Anglo-Californianslocal the low-back patterns (i.e., low-backsound /ɪ(1)/-lowering, mergerofchange. the themerger low-back California (i.e., ofIn / ofɑ /-// ɪ/-lowering,/(e.g.,ɑɔ /merger merger,Vowel(e.g.,bot )bot of andShift //) ɑʊ //-/andɑ/-// ɔ(e.g.,/ merger,(e.g.,/ɔ/ (e.g.,botthebought) case and/ʊ/- ),of/ɔ (2)/ the (e.g., the second-generation Korean Americans, certain patterns of the California Vowel Shift the case of the second-generationwereand / ʌeven/-fronting).bought moreand Korean), pronounced (2)Moreover, /ʌ the/-fronting).loweringbought American lowering ), thethan (2) andMoreover,s,entire theand forcertain retractionlowering retractionthe vowel Anglo-Californianspatterns the spaceand ofentire of lax laxretractionof of front thefrontvowel the California vowels second-generationvowels of space(i.e., lax / front/ɪ ofɪ/-lowering,/Vowel/ (e.g., (e.g.,the vowels second-generation bitShift), Korean / / ɛ/ɑɪ///-/ (e.g.,(e.g.,ɔ/ merger,Americans, betbetbit),),), and/ and ɛKorean/ /(e.g.,ʊ /æ//-/æ / (e.g.,bet(e.g., Americans,), andbatwerebat), ),/æ/ even and (e.g., (3)more bat the), pronounced than for the Anglo-Californians (i.e., /ɪ/-lowering, /ɑ/-/ɔ/ merger, /ʊ/- were even more pronouncedandespecially /ʌ/-fronting).and female than (3)especially for thespeakers,Moreover, the frontingfrontingand Anglo-Californians female (3) was the ofthe of high- morespeakers, entirefronting high- andfronted vowel and mid-backofwas (i.e., mid-backhigh- thanspacemore /ɪ/-lowering, and thatvowels offronted vowels mid-back theof the second-generation/u/ than// ɑ uAnglo-Californians.(e.g.,/-// vowels(e.g.,ɔ that/ merger,boot bootof ),/u/ the/ʊ), (e.g., // (e.g.,ʊAnglo-Californians. /-/Korean(e.g., boot book These),book ),/Americans,ʊ /// ),(e.g.,findings /(e.g.,o/ (e.g., book boat These ),boat), /o/ and), (e.g.,findings and /ʌ/ boat/ʌ/-fronting)./ (e.g.,), andbut /ʌ/) Moreover, the entire vowel space of the second-generation Korean Americans, and /ʌ/-fronting). Moreover,especiallysuggest that(e.g., femalethe second-generation suggestentirebut speakers,) (D’Onofrio vowel ((e.g.,D’Onofriothat wasbutspacesecond-generation et) (D’Onofrio more al.Korean etof 2016; al. the fronted 2016 second-generationD’OnofrioAmericans et; D’Onofrio al.than Korean 2016; that et may D’Onofrioal. etofAmericans 2019; al.thebe Korean 2019 inAnglo-Californians.Hagiwara eta; al. HagiwaramoremayAmericans, 2019; 1997;beadvanced Hagiwara in 1997Hall-Lew a more;These Hall-Lewstage 1997; 2009; advancedfindings ofHall-Lew Hall-Lewthe2009 ; stageHall-Lew 2009; etespecially ofal. Hall-Lew the et al. female 2015et al.; speakers, was more fronted than that of the Anglo-Californians. These findings especially female speakers,suggestCalifornia that was2015; Vowel second-generationmoreCalifornia Hinton Shift frontedHinton2015; etthan Vowelal. thanHinton 1987;Anglo-Californians et al. ShiftKoreanthat Kennedy 1987et ofthanal.; theKennedy Americans1987; Anglo-CaliforniansAnglo-Californians.and Kennedy Gramaor and themay Grama California2012;and be Grama2012inPodesva or Thesea ;the VowelmorePodesva 2012; findingsCaliforniaet advancedal. ShiftPodesva et2015). al. is 2015Vowel on Followingetstage ).aal. Followingdifferent Shift2015). of thetheis Following onpattern the a patterndifferentsuggest of the ofpattern that General second-generation of Korean Americans may be in a more advanced stage of the suggest that second-generationCaliforniatrajectory General forVowel trajectorytheseKorean ShiftAmerican speakers. AmericanGeneral Americansthan for EnglishAnglo-Californiansthese AmericanPossible English mayspeakers. presented presentedbeexplanatEnglish in Possible ain or ionsmorepresentedThe in the The Atlasin explanatadvancedCalifornia Atlasrelation inof The ofNorthions North stagetoVowelAtlas inAmericansecond-generation American relationofof Shift theNorth is Englishto EnglishAmericanon second-generation a different (LabovKorean (Labov English et et al. al. (Labov 2006),2006 CaliforniaKorean), prenasalet al. 2006),Vowel/æ/ Shift than Anglo-Californians or the California Vowel Shift is on a different California Vowel trajectoryAmericans’Shift than prenasal for Anglo-Californiansintersecting Americans’these /æ/ speakers. inprenasalin gender, CaliforniaCalifornia intersecting or/æ/ethnic,Possible the Englishin English gender,Californiaand explanat racial is is tensed, ethnic,tensed, identities,EnglishVowelions resultingand inresulting Shift isracialrelation andtensed, is in suggestionsidentities, in aon split toa resultinga split second-generationdifferent between and between for in suggestions future a tensed split tensed research between/æ /Koreanfor in/æ/ afuture are in prenasal tensed a prenasalresearch /æ/ contexttrajectory in are a(e.g., prenasal forban these) speakers. Possible explanations in relation to second-generation Korean trajectory for theseAmericans’discussed. speakers.context intersecting Possiblediscussed. (e.g., andcontextbanexplanat gender, )lowered and (e.g., ionsethnic,lowered /ban æin/ and) elsewhere andrelation/æ/ racial elsewherelowered identities,to (Eckert second-generation /æ/ (Eckert elsewhere2008 and). 2008). suggestions With (Eckert With regard Korean regard 2008).for to future the Withto back the research regard vowelsback vowels areto/u the / and back/u// oAmericans’and/ ,vowels the fronting /u/ intersecting and is gender, ethnic, and racial identities, and suggestions for future research are Americans’ intersectingdiscussed. gender,/o/, theethnic, fronting andmore/o/, racial isthe advancedmore fronting identities, advancedafter is moreand a after coronal suggestions advanced a coronal after for consonant future a (e.g., coronal tooresearch (e.g.,and consonant tootoe are) and due (e.g.,toe to) its due too high toand F2its toe (i.e.,high) due fronted) F2 to (i.e.,discussed. its environmenthigh F2 (i.e., discussed. Keywords:fronted) KoreanKeywords: environment Americans;andfronted) Korean prohibited environment Californiaand Americans; prohibited when Vowel followedand California when prohibitedShift; fo by secondllowed Vowel the when velarized language byShift; fothellowed secondvelarized coda phonology; by/ -llanguage /the (e.g.,coda velarized bilingualism; cool/-l/ phonology; (e.g.,and coda goalcool ), /-l/andbilingualism; because (e.g., goal ),cool of itsand low goal F2), Keywords:immigrantbecause minorityKoreanimmigrant of Americans; speakers;its(i.e.,because low minority retracted)F2 sound (i.e.,of California its speakers;retracted) low change environment F2 Vowel (i.e., sound environment retracted) Shift; ( Hall-Lewchange second environment (Hall-Lew 2011 language). 2011). (Hall-Lew phonology; 2011). bilingualism; Keywords: Korean Americans; California Vowel Shift; second language phonology; bilingualism; Keywords: Korean immigrant Americans; minority California speakers; Vowel sound Shift; changesecond language phonology; bilingualism; immigrant minority speakers; sound change immigrant minority speakers; sound change

1. Introduction1. Introduction 1. Introduction 1. Introduction Over the past fewOver decades, the past research few decades, on second research language on second (L2) phonology language (L2) has phonologyprovided empirical has provided empirical 1. Introduction evidenceOver that the pastearlyevidence few bilinguals decades, that early are research gebilingualsnerally on moresecond are ge successful nerallylanguage more in (L2) acquiring successful phonology L2 in speech has acquiring provided sounds L2 empirical speechthan late sounds than Overlate the past few decades, research on second language (L2) phonology has provided empirical Over the past evidencebilingualsfew decades, that (Flege researchearlybilinguals et al.bilinguals on1995, (Flegesecond 1997; are et language geFlegeal.nerally 1995, and (L2)1997; moreMacKay phonology Flege successful 2011; and hasStevensMacKay in providedacquiring 1999; 2011; empirical Yeni-KomshianL2 Stevens speech 1999; sounds Yeni-Komshian et al.than 2000). late et evidenceal. 2000). that early bilinguals are generally more successful in acquiring L2 speech sounds than late evidence that earlybilingualsModels bilinguals in (FlegeL2 are phonology,Models ge etnerally al. 1995,in moreL2such 1997;phonology, assuccessful FlegeFlege’s and such (1995)in MacKayacquiring as SpeechFlege’s 2011; L2 Learning(1995) speech Stevens Speech soundsModel 1999; Learning (SLM)Yeni-Komshianthan late and Model Best (SLM) andet al. Tyler’s 2000).and Best andbilinguals Tyler’s (Flege et al. 1995, 1997; Flege and MacKay 2011; Stevens 1999; Yeni-Komshian et al. 2000). bilinguals (Flege etModels(2007) al. 1995, Perceptual in 1997; L2 phonology,(2007) Flege Assimilation andPerceptual MacKaysuch asModel Assimilation Flege’s 2011; (PAM)-L2, Stevens (1995) Model Speech1999; posi (PAM)-L2, tYeni-Komshian thatLearning bilinguals’ posi Modelt that etL1 (SLM)al. andbilinguals’ 2000). L2 and phones Best L1 andand interact Tyler’sL2 phones in interactModels in in L2 phonology, such as Flege’s (1995) Speech Learning Model (SLM) and Best and Tyler’s Models in L2 phonology,(2007)a common Perceptual such phonological asa Flege’s common Assimilation (1995) space. phonological Speech Thus,Model theLearning (PAM)-L2, space. development Thus, Model posi the t(SLM)of thatdevelopment L2 soundsbilinguals’ and Best would of and L1 L2 anddependsoundsTyler’s L2 phones wouldon the perceptualdependinteract onin the perceptual(2007) Perceptual Assimilation Model (PAM)-L2, posit that bilinguals’ L1 and L2 phones interact in (2007) Perceptual Assimilationasimilarity common to phonological existingModelsimilarity (PAM)-L2, L1 space. sounds.to existing Thus,posi That tL1 thatthe is, sounds. development bilingualbilinguals’ Thats would L1is, of bilingualand L2 assimilate soundsL2 phoness would would an interact L2 assimilate depend sound in onto an anthe L2 L1 perceptual sound sound to if an L1 asound common if phonological space. Thus, the development of L2 sounds would depend on the perceptual a common phonologicalsimilaritythe two space. are to perceived Thus,existingthe twothe L1 development identicalare sounds. perceived or That if ofthe identical is,L2 L2 bilingualsounds sound or wouldif sis thewould perceived L2 depend soundassimilate as on isa theperceiveddeviant an perceptual L2 variantsound as a deviantto of an the L1 L1variant sound sound. ofif the L1similarity sound. to existing L1 sounds. That is, bilinguals would assimilate an L2 sound to an L1 sound if similarity to existingtheHowever, L1 two sounds. are if perceivedan ThatHowever, L2 sound is, identicalbilingual ifis anperceptually L2 sor wouldsound if the L2is assimilatedistinct perceptually sound from is an perceived L2existing distinct sound asL1 fromto asounds, andeviant existing L1 sound bilinguals variant L1 if sounds, of would the bilingualsL1 create sound. a would the create two aare perceived identical or if the L2 sound is perceived as a deviant variant of the L1 sound. the two are perceivedHowever,new identical category. if an or Earlynew L2if thesound category. bilinguals L2 soundis perceptually Early tend is perceived bilinguals to be successfuldistinct as tend a fromdeviant to at be simultaneously existing successful variant L1 of sounds,at the simultaneously maintaining L1 bilingualssound. language-internal maintaining would create language-internal a However, if an L2 sound is perceptually distinct from existing L1 sounds, bilinguals would create a However, if an L2 newandsound cross-linguisticcategory. is perceptually Earlyand cross-linguistic bilingualscontrasts distinct (Changtendfrom contraststo existing beet successfulal. 2011) L1(Chang sounds, because at et simultaneously al.bilinguals they2011) begin because would maintainingestablishing theycreate begin a language-internal L2 establishing sounds when L2 soundsnew when category. Early bilinguals tend to be successful at simultaneously maintaining language-internal new category. Earlyand bilinguals cross-linguistic tend to becontrasts successfulFigure (Chang at simultaneously1. Californiaet al.Figure 2011) Vowel 1. because California maintaining Shift (adaptedthey Vowel language-internalbegin Shiftfrom establishing (adaptedD’Onofrio from et L2 al. D’Onofrio sounds(2019)). etwhenet al.al.( 2019(2019)). )). and cross-linguistic contrasts (Chang et al. 2011) because they begin establishing L2 sounds when and cross-linguisticLanguages contrasts 2020 (Chang, 5, x;Languages doi: FORet al. 2020 PEER 2011), 5, REVIEWx; doi:because FOR PEER they REVIEW begin establishing L2 soundswww.mdpi.com/journ when www.mdpi.com/journal/languages al/languages Languages 2020, 5, x;While doi: FOR the PEER California WhileREVIEW thethe Vowel CaliforniaCalifornia Shift Vowel hasVowel been Shift Shift understood has has been been understood www.mdpi.com/journ asunderstood a chain as shift a chainas aaffecting al/languageschain shift ashiftff ectingthe affectingfront theLanguages lax front the lax2020 front vowels, 5, x;lax doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/languages Languages 2020, 5, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEWvowels /ɪ/, /ɛ//,vowels/ ,and/ /, /æ/, and /ɪ/, the/æɛ/,/ ,causeand the cause/æ/, of the of chaincause thewww.mdpi.com/journ chain shiftof the shiftis chain under is under shift al/languagesdebate. is debate. under Similar Similardebate. to the toSimilar Canadian the Canadian to the Vowel Canadian Vowel ShiftVowel in Shift in whichwhichShift /ɪ/, /inɛ//, which/ ,and/ /, and/æ/ /ɪ/, are //æɛ/,/ loweredareand lowered /æ/ dueare lowereddueto the to merging the due merging to theof / ɑmerging of/ and/ / and /ɔ /of (Clarke/ /ɑ(/Clarke and et / ɔal. et/ (Clarke 1995), al. 1995 the et), theal. 1995), lowering the lowering of /ɪoflowering/, //ɛ/,/, and/ /, andof /æ/ /ɪ /,in/ æ/ ɛCalifornia//,in and California /æ/ inEnglish California English may mayEnglishalso be also the may be result thealso result ofbe athe pull-chain of result a pull-chain of initiateda pull-chain initiated by the initiated by the by/ /the-/ / /ɑ/-/ɔ/ merger.merger./ɑ /-/However,ɔ/ merger. However, Kennedy However, Kennedy and Kennedy Grama and Grama (2012)and (2012Grama found) found (2012) that that some found some young that young someCalifornia California young English California English speakers English speakers demonstrateddemonstratedspeakers demonstrated the the chain-shifted chain-shifted the chain-shifted lowering lowering of of thelowering the front front lax laxof thevowels, vowels, front while lax vowels, maintainingmaintaining while/ maintaining/ɑ/ /in in the traditional /ɑ/ in the traditionallow-centralthe low-central traditional position positionlow-central in thein voweltheposition vowel space. in space. the Moreover, vowel Moreover, space. while while bothMoreover, maleboth andmalewhile female and both female speakers male and exhibited female speakers exhibitedsimilarspeakers similar F1 exhibited values F1 forvalues similar/ / and for /F1 //ɪ,/ the valuesand female /ɛ /,for the speakers/ɪ /female and /ɛ produced/,speakers the female higherproduced speakers F1 values higher produced (i.e., F1 lowervalues higher vowel F1 height)values (i.e., lower vowelfor(i.e.,/æ lower /height)than vowel the for male /æ/height) speakers.than forthe /æ/ Sincemale than womenspeakers. the male generally Since speakers. women are leaders Since generally ofwomen linguistic are generally leaders change ofare (Coates leaders 1993 of; linguistic changeLabovlinguistic (Coates 1990 change; Milroy 1993; (Coates Labov and Milroy 1993;1990; 1985LabovMilroy; Trudgill 1990; and MilroyMilroy 1972), 1985; theand genderMilroy Trudgill di1985;ff erence1972), Trudgill the indicates gender 1972), that the/æ gender/ is the difference indicatesmostdifference recent that indicates /æ/ step is of the thethat most chain /æ/ recentis shift the step (mostKennedy of recent the andchain step Grama ofshift the (Kennedy2012 chain). Thus,shift and (KennedyKennedy Grama 2012). and Grama (20122012).) Thus, KennedysuggestedThus, and Kennedy Grama an alternative (2012)and Grama suggested explanation (2012) an suggested toalternative the chain an explanation shiftalternative which involvestoexplanation the chain a push-chain toshift the which chain initiated shift bywhich the involves a push-chaininvolves ainitiated push-chain by the initiated lowering by theof / ɪlowering/, resulting of in/ɪ/, the resulting lowering in theof / ɛlowering/ and subsequently of /ɛ/ and subsequently the lowering theof /æ/. lowering This process of /æ/. isThis likely process to be is independent likely to be independentof the /ɑ/-/ɔ/ mergerof the / ɑwhich/-/ɔ/ merger in some which cases in some cases 1 Figure1 was created based on the data of millennial speakers reported in Table A1 in D’Onofrio et al.(2019). Note that BOOK-type tokens (i.e., / / ) were not examined in D’Onofrio et al.(2019), thus, added the fronting of / / in Figure1 1 Figure 1 was1 createdbased Figure on based1 previouswas oncreated the studies data based on of the millennialon California the data speakers Vowelof millennial Shift reported (e.g., speakers Podesva in Table reported et al.A1 2015 in inD’Onofrio; Pratt Table and A1 D’Onofrio et in al. D’Onofrio (2019). 2017 ). et al. (2019). Note that BOOK-typeNote that tokens BOOK-type (i.e., /ʊ tokens/) were (i.e.,not examined/ʊ/) were notin D’Onofriexaminedo etin al.D’Onofri (2019),o thus, et al. we (2019), added thus, the we added the fronting of /ʊ/ frontingin Figure of 1 /basedʊ/ in Figure on previous 1 based studies on previous on the studiesCalifornia on Vowelthe California Shift (e.g., Vowel (Podesva Shift (e.g., et al. (Podesva 2015; et al. 2015; Pratt and D’OnofrioPratt and 2017)). D’Onofrio 2017)).

Article (Divergent)Article Participation in the California Vowel (Divergent) Participation in the California Vowel Shift by Korean Americans in Southern California Shift by Korean Americans in Southern California Ji Young Kim 1,* and Nicole Wong 2 Ji Young Kim 1,1,* and Nicole Wong 22 1 Department of Spanish and Portuguese, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA 2 Independent11 Department Department Scholar, ofof SpanishSpanish Santa Clara, andand Portuguese,Portuguese, CA 95050, USA; UniverUniver [email protected] of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA * Correspondence:22 Independent Independent [email protected] Scholar,Scholar, SantaSanta Clara,Clara, CA 95050, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence:Correspondence: [email protected]@ucla.edu Received: 24 September 2020; Accepted: 2 November 2020; Published: 6 November 2020 Received: 24 September 2020; Accepted: 2 November 2020; Published: 6 November 2020 Abstract: This study investigates the participation in the California Vowel Shift by Korean AmericansAbstract: in Los This Angeles. study Fiveinvestigates groups of the subjects participation participated in inthe a pictureCalifornia narrative Vowel task: Shift first-, by 1.5-Korean , andAmericans second-generation in Los Angeles. Korean Five Americans, groups ofAnglo- subjectsCalifornians, participated and in (non-immigrant) a picture narrative Korean task: first-, late 1.5- learners,, andand of second-generationsecond-generationEnglish. Results showedLanguages KoreanKorean a2020 Americans, Americans,clear, 5, x distinctionFOR PEER Anglo-Anglo- REVIEW betweenCalifornians, early andvs. late (non-immigrant) bilinguals; while Korean the late 4 of 27 first-generationlearnerslearners ofof KoreanEnglish.English. Americans ResultsResults showedshowed and the aa late clearclear lear distinctiondistinctionners showed betweenbetween apparent earlyearly signs vs.vs. oflatelate Korean bilinguals;bilinguals; influence, whilewhile thethe the 1.5-first-generation and the second-generation Korean lowerAmericans Koreanand more and Americans the retracted late lear participated frontners vowelsshowed in and mostapparent more patterns signsfronted of of the Koreanback California vowels influence, when the actors played these Vowelthe Shift. 1.5- andHowever, the second-generation divergencecharacters from Koreanthan the Anglo-Californianswhen Americans they played participated wasnon-Californ observed in mostian patternsin earlycharacters. ofbilinguals’ the CaliforniaAlthough without a doubt these speech.Vowel Similar Shift. to theHowever, late bilinguals, performancesdivergence the from1.5-generation are the exaggerated, Anglo-Californians speakers they did reflect not was systematicallythe observed vocalic inchanges earlydistinguish bilinguals’ that are underway in California, prenasalspeech. and Similar non-prenasal to the late /æ/.namely bilinguals, The thesecond-gener California the 1.5-generationation Vowel speakers Shift. speakers demonstrated did not systematically a split-/æ/Article system, distinguish but itprenasal was less and pronounced non-prenasal than /æ/.Figure for The the 1, second-generAnglo-Californians. created fromation data speakers These of millennial findingsdemonstrated speakerssuggest a split-/æ/that reported age system,of in D’Onofrio et al. (2019) 1 , Languages 2020, 5, 53 5 of 27 arrivalbut has it awas strong less effect pronounced ondemonstrates immigrant than for minority thethe vocalic Anglo-Californians. speakers’ changes participation involved These in in thefindings local California sound suggest(Divergent) change.Vowel that Shift. Inage ofThe California Participation Vowel Shift in the California Vowel the casearrival of the has second-generation a strong effectis characterizedon Koreanimmigrant American byminority threes, certain mainspeakers’Languages phenomena:patterns 2020 participation, 5, xof FOR the (1) PEER California the in REVIEW locallow-backShift soundVowel merger change. Shift by of Korean In/ɑ / (e.g., bot) Americansand /ɔ/ (e.g., in Southern5 of 27 California were theeven case more of the pronounced second-generationbought than ),for (2) theKorean the Anglo-Californians lowering American andlowerings, retraction certain (i.e., of patterns /ofɪ/-lowering,/, lax resulting front of the vowels in/ ɑCalifornia/-/ theɔ/ lowering/merger,ɪ/ (e.g., Vowel bit / ofʊ),/- / Shiftɛ/ (e.g.,and subsequently bet), and /æ/ (e.g., the lowering bat), of /æ/. This process is and /wereʌ/-fronting). even more Moreover, pronouncedand the (3)entire than the frontingvowelfor the spaceAnglo-Californians of high- oflikelyoccurs the and second-generation tomid-back in be the independent (i.e., low-central vowels /ɪɪ/-lowering,/-lowering, /u/Korean of position the(e.g., //ɑ /-/boot/-/Americans,/-/ ɔof//), mergermerger,merger, //ɑʊ// (Kennedy(e.g., which // ʊbook/-/- ), inand /o/ some (e.g.,Grama cases boat 2012) occurs), and and / inʌ/ thein other low-central cases is position not fully of Ji Young Kim 1,* and Nicole Wong 2 especiallyand / ʌfemale/-fronting)./-fronting). speakers, Moreover,Moreover, was(e.g., more butthethe) (D’Onofrioentireentirefronted vowelvowel than et spaceal.thatspace /2016;instantiated of/ (ofKennedy the D’Onofriothe Anglo-Californians. second-generation (Hall-Lew and et Grama al. 2019; 2009). 2012 Hagiwara These Korean) and infindings Americans,1997; other Hall-Lewcases is not 2009; fully Hall-Lew instantiated et al. ( Hall-Lew 2009). suggestespecially that second-generation female speakers,2015; was KoreanHinton more Americanset fronted al. 1987; than Kennedymay thatthat beChain ofof in and thethe shiftsashifts Anglo-Californians.GramaAnglo-Californians.more are are advanced claimed2012; claimed Podesva to occurstage1to DepartmentTheseTheseoccur et inof orderal. findingsthefindings in2015). order toof maintainSpanish Following to maintain and enough Portuguese,the pattern phoneticenough Univer of phonetic distance sity of between distanceCalifornia, between Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA Californiasuggest Vowel that Shiftsecond-generation thanGeneral Anglo-Californians American Korean AmericansEnglish or theinphonemes presented California the may vowel be in in inVowelthe spaceThe a vowel moreAtlas soShift thatspace advancedof is North theyon so2 thata Independentare Americandifferentstage they perceptually areof theScholar,Englishpercep distinctivetually Santa(Labov Clara,distinctive et (D’Onofrio al.CA 2006), 95050, (D’Onofrio USA; et al. [email protected] 2019 et al.; 2019;Gordon Gordon 2011; trajectoryCalifornia for theseVowel speakers. Shift prenasalthan Possible Anglo-Californians /æ/ explanatin Californiaions Martinetor2011;Englishin therelation Martinet California is1952 tensed, to). 1952). second-generation If Vowel aresulting phonemeIf a phonemeShift in * movesisa Correspondence:spliton movesKorean a withinbetweendifferent within the tensed [email protected] vowele vowel /æ/ space, space,in a prenasal this this leads leads to to subsequentsubsequent phoneticphonetic Americans’trajectory intersecting for these gender, speakers.context ethnic, (e.g.,Possible and ban racial) andexplanat identities, loweredmovementsionsions /æ/andinin elsewhere relationsuggestionsrelation ofof neighboring toto (Eckert second-generationforsecond-generation future 2008). vowels. Received:research With Thus, regard 24are KoreanKoreanin September order to the to identify back2020; Accepted:vowels the vowel /u/ 2 Novemberand that triggered triggered 2020; Published: the movement, movement, 6 November 2020 discussed.Americans’ intersecting/o/, gender, the fronting ethnic, andis more racial advanced identities,identities,itit isis importantimportant after andand a suggestions suggestions coronal toto examineexamine consonant forfor thethe futurefuture temporaltemporal (e.g., researchresearch too establishmentestablishment and areare toe ) due to of its the high chain F2 (i.e., shift in realreal oror apparentapparent timetime discussed. fronted) environment and ((D’OnofrioprohibitedD’Onofrio etwhen al. al. 2019; 2019followed ;Gordon Gordon by theAbstract:2011; 2011 velarized Labov; Labov This 2010, coda 2010study p./-l/, p.145). (e.g.,investigates 145). That cool Thatis, and speakers the is,goal speakersparticipation), from a from certain in a certain theage Californiagroup age Vowel Shift by Korean Keywords: Korean Americans;because California of its lowVowel F2 (i.e.,Shift; retracted)group insecond a more in language aenvironment recent more recenttime phonology; period (Hall-Lew time period or bilingualism;Americans younger 2011). or younger speakers in Los speakers Angeles. should should exhibitFive groups exhibit more of ad more subjectsvanced advanced participatedmovements movements inof athe picture narrative task: first-, 1.5- immigrantKeywords: minority Korean speakers; Americans; sound Californiachange Vowel Shift;ofchain the secondshift chain than shiftlanguage speakers than phonology; speakers of the ,same and of bilingualism; the second-generationage same group age in groupan older Korean in time an older Americans,period time or older period Anglo- speakers. orCalifornians, older D’Onofrio speakers. and (non-immigrant) Korean late immigrantimmigrant minorityminority speakers;speakers; soundsound changechange D’Onofrioet al. (2019) et conducted al.(2019) conductedan apparentlearners an time apparent of study, English. time comparing study, Results comparing theshowed vowels thea clear produced vowels distinction produced by speakers between by speakers of fourearly vs. late bilinguals; while the ofgenerations four generations which were which determined werefirst-generation determined based on based theirKorean on birth their Americans year: birth Silent year: and SilentGenerationthe late Generation lear ners(1928–1945), showed (1928–1945), apparentBaby signs of Korean influence, BabyBoomer Boomer (1946–1964), (1946–1964), Generation Generationthe X 1.5- (1965–1980), and X (1965–1980), the second-generation and Millennial and Millennial (afterKorean (after 1980). Americans 1980). Results Results participated showed showed that, in most patterns of the California 1. Introduction that,across across the span the spanof four of generations, four generations,Vowel the Shift. speakers the However, speakers exhibited divergence exhibited an overall an from overall reduction the reductionAnglo-Californians of dispersion of dispersion mainly was observed in early bilinguals’ 1. Introduction in the F2 dimension (i.e., frontedness), demonstrating a more advanced backing of front vowels and Over the past few decades, research on second languagemainly (L2) in phonology the F2 dimension has provided (i.e.,speech. empirical frontedness), Similar to demonstratingthe late bilinguals, a more the 1.5-generation advanced backing speakers of front did not systematically distinguish fronting of back vowels in younger generations. Most of these changes (i.e., /ɑ/-/ɔ/ merger, backing evidence thatOver early the past bilinguals few decades, are generally research more on second successful vowelslanguagelanguage in acquiring and (L2)(L2) fronting phonologyphonology L2 speech of back has sounds provided vowelsprenasal than in empirical lateand younger non-prenasal generations. /æ/. The Most second-gener of these changesation speakers (i.e., / /demonstrated-/ / a split-/æ/ system, of /ɛ/ and /æ/, and fronting of postcoronal /u/ and /o/) appeared between the Silent and the Baby bilingualsevidence (Flege that et earlyal. 1995, bilinguals 1997; Flege are ge andnerally MacKay more 2011; successfulmerger, Stevens backing in 1999; acquiring Yeni-Komshian of / / L2and speech/æ/, andbut soundset al. frontingit 2000).was than less of late postcoronalpronounced / uthan/ and for/o /the) appeared Anglo-Californians. between the SilentThese findings suggest that age of Boomer generations, suggesting that the horizontal compression of the vowel space occurred Modelsbilinguals in L2 phonology, (Flege et al. such 1995, as 1997; Flege’s Flege (1995) and Speech MacKay Learningand 2011; the StevensBaby Model Boomer 1999;(SLM) Yeni-Komshian generations,and Bestarrival and suggesting Tyler’s et has al. a2000). strong that effect the horizontal on immigrant compression minority ofspeakers’ the vowel participation space in local sound change. In contemporaneously. In subsequent generations, continued /æ/-backing and /ɑ/-/ɔ/ merger were (2007)Models Perceptual in L2 Assimilation phonology, suchModel as (PAM)-L2,Flege’s (1995) posi SpeechSpeecht thatoccurred bilinguals’ LearningLearning contemporaneously. Model ModelL1 and (SLM)(SLM) L2 phones andand Inthesubsequent BestBest interact case andand of inTyler’s Tyler’sthe generations, second-generation continued Korean/æ/-backing American and / s,/- certain/ / merger patterns were of the California Vowel Shift observed, as well as additional changes involving /ɪ/-backing, non-postcoronal /u/-fronting, lowering a common(2007) phonological Perceptual Assimilation space. Thus, Model the development (PAM)-L2, ofposiobserved, L2t soundsthat bilinguals’ as would well as depend additionalL1 and on L2 the changesphoneswere perceptual even interact involving more in pronounced/ /-backing, non-postcoronal than for the Anglo-Californians/u/-fronting, lowering (i.e., of/ɪ/-lowering, /ɑ/-/ɔ/ merger, /ʊ/- of /ɛ/, /æ/, and /i/, and raising of /ɑ/ and /ʌ/. These findings indicate that rather than a stepwise chain similaritya common to existing phonological L1 sounds. space. That Thus, is, bilingual the developments would/ / ,assimilate of/ofæ /L2L2, and soundssounds/i /an, and wouldL2would raisingsound dependdepend ofto /an/ andon onandL1 thethe sound/ʌ /-fronting)./perceptualperceptual. These if findings Moreover, indicate the that entire rather vowel than space a stepwise of the chain second-generation shift Korean Americans, shift which has been previously claimed, the California Vowel Shift seems to show holistic the twosimilarity are perceived to existing identical L1 sounds. or if the That L2 is,sound bilingual is perceiveds whichwould hasas assimilate a been deviant previously an variant L2 sound claimed, of the especiallyto L1an the sound.L1 California sound female ifVowel speakers, Shift was seems more to show fronted holistic than compression that of the ofAnglo-Californians. the These findings compression of the vowel space. Phonologically speaking, this is contrary to the general tendency However,the two if an are L2 perceived sound is identicalperceptually or if distinctthe L2 soundfrom existing isvowel perceivedperceived space.L1 sounds, asas Phonologically aa deviantdeviant bilinguals variantvariant speaking,wouldsuggest ofof thethe create thisL1L1 that sound. sound. isa contrarysecond-generation to the general Korean tendency Americans toward maximizingmay be in thea more advanced stage of the toward maximizing the phonetic space between phonemes as a means to maintain perceptual new category.However, Early if an bilingualsL2 sound tendis perceptually to be successful distinct at simultaneouslyfromphonetic existing space L1 maintaining sounds, between bilinguals phonemes language-internalCalifornia would as a means create Vowel to a maintain Shift than perceptual Anglo-Californians distinctiveness or (Flemmingthe California 1996 ;Vowel Shift is on a different distinctiveness (Flemming 1996; Labov et al. 2006; Liljencrants and Lindblom 1972). Thus, D’Onofrio and cross-linguisticnew category. Early contrasts bilinguals (Chang tend et toal. be 2011) successfulFigure because 1. LabovatCalifornia simultaneouslythey etbegin al.Vowel 2006 establishing Shift; Liljencrantsmaintaining (adapted L2 fromsounds andlanguage-internaltrajectory D’Onofrio Lindblom when for et 1972al.these (2019)).). Thus,speakers. D’Onofrio Possible et al.explanat(2019) ionsproposed in relation that the to second-generation Korean et al. (2019) proposed that the unexpected holistic compression at the root of the California Vowel and cross-linguistic contrasts (Chang et al. 2011) becauseunexpected they holisticbegin establishing compression Americans’L2 at sounds the root whenintersecting of the California gender, Vowel ethnic, Shift and may racial be drivenidentities, by speakers’and suggestions for future research are Languages 2020, 5, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEWWhile the California projectionVowelShift may Shift be of has localizeddrivenwww.mdpi.com/journ been by socialunderstood speakers’ meaningsdiscussed. projectional/languages as a within chain of ashiftlocalized community affecting social (Eckert the meanings front 1989 lax; withinFought a 1999 community; Podesva (Eckert 2011), Languages 2020,, 5,, x;x; doi:doi: FORFOR PEERPEERvowels REVIEWREVIEW /ɪ/, / ɛ/, and /æ/, thenot1989; cause by Fought purelyof the phonological1999;chain Podesva shiftwww.mdpi.com/journ is motivations.under 2011), debate.not byal/languages That purelySimilar is, it phonol is to possible theogical Canadian that motivations. vowel Vowel space That compression is, it is possible is achieved that Shift in which /ɪ/, /ɛ/, and /æ/throughvowel are spacelowered speakers’ compression due manipulation to the is merging achievedKeywords: of their of through/ articulatoryɑ/ andKorean /speakeɔ/ (Clarke settingsAmericans;rs’ manipulationet (e.g., al. California1995), lowered the of jaw, Voweltheir protruded articulatory Shift; second jaw andsettings language lips) phonology; bilingualism; lowering of /ɪ/, /ɛ/, and /æ/ ((e.g.,inPratt California lowered and D’Onofrio English jaw, protruded may2017 also) to jaw be indeximmigrant anthed variedresultlips) (Prattminority of social a pull-chain and meanings speakers; D’Onofrio initiated (e.g.,sound 2017) youngby change to the index Californian, varied social middle meanings class /ɑ/-/ɔ/ merger. However, Kennedymembership,(e.g., young and Californian, non-gangGrama (2012) status,middle found laid class back,that membership, some partier, young urban, non- Californiagang coastal) status, ( D’OnofrioEnglish laid back, et partier, al. 2019 urban,; Fought coastal) 1999; speakers demonstrated thePodesva(D’Onofrio chain-shifted 2011 et; al. Podesvalowering 2019; Fought et of al. the 2015 1999; front). Podesva lax vowels, 2011; while Podesva maintaining et al. 2015). /ɑ/ in the traditional low-central position in the vowel space. Moreover, while both male and female 1.3. Vowels in Korean and Comparison1. Introduction between Korean andand AmericanAmerican EnglishEnglish VowelVowel SystemsSystems speakers exhibited similar F1 values for /ɪ/ and /ɛ/, the female speakers produced higher F1 values (i.e., lower vowel height) for /æ/Modern than Souththe male Korean speakers. has 7–8 SinceOver monophthongs thewomen past fewgenerally /i,/ i,decades, e, ( ɛ ),are a, research ʌleaders, o, ɨ, u/ u /on of((JangJang second et al. language 20152015;; Kang (L2) 2014;2014 phonology; has provided empirical linguistic change (Coates Kwak1993; 2003Labov2003;; LeeLee 1990; 20002000; Milroy; LeeLee andand and RamseyRamseyevidence Milroy 20112011 that1985;; Yang early Trudgill 19961996) bilinguals)22 . 1972),Due Due areto to therecent recent ge nerallygender merger merger more of of the thesuccessful mid-front mid-front in acquiring vowels L2 speech sounds than late difference indicates that /æ///e/e/ isandand the //ɛ /most/,, whichwhich recent isis mostmost step likelylikely of thebilinguals causedcaused chain byby shift (Flege thethe (Kennedy raisingraising et al. of1995, /andɛ//,, many1997;many Grama Flege KoreansKoreans 2012). and nono MacKay longer distinguish2011; Stevens these 1999; Yeni-Komshian et al. 2000). Thus, Kennedy and Gramavowelsvowels (2012) ((BakerBaker suggested and TrofimovichTrofimovich an alternativeModels 20052005; explanation; KangKangin L2 2014phonology,2014; ;to KwakKw theak chainsuch20032003;; asJangshift Flege’s etwhich al. (1995) 20152015; ; LeeSpeech and Learning Ramsey 2011;2011Model; (SLM) and Best and Tyler’s involves a push-chain initiatedYangYang by 19961996). the). lowering Studies of examining /ɪ/, resulting(2007) Korean in Perceptual the vowel lowering change Assimilation of / ɛin / and apparent subsequently Model time (PAM)-L2, (Jang (Jang et posi al. 20152015;t that; Kang bilinguals’ 20142014)) L1 and L2 phones interact in the lowering of /æ/. This processhave shown is likely that to be the independent Korean /e//ea/ commonand of the /ɛ// areare/ɑ phonological/-/ producedproducedɔ/ merger withwhich space. overlapping in Thus, some the cases development F1 and F2 values of L2 across sounds ages, would depend on the perceptual except for somesome olderolder speakersspeakerssimilarity3 whowho producedproduced to existing themthem L1 distinctly,sounds.distinctly, That supportingsupporting is, bilingual thatthats would young-generationyoung-generation assimilate an L2 sound to an L1 sound if 1 Figure 1 was created basedKoreans on the data havehave of millennial aa seven-vowelseven-vowel speakers systemsystemthe reported two withwith are in oneone perceivedTable mid-frontmid-front A1 in identical D’Onofrio vowelvowel or /et/e/e / ifal.( (KwakKwakthe (2019). L2 2003 2003). sound). is perceived as a deviant variant of the L1 sound. Note that BOOK-type tokens (i.e., /ʊ/) were not examinedHowever, in D’Onofri ifo an et L2al. sound(2019), thus,is perceptually we added thedistinct from existing L1 sounds, bilinguals would create a fronting of /ʊ/ in Figure 1 based on previous studies on the Californianew category. Vowel Early Shift bilinguals(e.g., (Podesva tend et to al. be 2015; successful at simultaneously maintaining language-internal Pratt and D’Onofrio 2017)). 2 In some cases, front rounded vowels and /y /cross-linguisticand /ø/ may be additionally contrasts observed (Chang in theet speechal. 2011) of older because generation they speakers, begin establishing L2 sounds when 2 but In some in modern cases, South front Korean rounded these soundsvowels are /y/ mostly and /ø/ replaced may bybe the additionally [we]observed and [wi], in respectivelythe speech (ofAhn older and Iverson 2007; Kwak 2003; Jang et al.Languages 2015). 2020, 5, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/languages 3 Kanggeneration(2014) specifiedspeakers, these but speakers in modern as male South speakers Korean born these before sounds 1962 (i.e.,are birth-year-based),mostly replaced whileby the in diphthongs Jang et al.(2015 [we]), theseand [wi], speakers respectively were male (Ahn and female and Iverson speakers 2007; in their Kwak 60s (i.e., 2003; age-based). Jang et Sinceal. 2015). the data in Jang et al.(2015) were collected 3 between Kang (2014) 2014 andspecified 2015, we these speculate speakers that as these male speakers speakers were born born before between 1962 1945 (i.e., and birth-year-based), 1955. while in Jang et al. (2015), these speakers were male and female speakers in their 60s (i.e., age-based). Since the data in Jang et al. (2015) were collected between 2014 and 2015, we speculate that these speakers were born between 1945 and 1955. Languages 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 27

occurs in the low-central position of /ɑ/ (Kennedy and Grama 2012) and in other cases is not fully instantiated (Hall-Lew 2009). Chain shifts are claimed to occur in order to maintain enough phonetic distance between phonemes in the vowel space so that they are perceptually distinctive (D’Onofrio et al. 2019; Gordon 2011; Martinet 1952). If a moves within the vowel space, this leads to subsequent phonetic movements of neighboring vowels. Thus, in order to identify the vowel that triggered the movement, it is important to examine the temporal establishment of the in real or apparent time (D’Onofrio et al. 2019; Gordon 2011; Labov 2010, p. 145). That is, speakers from a certain age group in a more recent time period or younger speakers should exhibit more advanced movements of the chain shift than speakers of the same age group in an older time period or older speakers. D’Onofrio et al. (2019) conducted an apparent time study, comparing the vowels produced by speakers of four generations which were determined based on their birth year: Silent Generation (1928–1945), Baby Boomer (1946–1964), Generation X (1965–1980), and Millennial (after 1980). Results showed that, across the span of four generations, the speakers exhibited an overall reduction of dispersion mainly in the F2 dimension (i.e., frontedness), demonstrating a more advanced backing of front vowels and fronting of back vowels in younger generations. Most of these changes (i.e., /ɑ/-/ɔ/ merger, backing of /ɛ/ and /æ/, and fronting of postcoronal /u/ and /o/) appeared between the Silent and the Baby Boomer generations, suggesting that the horizontal compression of the vowel space occurred contemporaneously. In subsequent generations, continued /æ/-backing and /ɑ/-/ɔ/ merger were observed, as well as additional changes involving /ɪ/-backing, non-postcoronal /u/-fronting, lowering of /ɛ/, /æ/, and /i/, and raising of /ɑ/ and /ʌ/. These findings indicate that rather than a stepwise chain shift which has been previously claimed, the California Vowel Shift seems to show holistic compression of the vowel space. Phonologically speaking, this is contrary to the general tendency toward maximizing the phonetic space between phonemes as a means to maintain perceptual distinctiveness (Flemming 1996; Labov et al. 2006; Liljencrants and Lindblom 1972). Thus, D’Onofrio et al. (2019) proposed that the unexpected holistic compression at the root of the California Vowel Shift may be driven by speakers’ projection of localized social meanings within a community (Eckert 1989; Fought 1999; Podesva 2011), not by purely phonological motivations. That is, it is possible that vowel space compression is achieved through speakers’ manipulation of their articulatory settings (e.g., lowered jaw, protruded jaw and lips) (Pratt and D’Onofrio 2017) to index varied social meanings Languages 2020, 5, x FOR PEER(e.g., REVIEW young Californian, membership, non-gang status, laid 6back, of 27 partier, urban, coastal) Languages 2020, 5, 53 (D’Onofrio et al. 2019; Fought 1999; Podesva 2011; Podesva et al. 2015). 6 of 27 Figure 2, created from data of Korean speakers in their 20s in Kang and Kong (2016) 4 , demonstrates the Korean vowel space. In the high region of the vowel space, Korean has three vowels 1.3. Vowels in Korean and Comparison between Korean and American4 English Vowel Systems /i/, /Figureɨ/, and2 ,/u/. created While from the data Korean of Korean /i/ is acoustically speakers in their similar 20s to in Kangthe corresponding and Kong(2016 English) , demonstrates high front thetense Korean vowel vowel /i/, the space. Korean In theModern /u/ high is more regionSouth back ofKorean thethan vowel hasthe English7–8 space, monophthongs Korean high back has tense three /i, e, vowelsvowel(ɛ), a, ʌ/u//, io,/, / (Bakerɨ,/ ,u/ and (Jang and/u/. et al. 2015; Kang 2014; 2 WhileTrofimovich the Korean 2005;/ iYang/ isKwak acoustically 1996; 2003; Yoon Lee similarand 2000; Kim toLee 2015). the and corresponding InRamsey fact, comparative 2011 EnglishYang 1996) studies high. Due front of Seoulto tense recent Korean vowel merger and/i/ ,of the mid-front vowels theAmerican Korean English/u/ is more vowels back/e/ and have than /ɛ/, shown the which English thatis most the high likelyEnglish back caused tense /u/ is vowelby acoustically the /raisingu/ (Baker very of / andɛ /,similar many Trofimovich toKoreans the Korean 2005 no longer; distinguish these Yang/ɨ/ (Baker 1996; andYoon Trofimovich and Kimvowels 2015 2005; ).(Baker In Yang fact, and comparative1996; Trofimovich Yoon and studies 2005; Kim Kang of 2015). 2014; The Korean KwKoreanak and 2003; /ɨ American/, especiallyJang et al. English in2015; the Lee and Ramsey 2011; vowels have shown thatYang the 1996). /u/ is examining acoustically Korean very vowel similar change to the in Korean apparent/ / ( Bakertime (Jang and et al. 2015; Kang 2014) Seoul , is undergoing change in progress in which younger-generation produce this Trofimovichvowel more 2005fronted; Yang thanhave 1996 older-generation shown; Yoon that and the Kim KoreansKorean 2015). /e/ The(Jang and Korean et / ɛal./ are 2015;/ /produced, especially Kang 2014; with in Kang theoverlapping Seoul and Kong dialect, F1 2016; and is F2 values across ages, 3 Article Article undergoingLee et al. 2017) change5. Thus, in progressexcept the overlap for in whichsome between younger-generationolder speakersthe Korean who /ɨ Koreans/ andproduced the produce English them this distinctly,/u/ vowel may be more supporting due fronted to the that young-generation 5 thanparallel older-generation fronting of the Koreans Korean (have/Jangɨ/ (Jang a et seven-vowel al.et 2015al. 2015;; Kang Kangsystem 2014 2014; with; Kang Kang one and mid-front and Kong Kong 2016 vowel 2016;; Lee Lee/e/ et (Kwak et al. al. 2017 2017) 2003).) . (Divergent) Participation(Divergent) Participation in the California in the Vowel CaliforniaThus,and the the English overlap Vowel/u/ between observed the in Korean most North/ / and American the English /u/ may (Labov be dueet al. to 2006). the parallel The Korean fronting /u/ also of Shift by KoreanShift Americans by Korean in Americans Southern Californiain Southerntheexhibits Korean fronting /California/ (Jang (Kang et al. 2014;2015; LeeKang et 2014al. 2017),; Kang but and not Kong to the 2016 same; Lee extent et al. 2017as the) and Korean the English /ɨ/ and /theu/ observedEnglish /u/. in most North American dialects ( Labov et al. 2006). The Korean /u/ also exhibits fronting (Kang 2014; Lee et al. 20172 ), In but some not cases, to the front same rounded extent asvowels the Korean /y/ and/ //ø/and may the be English additionally/u/. observed in the speech of older Ji Young Kim 1,* and Nicole Wong 2 1, 2 Ji Young Kim * and Nicole Wong generation speakers, but in modern South Korean these sounds are mostly replaced by the diphthongs [we] 1 Department of Spanish 1and Department Portuguese, of Univer Spanishsity and of California,Portuguese, Los Univer Angeles,sity of CA California, 90095, USA Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA and [wi], respectively (Ahn and Iverson 2007; Kwak 2003; Jang et al. 2015). 3 2 Independent Scholar, Santa2 Independent Clara, CA 95050, Scholar, USA; Santa [email protected] Clara, CA 95050, USA; [email protected] Kang (2014) specified these speakers as male speakers born before 1962 (i.e., birth-year-based), while in Jang * Correspondence: [email protected]* Correspondence: [email protected] et al. (2015), these speakers were male and female speakers in their 60s (i.e., age-based). Since the data in Jang et al. (2015) were collected between 2014 and 2015, we speculate that these speakers were born between 1945 Received: 24 September 2020;Received: Accepted: 24 September 2 November 2020; 2020; Accepted: Published: 2 November 6 November 2020; 2020 Published: 6 November 2020 and 1955.

Abstract: This study investigatesAbstract: This the studyparticipation investigates in the the California participation Vowel in Shiftthe California by Korean Vowel Shift by Korean Americans in Los Angeles.Americans Five groups in Los of Angeles.subjects participatedFive groups inof asubjects picture participated narrative task: in afirst-, picture 1.5- narrative task: first-, 1.5- , and second-generation, Koreanand second-generation Americans,Languages Anglo- Korean 2020Californians,, 5, x Americans, FOR PEER and REVIEW Anglo- (non-immigrant) Californians, Korean and (non-immigrant) late Korean late 4 of 27 learners of English. Resultslearners showed of English. a clear Resultsdistinction showed between a clear early distinction vs. late bilinguals; between early while vs. the late bilinguals; while the first-generation Korean first-generationAmericans and theKoreanlower late learAmericansandners more showed retracted and the apparent late front lear vowelssignsners ofshowed and Korean more apparent influence, fronted signs back of vowels Korean when influence, the actors played these the 1.5- and the second-generationthe 1.5- and Korean the second-generationcharacters Americans than participated whenKorean they Americansin most played patterns participatednon-Californ of the California inian most characters. patterns ofAlthough the California without a doubt these Vowel Shift. However, Voweldivergence Shift. from However, performancesthe Anglo-Californians divergence are fromexaggerated, thewas Anglo-Californians observed they reflect in early the bilinguals’was vo calicobserved changes in early that bilinguals’are underway in California, speech. Similar to the latespeech. bilinguals, Similar the to 1.5-generationnamely the late the bilinguals, California speakers the Vowel 1.5-generation did not Shift. systematically speakers distinguish did not systematically distinguish prenasal and non-prenasalprenasal /æ/. Theand second-genernon-prenasalFigureation /æ/. 1, Thespeakerscreated second-gener fromdemonstrated dataation of speakersmillenniala split-/æ/ demonstrated system,speakers reported a split-/æ/ in D’Onofriosystem, et al. (2019) 1 , FigureFigure 2. 2.Korean Korean vowelvowel spacespace ofof youngyoung generation generation Koreans Koreans (adapted (adapted from from Kang Kang and and Kong Kong(2016 (2016)).)). but it was less pronouncedbut it than was forless the pronounceddemonstrates Anglo-Californians. than the for vocalic the These Anglo-Californians.changes findings involved suggest in Thesethethat California age findings of Vowel suggest Shift. that The age California of Vowel Shift ɑ ɔ arrival has a strong effectarrival on immigrant has a strong minorityis characterizedeffect onspeakers’ immigrant by participation three minority main phenomena:inspeakers’ local sound participation (1) change. theInIn the thelow-back mid In inmid local region region merger sound of theof ofchange.the vowel / vowel/ (e.g., space, In space,bot Korean) and Korean has/ / (e.g., two has vowels two vowels/e/ and /e//o/ (orand three /o/ (or vowels three for vowels speakers for ɪ ɛ the case of the second-generationthe case of Korean the second-generationbought American), (2)s, the certain lowering Korean patterns andAmerican retractionof thes, California certain of lax patternswho frontspeakers Vowel do vowels not ofShift whothe exhibit / California /do (e.g., thenot bit /exhibite),/ - Vowel/ / merger).(e.g., the Shift bet /e/-/), Unlikeandɛ/ merger). /æ/ the (e.g., English Unlike bat), /e /theand English/o/ which /e/ areand slightly /o/ which diphthongized are slightly ɪ ɑ ɔ ɪ ʊ ɑ ʊ ɔ ʊ ʌ were even more pronouncedwere eventhan morefor the pronouncedand Anglo-Californians (3) the fronting than for of the(i.e., high- Anglo-Californians / /-lowering, and mid-back / /-/ vowels(i.e., /(i.e.,diphthongized merger, [e //u//-lowering,], [o(e.g., / /-]), boot the (i.e., Korean),/ //-/ [e/ ɪ(e.g.,],/ merger,[o/e/ʊ bookand]), the), //o /o/ //-Koreanare (e.g., purely boat/e/ monophthongal.and), and /o/ / are/ purely In monophthongal. the case of the Korean In the/e case/, it is of also the ʌ ʌ and / /-fronting). Moreover,and / the/-fronting). entire vowel(e.g., Moreover, butspace) (D’Onofrio theof the entire second-generation et vowel al. 2016; space D’Onofrio of Koreanthe second-generationetacoustically Koreanal. Americans, 2019; /e/, Hagiwara distinctit is also Korean from1997; acoustically the Hall-LewAmericans, other distinct English 2009; from Hall-Lew mid-front the other et vowel al. English / /, in thatmid-front the Korean vowel/e /ɛis/, positionedin that the Korean higher especially female speakers,especially was more female fronted 2015;speakers, thanHinton wasthat et more ofal. the 1987; fronted Anglo-Californians. Kennedy than thatand ofGrama the Theseand/e/ Anglo-Californians. 2012; moreis findings positioned Podesva fronted inethigher theal. These 2015). vowel and findings Following spacemore thanfronted the the patternin English the vowelof/ / (Baker space and than Trofimovich the English 2005 )/ɛ./ Rather (Baker than and suggest that second-generationsuggest thatKorean second-generation GeneralAmericans American may Korean beEnglish in Americansa presentedmore advanced may in Thebe the TrofimovichstageAtlasin Englisha moreofof theNorth/ / advanced ,2005). the American Korean Rather stage/e English/thanis of acoustically the (Labov English moreet /al.ɛ/, similar2006),the Korean to the /e/ English is acoustically front lax vowelmore /similar/ (Baker to and the California Vowel Shift Californiathan Anglo-Californians Vowelprenasal Shift than or/æ/ theAnglo-Californians in California EnglishVowel or Shiftisthe tensed, Californiais onTrofimovichEnglish resultinga different Vowel front in 2005 laxShifta split ).vowel Bothis betweenon / theɪ /a (Baker different English tensed and / Trofimovich/æ// and in /a/ areprenasal experiencing2005). Both the lowering English and/ɛ/ and retraction /ɪ/ are experiencing in General trajectory for these speakers.trajectory Possible for these contextexplanat speakers. (e.g.,ions ban Possiblein) andrelation lowered explanat to second-generation /æ/ions elsewhere in relationAmericanlowering (Eckert Koreanto 2008). English,second-generationand retraction With except regard forin General the toKorean the South backAmerican (Labov vowels et English, al. /u/ 2006 and). except As for for the the Korean South/o (Lab/, thisov vowel et al. is2006). positioned As for Americans’ intersectingAmericans’ gender, ethnic, intersecting and/o/, racial the gender, fronting identities, ethnic, is more and and suggestions advanced racial identities, after for future a coronal andverythe research suggestions highKorean consonant in are the /o/, for vowel (e.g.,this future vowel space,too andresearch closeis toe positioned) todue are the to Korean its very high/ uhigh /F2(see (i.e., in Figure the vowel2). Studies space, focusing close to on the Seoul Korean Korean /u/ have (see discussed. discussed. fronted) environment and prohibited when shownfoFigurellowed that 2). by Studies the the main velarized focusing distinction codaon Seoul between /-l/ (e.g.,Korean the cool Koreanhave and shown goal/o/ ),and that/u the/ is inmain the distinction front-back dimensionbetween the (F2); Korean the because of its low F2 (i.e., retracted) environmentKorean/o/ and (Hall-Lew/ u/u// is is more in 2011). the fronted front-back than thedimension Korean (F2);/o/ (Jang the etKorean al. 2015 /u/; Kangis more and fronted Kong 2016 than; Leethe etKorean al. 2017 /o/; Keywords: Korean Americans;Keywords: California Korean Vowel Americans; Shift; Californiasecond language Vowel phonology;Shift; second bilingualism; language phonology; bilingualism; Yoon(Jangand et al. Kim 2015; 2015 Kang). and These Kong patterns 2016; Lee were et moreal. 2017; clearly Yoon demonstrated and Kim 2015). in These the speech patterns of were younger more immigrant minority speakers;immigrant sound minority change speakers; sound change 6 generationclearly demonstrated Koreans than in older the speech generation of younger Koreans gene (Kangration 2014 Koreans; Kang and than Kong older 2016 generation; Lee et al. Koreans 2017 ).

Thus,(Kang the 2014; vowel Kang change and inKong Seoul 2016; Korean Lee canet al. be 2017 explained6). Thus, through the vowel a chain change shift in initiated Seoul Korean by /o/-raising, can be explained through a chain shift initiated by /o/-raising, which led to the fronting of /u/ and /ɨ/ (Kang

1. Introduction 1. Introduction 4 4 Figure Figure2 was2 was created created by by averaging averaging the the data data of of malemale andand femalefemale speakersspeakers inin their 20s reported reported in Table Table 1 1 in Over the past few decades,Over research the past on few second decades, language research (L2) on phonology second language has provided (L2) phonologyin empirical Kang and Kong has (provided2016). empirical 5 InKang a cross-dialectal and Kong study,(2016). Lee et al.(2017) found that speakers of other (i.e., South Jeolla, South Gyeongsang, evidence that early bilingualsevidence are that generally early bilingualsmore successful are ge nerallyin acquiring more L2successful speech soundsin acquiring5 and Inthan a Jaeju) cross-dialectal lateL2 showed speech converging sounds study, patternsLeethan et late al. to Seoul (2017) Korean. found that speakers of other Korean dialects (i.e., South Jeolla, bilinguals (Flege et al. 1995,bilinguals 1997; Flege(Flege and et al. MacKay 1995, 1997; 2011; Flege Stevens and 1999; MacKay Yeni-Komshian 2011; Stevens6 etDespite South1999; al. 2000). dialectalYeni-KomshianGyeongsang, differences, and etJaeju)Lee al. et 2000). al.showed(2017 ) showed converging that the patterns/o/-raising to Seoul in other Korean. Korean dialects demonstrates converging Models in L2 phonology,Models such asin Flege’sL2 phonology, (1995) Speech such as Learning Flege’s (1995)Model Speech (SLM) Learningand Best6 andModelpatterns Despite Tyler’s (SLM) to thedialectal Seoul and dialect, differences,Best and similar Tyler’s toLee the et case al. of the(2017) fronting show of ed/ / andthat/u /.the /o/-raising in other Korean dialects (2007) Perceptual Assimilation(2007) Perceptual Model (PAM)-L2, Assimilation posit Modelthat bilinguals’ (PAM)-L2, L1 posi andt L2that phones bilinguals’ interactdemonstrates L1 andin L2 converging phones interactpatterns into the Seoul dialect, similar to the case of the fronting of /ɨ/ and /u/. a common phonologicala space. common Thus, phonological the development space. ofThus, L2 sounds the development would depend of L2 on sounds the perceptual would depend on the perceptual similarity to existing L1similarity sounds. That to existing is, bilingual L1 sounds.s would That assimilate is, bilingual an L2s wouldsound assimilateto an L1 sound an L2 if sound to an L1 sound if the two are perceived identicalthe two orare if perceived the L2 sound identical is perceived or if the as L2 a sounddeviant is variantperceived of theas aL1 deviant sound. variant of the L1 sound. However, if an L2 soundHowever, is perceptually if an L2 distinct sound fromis perceptually existing L1 distinct sounds, from bilinguals existing would L1 sounds, create bilinguals a would create a new category. Early bilingualsnew category. tend to Earlybe successful bilinguals at simultaneouslytend toFigure be successful 1. California maintaining at simultaneously Vowel language-internal Shift (adapted maintaining from D’Onofrio language-internal et al. (2019)). and cross-linguistic contrastsand cross-linguistic (Chang et al. contrasts2011) because (Chang they et beginal. 2011) establishing because theyL2 sounds begin establishingwhen L2 sounds when While the California Vowel Shift has been understood as a chain shift affecting the front lax Languages 2020, 5, x; doi: FORLanguages PEER REVIEW 2020, 5, x; doi:vowels FOR PEER /ɪ/, REVIEW /ɛ/, and /æ/, the causewww.mdpi.com/journ of the chain shiftal/languages iswww.mdpi.com/journ under debate. Similaral/languages to the Canadian Vowel Shift in which /ɪ/, /ɛ/, and /æ/ are lowered due to the merging of /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ (Clarke et al. 1995), the lowering of /ɪ/, /ɛ/, and /æ/ in California English may also be the result of a pull-chain initiated by the /ɑ/-/ɔ/ merger. However, Kennedy and Grama (2012) found that some young California English speakers demonstrated the chain-shifted lowering of the front lax vowels, while maintaining /ɑ/ in the traditional low-central position in the vowel space. Moreover, while both male and female speakers exhibited similar F1 values for /ɪ/ and /ɛ/, the female speakers produced higher F1 values (i.e., lower vowel height) for /æ/ than the male speakers. Since women generally are leaders of linguistic change (Coates 1993; Labov 1990; Milroy and Milroy 1985; Trudgill 1972), the gender difference indicates that /æ/ is the most recent step of the chain shift (Kennedy and Grama 2012). Thus, Kennedy and Grama (2012) suggested an alternative explanation to the chain shift which involves a push-chain initiated by the lowering of /ɪ/, resulting in the lowering of /ɛ/ and subsequently the lowering of /æ/. This process is likely to be independent of the /ɑ/-/ɔ/ merger which in some cases

1 Figure 1 was created based on the data of millennial speakers reported in Table A1 in D’Onofrio et al. (2019). Note that BOOK-type tokens (i.e., /ʊ/) were not examined in D’Onofrio et al. (2019), thus, we added the fronting of /ʊ/ in Figure 1 based on previous studies on the California Vowel Shift (e.g., (Podesva et al. 2015; Pratt and D’Onofrio 2017)). Languages 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 27 occurs in the low-central position of /ɑ/ (Kennedy and Grama 2012) and in other cases is not fully instantiated (Hall-Lew 2009). Chain shifts are claimed to occur in order to maintain enough phonetic distance between phonemes in the vowel space so that they are perceptually distinctive (D’Onofrio et al. 2019; Gordon 2011; Martinet 1952). If a phoneme moves within the vowel space, this leads to subsequent phonetic movements of neighboring vowels. Thus, in order to identify the vowel that triggered the movement, it is important to examine the temporal establishment of the chain shift in real or apparent time (D’Onofrio et al. 2019; Gordon 2011; Labov 2010, p. 145). That is, speakers from a certain age group in a more recent time period or younger speakers should exhibit more advanced movements of the chain shift than speakers of the same age group in an older time period or older speakers. D’Onofrio et al. (2019) conducted an apparent time study, comparing the vowels produced by speakers of four generations which were determined based on their birth year: Silent Generation (1928–1945), Baby Article Boomer (1946–1964), Generation XArticle (1965–1980), and Millennial (after 1980). Results showed that, across the span of four generations, the speakers exhibited an overall reduction of dispersion mainly (Divergent)in the F2 Participation dimension (i.e., frontedness), in(Divergent) thedemonstrating California a more Participation advanced Vowel backing of infront the vowels California and Vowel fronting of back vowels in younger generations. Most of these changes (i.e., /ɑ/-/ɔ/ merger, backing Shift byof Korean/ɛ/ and /æ/, and Americans fronting of postcoronalShift in Southern /u/ by and Korean /o/) appeared California Americans between the Silent andin theSouthern Baby California Boomer generations, suggesting that the horizontal compression of the vowel space occurred Ji Young Kimcontemporaneously. 1,* and Nicole Wong In2 subsequentJi geneYoungrations, Kim 1,continued* and Nicole /æ/-backing Wong 2 and /ɑ/-/ɔ/ merger were 1 Departmentobserved, of Spanish as and well Portuguese, as additional Univer changessity of1 California, Department involving Los /ofɪ/-backing, Angeles,Spanish and CA non-postcoronal Portuguese,90095, USA Univer /u/-fronting,sity of California, lowering Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA 2 Independentof Scholar, /ɛ/, /æ/, Santa and /i/,Clara, and CA raising 95050, of USA; /ɑ/ [email protected] Independent /ʌ/. These findings Scholar, Santaindicate Clara, that CA rather 95050, than USA; a [email protected] stepwise chain * Correspondence:shift [email protected] has been previously claimed,* Correspondence: the California [email protected] Vowel Shift seems to show holistic compression of the vowel space. Phonologically speaking, this is contrary to the general tendency Received: 24 September 2020; Accepted: 2 November 2020;Received: Published: 24 September 6 November 2020; 2020 Accepted: 2 November 2020; Published: 6 November 2020 toward maximizing the phonetic space between phonemes as a means to maintain perceptual distinctiveness (Flemming 1996; Labov et al. 2006; Liljencrants and Lindblom 1972). Thus, D’Onofrio Abstract: This study investigates the participationAbstract: in the This California study investigates Vowel Shift the by participation Korean in the California Vowel Shift by Korean et al. (2019) proposed that the unexpected holistic compression at the root of the California Vowel Americans in Los Angeles. Five groups of subjectsAmericans participated in Losin a Angeles.picture narrative Five groups task: of first-, subjects 1.5- participated in a picture narrative task: first-, 1.5- Shift may be driven by speakers’ projection of localized social meanings within a community (Eckert , and second-generation Korean Americans, Anglo-, andCalifornians, second-generation and (non-immigrant) Korean Americans, Korean Anglo- late Californians, and (non-immigrant) Korean late 1989; Fought 1999; Podesva 2011), not by purely phonological motivations. That is, it is possible that learners of English. Results showed a clear distinctionlearners between of English. early Results vs. late showed bilinguals; a clear while distinction the between early vs. late bilinguals; while the vowel space compression is achieved through speakers’ manipulation of their articulatory settings first-generation Korean Americans and the late learfirst-generationners showed apparent Korean Americans signs of Korean and the influence, late lear ners showed apparent signs of Korean influence, (e.g., lowered jaw, protruded jaw and lips) (Pratt and D’Onofrio 2017) to index varied social meanings the 1.5- and the second-generation Korean Americansthe 1.5- participated and the second-generation in most patterns of Korean the California Americans participated in most patterns of the California (e.g., young Californian, middle class membership, non-gang status, laid back, partier, urban, coastal) Vowel Shift. However, divergence from the Anglo-CaliforniansVowel Shift. However, was observed divergence in early from bilinguals’ the Anglo-Californians was observed in early bilinguals’ (D’Onofrio et al. 2019; Fought 1999; Podesva 2011; Podesva et al. 2015). speech. Similar to the late bilinguals, the 1.5-generationspeech. speakers Similar todid the not late systematically bilinguals, the distinguish 1.5-generation speakers did not systematically distinguish Languages 2020, 5, 53 7 of 27 prenasal and non-prenasal /æ/. The second-generprenasalation speakers and non-prenasal demonstrated /æ/. a The split-/æ/ second-gener system, ation speakers demonstrated a split-/æ/ system, 1.3. Vowels in Korean and Comparison between Korean and American EnglishLanguages Vowel 2020 Systems, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 27 but it was less pronounced than for the Anglo-Californians.but it was less These pronounced findings than suggest for thethat Anglo-Californians. age of These findings suggest that age of arrival has a strongModern effectArticle Southon immigrant Korean hasminoritywhich Article7–8 monophthongs ledarrival speakers’ to thehas fronting participationa strong /i, e, ofeffect(ɛ),/u a,/in andonʌ local, o, immigrant2014;/ ɨ,/ soundu/(Kang (JangKang change. 2014minority etand al.; KongKang 2015; In speakers’ 2016; andKang KongLee 2014; participation et 2016 al. 2017).; Lee Inin et thelocal al. low2017 sound region). In change. the of the Invowel space, Korean has one low- the case of theKwak second-generation 2003; Lee 2000; KoreanLee and lowAmericanRamsey regionthe 2011s, case ofcertain Yang the of vowelthe 1996)patterns second-generation space,2. Due of theto Korean recent Californiacentral has merger Korean one vowelVowel low-centralof American the /a/Shift mid-front which s, vowel certain is vowels more/a /patternswhich fronted is of morethan the California frontedthe corresponding than Vowel the Shift English low back vowel /ɑ/ (Sohn were even more/e/ and pronounced /ɛ/,(Divergent) which thanis most for likely the correspondingAnglo-Californians caused(Divergent) Participationwere by theeven English raising more (i.e., lowof pronouncedParticipation /ɪɛ/-lowering, back/, in many vowelthe Koreans than1999; / ɑCalifornia/-// (forSohn ɔ Yang/no merger, the longer 1999 inAnglo-Californians1996).; Yang/distinguishʊthe/- With 1996 Vowel California regard). Withthese (i.e.,to regard the /ɪ/-lowering, Korean to theVowel Korean near-low /ɑ/-/ near-lowɔ/ merger, back vowel /ʊ/- /ʌ/, it is more back than the and /ʌ/-fronting).vowels Moreover, (BakerShift and the Trofimovich byentire Korean vowelbackShift 2005; space voweland Kang ofAmericans/byʌ /-fronting)./ the,2014; it isKoreansecond-generation moreKwak backMoreover, 2003; than inJangAmericans the the SoutherncorrespondingKoreanet corresponding al.entire 2015; Americans, vowel Lee Englishand in Englishspace California Ramsey Southern of/ʌ/ /the /(Yang( 2011;Yang second-generation 1996) 1996 ) Californiawhich which is is centralized centralizedKorean Americans, [ ɐ] in , except especially femaleYang speakers,1996). Studies was moreexamining frontedin Korean General thanespecially thatvowel American of changethefemale English,Anglo-Californians. inspeakers, apparent except was fortimefor more thethe These(Jang InlandInland fronted etfindings al. NorthNorth 2015;than ((Labov Labov thatKang of et2014) etthe al.al. Anglo-Californians.2006 2006).). These findings suggest thathave second-generation shown that the KoreanKorean /e/Americans andYang /suggestɛ/ are(1996 may produced )that explainedbe second-generationin witha more the overlapping cross-linguisticadvanced Korean F1Yang stageand di(1996)F2Americans of ffvalues erencesthe explained across may between ages,thebe in crosKorean a s-linguisticmore and advanced English differences vowelsstage betweenof the Korean and English vowels Ji Young Kim 1,* and JiNicole Young Wong Kim 1,2 * and Nicole Wong 2 California Vowelexcept Shift for somethan olderAnglo-Californians speakersthrough3 whoCalifornia or Lindblom’sproduced the California Vowel them theory distinctly, ShiftVowel of adaptivethan Shift supportingAnglo-Californiansthrough is dispersion on aLindblom’s thatdifferent ( Lindblomyoung-generation or theory the 1990 California of ;adaptiveLindblom Vowel dispersion and Shift Engstrand (Lindblomis on 1989a different), 1990; Lindblom and Engstrand 1989), trajectory forKoreans these havespeakers.1 Departmenta seven-vowel Possible of Spanish systemwhichexplanat1 Departmentand trajectorywith proposesions Portuguese, one in mid-frontofrelationfor thatSpanish Univerthesespeakers toandvowelsity speakers.second-generation Portuguese,of California,/e/ control (Kwakwhich Possible Univer Los 2003). suproposes Angeles,ffi sityexplanatcientKorean of California, thatCA perceptual ions 90095, speakers in Los USArelation Angeles, contrast control to CA sufficient betweensecond-generation 90095, USA perceptual phonemes, Korean contrast between phonemes, while Americans’ intersecting 2gender, Independent ethnic, Scholar, andwhile racial2 Santa Independent monitoringAmericans’ identities, Clara, CA aScholar, and intersecting95050, tradeo suggestions USA;Santaff between [email protected], gender, for articulatoryCAmonitoring future ethnic, 95050, research USA;and economy a racial [email protected] are identities, and between perceptual and articulatory suggestions distinctiveness. econom for futureYangy and (research1996 perceptual) are distinctiveness. Yang (1996) discussed. * Correspondence: [email protected]* Correspondence:discussed. that the English [email protected] vowel space is characterizedargued that the by theEnglish vertical vowel expansion space of is low characte vowelsrized resembling by the vertical expansion of low vowels Received: 24 September a rectangle, Received: 2020; Accepted: whereas24 September 2 November the 2020; Korean Accepted:2020; vowel Published:resembling 2 space November 6 isNovember characterizeda rectangle, 2020; Published: 2020 whereas by 6 the November the horizontal Korean 2020 vowel expansion space of is highcharacterized by the horizontal expansion Keywords: Korean2 In some Americans; cases, front California roundedvowels Vowel vowelsKeywords: resemblingShift; /y/ and second /ø/ aKorean trianglemay language be Americans; (additionallyYang phonology; 1996of ).California highobserved Using bilingualism; vowels Lindblom Vowelin the resembling speech Shift;(1990, second p.of 21)oldera triangle formula language of(Yang perceptualphonology; 1996). distance, Usingbilingualism; Lindblom’s (1990, p. 21) formula of immigrant minoritygeneration speakers;Abstract: speakers, sound Thisbut change in studymodernYang Abstract: (investigates1996 Southimmigrant) demonstrated Korean This minoritythe thesestudy participation sounds thatinvestigates speakers; the are distance mostly inperceptualsound thethe replaced between participationchangeCalifornia distance, by the the two diphthongsVowel in extremeYang the Shift (1996)California [we] high by vowelsdemonstrated Korean Vowel/i / and Shift /thu/at wasby the largerKorean distance between the two extreme high and [wi], Americansrespectively in(Ahn Los and forAngeles. IversonAmericans Korean Five 2007; than groups in Kwak for Los English. Angeles.2003;of subjects Jang Given Fiveet participatedal. that groups2015).vowels Korean of in/i/subjects has aand picture more /u/ participated was vowelsnarrative larger in in thetask:for a highKoreanpicture first-, region 1.5- narrativethan of for the En task: vowelglish. first-, spaceGiven 1.5- that Korean has more vowels in the 3 Kang (2014), and specified second-generation these speakers(i.e.,, and/i, Koreanas, usecond-generation male/) than speakersAmericans, English born (i.e., Anglo- before Korean/i, u /1962Californians,), English-likeAmericans,high (i.e., birth-year-based),region andAnglo- fronting of the(non-immigrant) Californians,vowel of while/u/ spacewould in Jang (i.e.,and Korean be restricted/i,(non-immigrant) ɨ, u/)late than for English the Korean Korean (i.e.,/ u /i,late/, u/), English-like fronting of /u/ would et al. (2015),learners these speakers of English. weresince Results malelearners this and wouldshowed femaleof English. lead speakersa clear to Results an distinctionin overlap their showed 60swith (i.e., bebetween arestricted age-base theclear Korean earlydistinctiond). for Since vs./ the/ ,late causingthe Koreanbetween databilinguals; in perceptual Jang/u/, early sincewhile vs. confusion.this latethe bilinguals;would Thelead Englishwhile to an the overlap with the Korean /ɨ/, causing et al. (2015) were collected between 2014 and 2015, we speculate that these speakers were born between 1945 1. Introduction first-generation Korean/u/,first-generation on 1.Americans the Introduction other hand, and Korean the is freelate Americans lear to moveners perceptualshowed forwardand the apparentlate without confusion. learners signs encroaching showed ofThe Korean English apparent upon influence, the/u/, signs space on of th ofKoreane otherother influence, vowels hand, is free to move forward without and 1955. Over the past few decades,the 1.5- research and the onsecond-generation( Yangsecondthe 1996 1.5- language Over).and With the the Korean (L2) regardsecond-generation past phonology Americansfew to decades, the low has participated region, encroachingprovidedKoreanresearch Korean Americans on empirical in secondupon most only thepatterns participated language has space one of of vowel (L2)the other in Californiaphonology most /vowelsa/, whilepatterns (Yang has English of provided 19the96). hasCalifornia With twoempirical regard to the low region, Korean only evidence that early bilingualsVowel are Shift. generally However,vowels moreVowel evidence divergencesuccessful/æ /Shift.and that/ However, in/from. Thus,acquiringearly the thebilinguals divergenceAnglo-Californians KoreanL2 speech are/hasa /from ge cansounds onenerally bethe vowel placedwas thanAnglo-Californians more observed/a/, late in successful while the middle in English early in inwasacquiring bilinguals’thehas observed front-back two L2 vowels speech in dimensionearly /æ/ sounds andbilinguals’ / (i.e.,ɑ than/. Thus, late the Korean /a/ can be placed in bilinguals (Flege et al. 1995,speech. 1997; Similar Flege and to cornerthe MacKayspeech. latebilinguals of bilinguals, a2011; Similar regular Stevens (Flege tothe triangle) the 1.5-generationet 1999; lateal. 1995, without bilinguals,Yeni-Komshian 1997; crowdingthespeakers Flege the middle 1.5-generation andet did intoal. in MacKay not2000).the the systematicallyfront-back space speakers2011; of Stevens other dimension did distinguish vowels, not 1999; systematically (i.e., Yeni-Komshian whereas corner the of distinguish a English regular et al. 2000). triangle) without crowding into the Models in L2 phonology,prenasal such as Flege’sand non-prenasal (1995)/æ/ prenasaland SpeechModels/ //æ/.should andLearning inThe L2non-prenasal besecond-gener phonology, placed Model apart (SLM) /æ/. suchation to The and maintainasspace speakers Flege’ssecond-gener Best of and suother (1995)demonstratedffi Tyler’scient vowels, ationSpeech space speakers whereas Learning betweena split-/æ/ demonstratedthe them.Model Englishsystem, Yang (SLM) /æ/( 1996a andandsplit-/æ/) also /Bestɑ/ should found system,and Tyler’s be placed apart to maintain sufficient (2007) Perceptual Assimilationbut it Modelwas less (PAM)-L2, pronouncedthatbut the(2007) posiit perceptual was tthan thatPerceptual less forbilinguals’ pronounced distancethe AssimilationAnglo-Californians. L1 between and than L2 Modelspacefor/ iphones/ and the between(PAM)-L2, /TheseeAnglo-Californians. /interactand findings betweenthem. inposi Yangt thatsuggest/u/ and (1996)bilinguals’These /thato/ wasalsofindings age L1 largerfound of and suggest for thatL2 Englishphones the that perceptual thaninteractage of indistance between /i/ and /e/ and a common phonological space.arrival Thus, has athe strong developmentfor effectarrival Korean,a common on has ofimmigrant which L2 a strongphonologicalsounds is in minority lineeffect would with on space. depend speakers’ theimmigrant predictionsThus,between on participation thethe minority perceptualdevelopment/u/ of and the speakers’ theory/o/ in waslocal of of larger L2 participationsound adaptive sounds for change. English dispersionwould in Inlocal depend than (soundLindblom for on Korean, thechange. perceptual1990 which ;In is in line with the predictions of similarity to existing L1 sounds.the case That of the is, second-generation bilingualLindblomthesimilarity scase would and of the Engstrand assimilateKoreanto second-generationexisting American an 1989L1 L2 sounds.). sounds, That certain Koreanthe That is,to theory thean patterns is, AmericanL1 largerbilingual ofsound adaptive of distance the s,ifs certainwould California dispersion between patternsassimilate Vowel (Lindblom the of highan theShift L2 California and sound 1990; mid Lindblom to vowelsVowel an L1 Shiftsound inand Engstrand if 1989). That is, the larger the two are perceivedLanguages identicalwere 2020, even5 or, x FORif morethe PEER L2 pronounced EnglishREVIEWsoundwerethe is is evenperceivedtwo likely than aremore tofor perceived be as pronouncedthelinked a deviantAnglo-Californians identical to English variantthan distanceor forhaving ifof thethe the (i.e., Anglo-CaliforniansL2 betweenL1 intervening sound/ sound.ɪ/-lowering, isthe perceived laxhigh / vowelsɑ/-/ (i.e.,andɔ/ asmerger,4 / mid ofɪa/-lowering,/ and27deviant vowels /ʊ/-/, whilevariant /inɑ/-/ English Koreanɔ/ ofmerger, the doesisL1 likely/sound.ʊ/- to be linked to English having However, if an L2 sound andis perceptually /ʌ/-fronting). distinct notMoreover,and (Yang However,from /ʌ /-fronting).1996 existingthe). entire if an L1 L2Moreover,vowel sounds, sound space isbilinguals the perceptually of entireintervening the wouldsecond-generation vowel distinct create laxspace vowels from aof the existing /Koreanɪ/ second-generationand / ʊ L1Americans,/, whilesounds, Korean bilinguals Korean does Americans,notwould (Yang create 1996). a new category. Earlylower bilinguals andespecially more tend retracted tofemale be successful speakers, frontespeciallySincenew vowels at wascategory.simultaneously Korean female andmore doesmore Early frontedspeakers, not fr bilinguals ontedmaintaining have than was back tense-lax that moretend vowels oflanguage-internal tothefrontedSince vowel be Anglo-Californians.when successful Korean contraststhan the that actorsdoes at likesimultaneouslyof not playedthe the have TheseAnglo-Californians. English these tense-lax findings maintaining/i/-/ /vowel and /u contrastsThese/ language-internal-/ /, Korean findings like the English /i/-/ɪ/ and /u/-/ʊ/, Korean and cross-linguisticcharacters contrastssuggest than (Chang thatwhen etsecond-generation al.theyspeakers 2011) suggestplayedand because oftencross-linguistic non-Californthat demonstratetheyKorean second-generation begin Americansian contrasts establishing dicharacters.fficulty (ChangmayKoreanspeakers in L2 Although distinguishingbe sounds etAmericansin al.often a 2011) morewhenwithout demonstrate because these advancedmay a vowelsdoubtbe they difficultyin stage athesebegin ( Bakermore of inestablishing andthe advanceddistingu Trofimovichishing L2stage sounds these 2005of the vowels;when (Baker and Trofimovich 2005; performancesCalifornia are Vowelexaggerated, FlegeShiftCalifornia etthan they al. 1997 Anglo-Californiansreflect Vowel). Baker the Shift andvo calic Trofimovichthan changesorAnglo-Californians theFlege (California2005 that et) examinedareal. 1997). underwayVowel or theBakerthe Shift acoustic Californiain and isCalifornia, on propertiesTrofimovich a Voweldifferent of Shift Korean(2005) is onex andamined a Englishdifferent the acoustic properties of Korean and Languages 2020, 5, x; doi:namely FOR PEERtrajectory the REVIEW California for theseVowelvowels trajectory speakers.Shift.Languages produced 2020forPossible by, these5, x; early doi: explanatspeakers. FOR andwww.mdpi.com/journ PEER lateions REVIEW Korean-EnglishPossible Englishin relation explanatvowelsal/languages to bilinguals ionssecond-generationproduced in withrelation by varying early to Korean lengthsecond-generationandwww.mdpi.com/journ late of residenceKorean-English inKoreanal/languages the bilinguals with varying length of FigureAmericans’ 1, created intersecting fromUSAmericans’ (i.e., data gender, 1 yearof millennialethnic, andintersecting 7 years). and speakersracial gender, They identities, found reportedethnic,residence that andand thein suggestions racial in lateD’Onofrio the bilinguals, identities, US (i.e., for et future1 regardlessal.and year (2019) suggestions researchand 1 of7, years). their are for length Theyfuture offound research residence that are the late bilinguals, regardless of their demonstratesdiscussed. the vocalic inchanges thediscussed. US, involved produced in thethe EnglishCalifornia/i/ andVowellength/ / andShift. of theresidence The English California in/ theu/ and US,Vowel/ produced/ as Shift two singlethe English categories /i/ and which /ɪ/ and the English /u/ and /ʊ/ as two single is characterized by threeacoustically main phenomena: overlapped (1) the with low-back the Korean categoriesmerger/i/ (= Englishof which/ɑ/ (e.g.,/ i,acoustically /)bot and) and the /overlapped Koreanɔ/ (e.g., /u/ or with/ / ( the=English Korean/u, /i/ (=English/). /i, ɪ/) and the Korean /u/ or /ɨ/ bought),Keywords: (2) the lowering Korean andThe Americans; Keywords:retraction late bilinguals ofCalifornia Korean lax also front Americans; produced Vowelvowels Shift; / theɪ/ California(e.g., English (=Englishsecond bit), / ɛlanguageVowel/ /u,and(e.g., ʊ/)./ æbetShift; / Thephonology;as), and a secondlate single /æ/ bilinguals (e.g., category,language bilingualism; bat ),also butphonology; produced they were bilingualism;the dissimilar English / ɛ/ and /æ/ as a single category, but and (3) immigrantthe fronting minority of high-from speakers;andimmigrant the mid-back Korean sound minority/ vowelse/ change(merged speakers; /u/ (e.g., with soundboot thethey), Korean / ʊchange/ were(e.g.,/ / book).dissimilar That), /o/ is, (e.g., thefrom lateboat the bilinguals), andKorean /ʌ/ assimilated/e/ (merged thewith English the Korean /ɛ/). That is, the late bilinguals (e.g., but ) (D’Onofrio et al./i, 2016; / to theD’Onofrio Korean et/i al./ and 2019; assimilated Hagiwaraassimilated the 1997; English Hall-Lew the/u, English 2009;/ to the Hall-Lew /i, Korean ɪ/ to the et/u /al.Korean, while they/i/ and created assimilated a new the English /u, ʊ/ to the Korean /u/, 2015; Hinton et al. 1987; vowelKennedy category and Grama for the merged2012; Podesva English whileet/ /-al./æ /they2015).(Baker created Following and Trofimovicha new the vowel pattern 2005 category ).of As forfor thethe earlymerged bilinguals, English /ɛ/-/æ/ (Baker and Trofimovich 2005). General American EnglishBaker presented and Trofimovich in The Atlas(2005 of) North found American that,As for regardless the English early of bilinguals,(Labov the length et al.Baker of 2006), residence, and Trofimovich they produced (2005) the found that, regardless of the length of prenasal1. Introduction /æ/ in California English 1.English Introduction/i/ isand tensed,/ / distinctly resulting and in theira splitresidence, English between/i /theyoverlapped tensed produced /æ/ within the a prenasal theirEnglish Korean /i/ and/i/ ./ɪ/ As distinctly for the otherand their English /i/ overlapped with their context (e.g.,Over ban the) and past lowered fewvowel decades, contrasts,/æ/Over elsewhere the research past the early few(Eckert on seconddecades, bilinguals 2008). language research With whoKorean residedregard (L2) on /i/.second phonology to inAs the for language USback the has for othervowels oneprovided (L2) vowel year phonology/u/ demonstrated and empiricalcontrasts, has the provided similar early bilinguals patternsempirical who resided in the US for one year /o/, theevidence fronting that is more early advanced asbilingualsevidence the late after bilingualsarethat gea early coronalnerally bilinguals (i.e., moreconsonant merged successful are English(e.g.,gedemonstratednerally tooin / acquiringandu /more-/ toe/ and )successfulsimilar due L2 merged speechto patternsits inhigh English soundsacquiring F2as (i.e.,the /than/ - late/L2 æ /late ),speech bilinguals whereas sounds those(i.e., than merged with late English /u/-/ʊ/ and merged English fronted)bilinguals environment (Flege andet longeral. bilingualsprohibited 1995, length 1997; (Flege when of Flege residence etfo and al.llowed 1995,MacKay successfully by 1997; the 2011; Flegevelarized/ɛ distinguished /-/æ/),Stevens and whereas MacKaycoda 1999; /-l/ these Yeni-Komshian those 2011;(e.g., contrasts. with Stevenscool longerand For1999; etgoal al.length the), Yeni-Komshian 2000). latter of reside group,nce the et successfully Englishal. 2000). distinguished these contrasts. For becauseModels of its lowin L2 F2 phonology, (i.e.,/ uretracted)/Modelsoverlapped such in environment asL2 withFlege’s phonology, the (1995) Korean (Hall-Lew such Speech/u /as, but 2011).Flege’s Learningthe the latter English (1995) Modelgroup, /Speech/ was(SLM) the producedEnglishLearning and Best /u/ Model as overlappedand a separate Tyler’s(SLM) category. withand Bestthe Korean Bothand earlyTyler’s /u/, but the English /ʊ/ was produced as (2007) Perceptual Assimilationbilingual(2007) Perceptual groups Model produced (PAM)-L2,Assimilation the posi English Modelt thata /separate / (PAM)-L2,bilinguals’as the Koreancategory. posiL1 and/te /that .Both Thus,L2 bilinguals’ phones early while bilingual interact the L1 adult and ingroups L2 bilinguals phones produced whointeract had the in English /ɪ/ as the Korean /e/. Thus, a common phonologicalthreea common space. categories Thus, phonological for the the development six Englishspace. Thus, vowels of whileL2 the sounds/i, development the, u, adult would, , æ bilinguals/ (i.e., depend of L2 merged sounds on who the/i / -hadwould /perceptual/, mergedthree depend categories /u/- /on/, the and for perceptual merged the six English vowels /i, ɪ, u, ʊ, ɛ, æ/ (i.e., similarity to existing/ / -similarityL1/æ /sounds.), the recently-arrived to That existing is, bilingual L1 sounds. earlys would bilinguals Thatmerged assimilateis, hadbilingual /i/-/ fourɪ /,an categoriessmerged L2would sound assimilate/u/-/ (i.e., toʊ an/,/i / and,L1/ /an ,sound mergedmerged L2 sound if /u/ɛ//-/æ/),- /to/ ,an and L1the merged sound recently-arrived if early bilinguals had four the two are perceived/ /the- /identicalæ/ ),two and are theor perceived if early the L2 bilinguals soundidentical is with perceivedor if longercategories the L2 lengthas sound a (i.e.,deviant of is/i/, residence perceived / ɪvariant/, merged distinguished ofas the/u/-/ a deviant L1ʊ/, sound.and allvariant merged six vowels. of / ɛthe/-/æ/), L1 andsound. the early bilinguals with longer length However, if an L2 soundHowever, is perceptually if an L2 sound distinct is perceptuallyfrom existingof residence distinct L1 sounds, distinguished from bilinguals existing all L1 would six sounds, vowels. create bilinguals a would create a new category. Early bilingualsnew category. tend Earlyto be successfulbilinguals attend simultaneously to be successful maintaining at simultaneously language-internal maintaining language-internal and cross-linguistic contrastsand cross-linguistic (Chang et al.contrasts 2011) because (Chang2. Thetheyet al. Presentbegin 2011) establishing becauseStudy they L2 begin sounds establishing when L2 sounds when The goal of this study is to examine whether Korean Americans in Los Angeles participate in the Languages 2020, 5, x; doi: FORLanguages PEER REVIEW2020, 5, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEWCalifornia Vowelwww.mdpi.com/journ Shift. We focus al/languageson www.mdpi.com/journfour vowel changesal/languages involved in the California Vowel Shift: (1)

Figure 1. California Vowel Shift (adapted from D’Onofrio et al. (2019)).

While the California Vowel Shift has been understood as a chain shift affecting the front lax vowels /ɪ/, /ɛ/, and /æ/, the cause of the chain shift is under debate. Similar to the Canadian Vowel Shift in which /ɪ/, /ɛ/, and /æ/ are lowered due to the merging of /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ (Clarke et al. 1995), the lowering of /ɪ/, /ɛ/, and /æ/ in California English may also be the result of a pull-chain initiated by the /ɑ/-/ɔ/ merger. However, Kennedy and Grama (2012) found that some young California English speakers demonstrated the chain-shifted lowering of the front lax vowels, while maintaining /ɑ/ in the traditional low-central position in the vowel space. Moreover, while both male and female speakers exhibited similar F1 values for /ɪ/ and /ɛ/, the female speakers produced higher F1 values (i.e., lower vowel height) for /æ/ than the male speakers. Since women generally are leaders of linguistic change (Coates 1993; Labov 1990; Milroy and Milroy 1985; Trudgill 1972), the gender difference indicates that /æ/ is the most recent step of the chain shift (Kennedy and Grama 2012). Thus, Kennedy and Grama (2012) suggested an alternative explanation to the chain shift which involves a push-chain initiated by the lowering of /ɪ/, resulting in the lowering of /ɛ/ and subsequently the lowering of /æ/. This process is likely to be independent of the /ɑ/-/ɔ/ merger which in some cases

1 Figure 1 was created based on the data of millennial speakers reported in Table A1 in D’Onofrio et al. (2019). Note that BOOK-type tokens (i.e., /ʊ/) were not examined in D’Onofrio et al. (2019), thus, we added the fronting of /ʊ/ in Figure 1 based on previous studies on the California Vowel Shift (e.g., (Podesva et al. 2015; Pratt and D’Onofrio 2017)).

Article Article(Divergent) ArticleArticle Participation in the California Vowel (Divergent)(Divergent)(Divergent) Participation Participation Participation in the California in in the the California VowelCalifornia Vowel Vowel Shift by Korean Americans in Southern California Shift by KoreanShiftShift by byAmericans Korean Korean Americans Americansin Southern in in CaliforniaSouthern Southern California California Ji Young Kim 1,* and Nicole Wong 2 Ji Young Kim 1,* andJi JiYoung Nicole Young Kim Wong Kim 1,* 1, and2* and Nicole Nicole Wong Wong 2 2 1 Department of Spanish and Portuguese, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA 1 2 Department Independent of SpanishScholar,1 1 Department Department andSanta Portuguese, Clara, of ofSpanish CA Spanish 95050,Univer and and USA;sity Portuguese, Portuguese, of [email protected] California, Univer Univer Lossity Angeles,sity of ofCalifornia, California, CA 90095, Los Los USAAngeles, Angeles, CA CA 90095, 90095, USA USA 2 * Independent Correspondence: Scholar,2 [email protected] Independent Santa Independent Clara, Scholar, CA Scholar, 95050, Santa Santa USA; Clara, Clara, [email protected] CA CA 95050, 95050, USA; USA; [email protected] [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]* *Correspondence: Correspondence: [email protected] [email protected] Received: 24 September 2020; Accepted: 2 November 2020; Published: 6 November 2020 Received: 24 SeptemberReceived:Received: 2020; Accepted:24 24September September 2 November 2020; 2020; Accepted: Accepted: 2020; Published: 2 November 2 November 6 November 2020; 2020; Published: Published: 2020 6 November 6 November 2020 2020 Abstract: This study investigates the participation in the California Vowel Shift by Korean Abstract:Americans This in LosstudyAbstract: Angeles.Abstract: investigates ThisFive This groupsstudy thestudy participation ofinvestigates investigatessubjects participated thein the theparticipation participation California in a picture in Vowel in thenarrative the California ShiftCalifornia task: by first-,KoreanVowel Vowel 1.5- Shift Shift by by Korean Korean Americans, and second-generation in Los Angeles.AmericansAmericans KoreanFive in ingroupsLos LosAmericans, Angeles. Angeles. of subjects Five Anglo- Five groupsparticipated groupsCalifornians, of ofsubjects subjects in a pictureand participated participated (non-immigrant) narrative in ina task: picturea picture Koreanfirst-, narrative narrative1.5- late task: task: first-, first-, 1.5- 1.5- , andlearnersLanguages second-generation 2020of English., 5, x FOR, and, and ResultsPEER second-generation Korean second-generation REVIEW showed Americans, a clear Korean Anglo-Korean distinction Americans,Californians, Americans, between Anglo- Anglo-and early (non-immigrant)Californians, Californians,vs. late bilinguals; and and Korean (non-immigrant) (non-immigrant) while late 4the of 27 Korean Korean late late learnersfirst-generation of English. Koreanlearners Resultslearners Americans of showed ofEnglish. English. aand Resultsclear Results the distinction late showed showedlearners abetween clearashowed clear distinction distinctionearly apparent vs. betweenlate signs between bilinguals; of earlyKorean early vs. while vs.influence, late late the bilinguals; bilinguals; while while the the first-generationthelower 1.5- and and more the Korean second-generationfirst-generation retractedfirst-generation Americans front vowelsKorean and Korean the andAmericans late Americans more learners fr andonted andshowedparticipated the theback late late apparent learvowels lear inners mostners when signsshowed showedpatterns ofthe Korean apparent actors apparent of the influence,played California signs signs ofthese ofKorean Korean influence, influence, theVowelcharacters 1.5- and Shift. the than However, second-generation theLanguageswhenthe 1.5- 1.5- divergencetheyand2020 and the, played5 ,the 53 second-generation Korean second-generation from non-Californ Americans the Anglo-Californiansian Korean participated Korean characters. Americans Americans in wasAlthough most observedparticipated participatedpatterns without in of earlyin the in mosta Californiamost doubtbilinguals’ patterns patterns these of ofthe the California California8 of 27 Vowelspeech.performances Shift. Similar However, are toVowel theVowelexaggerated, latedivergence Shift. Shift.bilinguals, However, However, they from the reflect the divergence1.5-generation divergence Anglo-Californians the vo fromcalic from speakers changesthe the Anglo-Californians wasAnglo-Californians did that observed not are systematically underway in early was was observedbilinguals’in distinguish observed California, in in early early bilinguals’ bilinguals’ speech.prenasalnamely Similar the and California tonon-prenasal thespeech.speech. late Vowel bilinguals,Similar Similar /æ/. Shift. toThe tothe the thesecond-gener late 1.5-generation late bilinguals, bilinguals,ation thespeakers thespeakers 1.5-generation 1.5-generation did demonstrated not systematically speakers speakers a did split-/æ/ did notdistinguish not systematically systematicallysystem, distinguish distinguish 2. The Present Study prenasalbut itFigure was and less non-prenasal1, createdpronouncedprenasalprenasal from and/æ/. and than non-prenasalThedata non-prenasal for second-generof themillennial Anglo-Californians. /æ/. /æ/. ationThe Thespeakers second-gener speakers second-gener reported Thesedemonstratedationation findingsin speakers D’Onofriospeakers asuggest split-/æ/ demonstrated demonstrated et that al.system, (2019)age aof split-/æ/a1 , split-/æ/ system, system, butarrivaldemonstrates it was has less a strong pronouncedthebut vocalicbut effectitThe itwas was changes goalon thanless immigrantless of pronouncedfor this involvedpronounced the study Anglo-Californians.minority in isthan the tothan examine speakers’Californiafor for the the whetherAnglo-Californians. participation Anglo-Californians.VowelThese KoreanShift.findings inThe Americanslocal suggest California These soundThese thatfindings in findingschange.Vowel Losage Angeles of suggestShift In suggest participatethat that age age of in of arrivaltheis characterized case has of a thestrong second-generation arrivaltheby effectarrival Californiathree has on hasmain immigranta stronga Vowelstrong phenomena: Korean effect Shift.effectminority American on Weon (1)immigrant immigrant focusspeakers’ thes, low-backcertain on minority four participation minority patterns vowelmerger speakers’ speakers’ changes of ofin the /localɑ /Californiaparticipation (e.g., involvedparticipation sound bot ) change. Vowel inand in the in/localɔ California/Shift local In(e.g., sound sound Vowelchange. change. Shift: In In thewerebought case even ),of (2) the more the second-generation lowering the(1)pronouncedthe thecase case lowering andof ofthe retractionthethan second-generation Korean andsecond-generation for retraction the of American laxAnglo-Californians front of s, Korean frontvowels certainKorean lax American/ ɪpatterns vowels/American (e.g., (i.e., bit / ɪs,of),/-lowering,/, s,certain /theɛ /certain, (e.g., and California patterns /betæ patterns //ɑ),,/-/ (2)andɔ Vowel/ the of merger,/æ/ ofthe split (e.g.,the ShiftCalifornia between California/ ʊbat /- ), Vowel non-prenasal Vowel Shift Shift wereandand even /(3)ʌ/-fronting). the more fronting pronouncedwere/æ Moreover,were/ ofand even high- even prenasal morethan and themore mid-backforpronouncedentire/ æNpronounced the/ , vowelAnglo-Californians (3) vowels the thanspace than merging /u/ for of for(e.g., the the the of Anglo-Californiansboot second-generation low(i.e.,Anglo-Californians), / back/ʊɪ/-lowering,/ (e.g., vowels book), / / (i.e.,ɑ/o/Korean /-//(i.e.,-/ (e.g.,ɔ /, ɪ/-lowering,merger, and/ɪ /-lowering, Americans,boat (4)), and/ theʊ/- / ɑ fronting/ ʌ/-// ɑ/ /-/ɔ/ ɔmerger,/ merger, of /u /,ʊ /-/ʊ /-/, andespecially(e.g., /ʌ/-fronting). but) (D’Onofriofemale andMoreover,and speakers,and /etʌ /-fronting)./ .ʌal. If/-fronting). 2016; Korean thewas entire D’Onofriomore Moreover, Americans Moreover, vowelfronted et spaceal.the dothan the2019; notentire ofentirethat exhibit Hagiwarathe vowelof second-generationvowel the the spaceAnglo-Californians. above-mentioned1997; space ofHall-Lew ofthe the second-generation Korean second-generation 2009; patterns, These Americans,Hall-Lew findings we exploreKoreanet Koreanal. whetherAmericans, Americans, their especiallysuggest2015; Hinton femalethat second-generationet speakers,especiallyresistanceal.especially 1987; Kennedywas tofemale female local more Korean soundspeakers, and speakers,fronted Grama changeAmericans wasthan was 2012; canmore that more be Podesvamay offronted explained frontedthe be Anglo-Californians. etthanin than throughal.a thatmore2015). that of influence ofadvancedFollowingthe the Anglo-Californians. Anglo-Californians.These from stagethe findings Korean pattern of the phonology. of These These findings Tofindings better suggestCaliforniaGeneral that American Vowelsecond-generationsuggestunderstand suggestShift English thanthat that presented this, Anglo-Californianssecond-generation Koreansecond-generation we compare in Americans The KoreanAtlas Koreanor Koreanof maythe Americans North CaliforniabeAmericans Americans inAmerican a of more threeVowel may mayEnglish generationsadvanced Shiftbe be in (Labov inisa stageonamore (first-generation, morea et different ofal.advanced advanced the2006), 1.5-generation,stage stage of ofthe the Californiatrajectoryprenasal Vowel /æ/for inthese CaliforniaCaliforniaandShiftCalifornia second-generation)speakers.than VowelEnglishAnglo-Californians Vowel Possible Shift is Shift tensed, than withexplanatthan Anglo-Californiansresulting Anglo-CaliforniansAnglo-Californiansor ionsthe Californiainin arelation split betweenorVowel andtoor the second-generationthe Korean CaliforniaShift tensedCalifornia is international on/æ/ Vowel a Vowelin different a KoreanprenasalShift studentsShift is is on on whoa adifferent different are late trajectoryAmericans’context (e.g.,for intersecting thesebantrajectorybilinguals.) trajectory andspeakers. lowered gender, for We for Possible these predicted/æ/ ethnic,these elsewhere speakers. andexplanatspeakers. that, racial (Eckert due ionsPossible identities,Possible to agein2008). relation eexplanatff ects,andexplanatWith suggestionsfirst-generation regardtoions ionssecond-generation in to in relationthe forrelation backfuture speakers tovowels toresearchsecond-generation Koreansecond-generation (i.e., /u/ late are and bilinguals) Korean Korean would Americans’discussed./o/, the fronting intersecting Americans’demonstrateis Americans’more gender, advanced intersecting stronger intersectingethnic, after and influence agender, racialcoronal gender, fromidentities, ethnic, consonant ethnic, Korean and andand racial phonology(e.g., racialsuggestions identities,too identities, and than toe for and) 1.5- duefutureand suggestions and tosuggestions researchits second-generation high forF2 are for (i.e.,future future research speakers research are (i.e., are discussed.fronted) environmentdiscussed.earlydiscussed. bilinguals)and prohibited and, thus, when participate followed lessby the in the velarized California coda Vowel /-l/ (e.g., Shift. cool Regarding and goal the), early bilinguals, Keywords:because of itsKorean lowinfluence F2 Americans; (i.e., retracted) from California Korean environment phonology, Vowel Shift;(Hall-Lew if any, second would 2011). language appear tophonology; a lesser extent bilingualism; for the second-generation Keywords:immigrant Korean minorityKeywords:speakers Americans;Keywords: speakers; than Korean CaliforniaKoreansound for the Americans; change 1.5-generationAmericans; Vowel Shift;California California speakers. second Vowel Vowellanguage Shift; Shift; phonology;second second language language bilingualism; phonology; phonology; bilingualism; bilingualism; immigrant minorityimmigrant immigrantspeakers;With respect minority sound minority to changepatterns speakers; speakers; reflecting sound sound change influence change from Korean phonology, we base our predictions on the findings of Korean-English late bilinguals (Baker and Trofimovich 2005) and cross-linguistic differences between Korean and English vowels (Baker and Trofimovich 2005; Yang 1996; Yoon and Kim 2015). 1. Introduction Regarding the lowering and retraction of / /, we predicted that, if influence from Korean phonology 1. Introduction 1. 1.Introduction Introduction Over the pastoccurs, few decades, Korean research Americans on second would language merge this (L2) vowel phonology with / ihas/, thus provided they would empirical not participate in the evidenceOver the that past early fewlowering bilinguals decades,OverOver the and the researcharepast retraction past ge fewnerally few ondecades, decades, ofsecond more/ /. Moreover, research languagesuccessful research on Korean (L2)on secondin secondacquiring phonology Americans language language L2 has speech would(L2) provided(L2) phonology sounds createphonology empirical a than new has has late singleprovided provided / /-/ æempirical/ empiricalcategory evidencebilinguals that (Flege earlyevidence et bilingualsinevidence al. which 1995, that /that1997;areæ /early merges geearly Flegenerally bilinguals bilinguals withand more MacKay/ are/ successful( areBaker ge ge nerally2011;nerally and inStevens Trofimovichmore acquiring more successful 1999; successful L2 Yeni-Komshian2005 speech in). inacquiring Thus, acquiringsounds when etL2than al.L2 speech examining 2000).speechlate sounds sounds these than than vowels late late bilingualsModels in(Flege L2 phonology, etbilinguals al.separately,bilinguals 1995, such 1997;(Flege (Flege Korean as Flege etFlege’s etal. Americans’ andal. 1995, 1995,(1995) MacKay 1997; 1997; Speech/ Flege/ 2011;may Flege Learningand demonstrateStevens and MacKay MacKay 1999;Model 2011; lowering Yeni-Komshian 2011; (SLM) Stevens Stevens and 1999; retraction,Best 1999; et and Yeni-Komshianal. Yeni-Komshian 2000). Tyler’s but their /æ et/ wouldetal. al. 2000). 2000). not, Models(2007) inPerceptual L2 phonology,Models becauseAssimilationModels suchin itinL2 would L2as phonology, Model Flege’sphonology, be positioned(PAM)-L2, (1995) such such Speech as higheras posiFlege’s Flege’s Learningt that in (1995) the (1995)bilinguals’ vowel Model Speech Speech space (SLM)L1 Learning Learningand due and L2 to ModelphonesBest the Model merger and (SLM) interact (SLM)Tyler’s with and andin / Best/. Additionally,Best and and Tyler’s Tyler’s in (2007)a common Perceptual phonological Assimilation(2007)the(2007) case Perceptual space. Perceptual of theModel Thus, English Assimilation Assimilation (PAM)-L2,the development/æ/, Korean Modelposi Modelt Americansthat of(PAM)-L2, L2(PAM)-L2, bilinguals’ sounds would posi wouldposi L1t that nottand that depend exhibit bilinguals’L2 bilinguals’ phones on a split- the L1interact perceptualL1 /andæ /andsystem, L2 in L2 phones phones because interact interact Korean in in a commonsimilarity phonological to existinga doescommona common L1 space. not sounds. havephonological Thus,phonological anThat equivalentthe is, development space.bilingual space. phonological Thus, Thus,s would of the L2the development sounds assimilatedevelopment pattern. would With an of L2depend ofL2 regard L2 soundsounds sounds toon tothe thewould an would/ perceptual L1/-/ depend sound/ merger,depend ifon noon the Koreanthe perceptual perceptual vowel similaritythe two areto existing perceivedsimilarityacousticallysimilarity L1 identicalsounds. to toexisting overlaps Thatexistingor if is,the L1 bilingual L1with L2sounds. sounds.sound anys Thatof wouldis That theseperceived is, is, assimilatebilingual vowels. bilingual as asThe deviantanwoulds would L2 closest sound assimilatevariant assimilate vowels to anof an the areL1 an L2 soundL1 theL2 sound sound. Koreansound if to toan/a an/ L1(low L1 sound sound central) if if theHowever, two are perceivedif an L2theand thesound twoidentical two/ /are is(near-low are perceptuallyperceived orperceived if the back) L2identical identical distinctsound (Baker or isfrom et orperceivedif al.ifthe existing the2002 L2 L2 sound; as Trofimovichsound L1 a deviant sounds,is isperceived perceived variant etbilinguals al. as 2011 as ofa deviantathe ;would deviantTsukada L1 sound. variantcreate variant et al. a of 2005 ofthe the ).L1 L1 Thus, sound. sound. we However,new category. if an L2 Early However,soundpredictedHowever, bilinguals is perceptually if that, anif tendan L2 if L2 influencesoundto sound be distinct successful is isperceptually from perceptually from Korean at existing simultaneously distinct occurs, distinct L1 sounds, theyfrom from maintaining wouldexisting bilingualsexisting either L1 L1 language-internalsounds, would assimilate sounds, createbilinguals bilinguals both a the would Englishwould create create/ / and a a newand category. cross-linguistic Earlynew thebilingualsnew Figurecontrasts category. English category. 1. Californiatend /(Chang Early/ Earlyto to the bebilinguals Vowel et bilingualssuccessful Korean al. 2011)Shift tend/ a(adaptedtend /atbecause(Outcome simultaneouslyto tobe be successfulfrom theysuccessful 1:D’Onofrio begin Participation maintainingat atsimultaneouslyestablishing etsimultaneously al. (2019)). in language-internal/ /L2- / /maintainingsoundsmerger maintaining when but language-internal more language-internal fronted than and cross-linguisticand expected)andcontrasts cross-linguistic cross-linguistic or(Chang distinguish etcontrasts contrastsal. 2011) them (Chang because(Chang by assimilating et ettheyal. al. 2011) begin2011) the because establishingbecause English they /they/ tobegin L2 begin the sounds Koreanestablishing establishing when/a/ and L2 L2 assimilatingsounds sounds when when the LanguagesWhile 2020, 5the, x; doi:CaliforniaEnglish FOR PEER/ /Vowel toREVIEW the KoreanShift has/ /been(Outcome understood 2: No participationas a chainwww.mdpi.com/journ shift in / affecting/-/ / merger). theal/languages front As for lax the fronting of /u/ Languagesvowels 2020 /,ɪ /,5, x;/ɛ /,doi: Languagesand andFORLanguages /æ/, PEER/ /2020 ,the Korean2020 REVIEW, 5cause,, x;5, doi:x; Americans doi:of FOR theFOR PEER chainPEER REVIEW would REVIEW shift notis under participate debate. or www.mdpi.com/journSimilar participate to the less Canadian inal/languageswww.mdpi.com/journ thewww.mdpi.com/journ fronting Vowel of theseal/languagesal/languages vowels, Shift in which /ɪ/,because /ɛ/, and they /æ/ wouldare lowered assimilate due to both the vowels merging to theof /ɑ Korean/ and /ɔ/u/ /(Clarke(Baker et and al. Trofimovich 1995), the 2005) which is lowering of /ɪ/, /ɛfronted,/, and /æ/ but in not California to the same English extent may as also in English be the (resultKang of2014 a pull-chain; Yang 1996 initiated). Similarly, by the Korean Americans’ /ɑ/-/ɔ/ merger. However,English / /Kennedywould be and produced Grama more (2012) back found due tothat influence some young from theCalifornia Korean /English/ (Yang 1996). speakers demonstrated the chain-shifted lowering of the front lax vowels, while maintaining /ɑ/ in 2.1. Participants the traditional low-central position in the vowel space. Moreover, while both male and female speakers exhibited similarIn total, F1 values 37 Korean for /ɪ/ Americans, and /ɛ/, the 4female Korean speakers international produced students, higher F1 and values 5 Anglo-Americans (i.e., lower vowelparticipated height) for in /æ/ the than study. the The male Korean speakers. Americans Sincewere women residents generally of Los are Angeles leaders County of in Southern linguistic changeCalifornia (Coates 1993; and consistedLabov 1990; of three Milroy immigrant and Milroy generations: 1985; Trudgill first-generation 1972), the (GEN1),gender 1.5-generation difference indicates(GEN1.5), that /æ/ and is second-generationthe most recent step (GEN2). of the Thechain (Kennedy background and Grama of each 2012). group is presented in Thus, Kennedy Tableand Grama1. The GEN1(2012) groupsuggested (N =an8; alternative 4F, 4M) were explanation Koreans bornto the and chain raised shift in Southwhich Korea (Seoul: 6, involves a push-chainDaegu: initiated 1, Yeongju: by the 17 lowering) who immigrated of /ɪ/, resulting to the in US the as lowering adults (25.8 of / years).ɛ/ and subsequently They had spent an average of the lowering of /æ/.26.8 This years process in California is likely at to the be time independent of data collection of the /ɑ and/-/ɔ spoke/ merger both which English in some and Korean cases on a daily basis (English: 53.7%, Korean: 46.3%). They reported that they learned English (L2) during middle school or 1 Figure 1 was createdhigh school based on (12.8 the years)data ofand millennial rated theirspeakers English reported intermediate-level in Table A1 in D’Onofrio proficiency et al. (2.7) (2019). on a 5-point Likert Note that BOOK-type tokens (i.e., /ʊ/) were not examined in D’Onofrio et al. (2019), thus, we added the fronting of /ʊ/ in Figure 1 based on previous studies on the California Vowel Shift (e.g., (Podesva et al. 2015; Pratt and D’Onofrio 2017)). 7 Both and Yeongju are cities in North Gyeongsang region in South Korea. Languages 2020, 5, 53 9 of 27 scale (5 = native). The GEN1.5 group (N = 4; 1F, 3M) were also Koreans born in South Korea (Seoul: 1, unspecified: 3), but they immigrated to the US in late childhood (10.5 years). As the GEN1 group, the GEN1.5 speakers learned English as an L2 and lived in the US for a long period of time (13.3 years). However, they used English (90%) much more frequently than Korean (10%), and rated their English (5 out of 5) as proficient as or more proficient than their native Korean (4.3). The GEN2 group (N = 25; 15F, 10M) were Koreans who were either born in Los Angeles County (N = 19) or born in South Korea (N = 6; Seoul: 4, Daegu: 1, unspecified: 1) and moved to Los Angeles County at age 3 or younger. All of their parents were first-generation immigrants from Korea (Seoul and Gyeonggi: 13, Gyeongsang: 2, Jeolla: 1, Chungcheong: 1, mixed: 2, unspecified: 68). Seventeen of them were Korean-English early sequential bilinguals, while eight speakers acquired both languages simultaneously. Similar to the GEN1.5 group, the GEN2 speakers used English most of the time (English: 83.2%, Korean: 16.8%), but unlike the GEN1.5 group they rated their English proficiency (5 out of 5) much higher than their Korean proficiency (2.9 out of 5). Both the GEN1.5 and the GEN2 groups reported that, growing up, Korean was the main language of communication at home. In this study we also included 4 Korean international students (KOR) as a baseline for Korean-accented English. The KOR speakers were born and raised in Seoul, South Korea, and came to the US to complete their undergraduate or graduate studies. These speakers were very similar to the GEN1 speakers in that they arrived in the US as adults (22.8 years), were late L2 learners of English (12.5 years), and used both English and Korean on a daily basis (English: 47.5%, Korean: 52.5%). However, compared to the GEN1 speakers, they spent less time in the US (4 years). Thus, if phonetic transfer from L1 Korean to L2 English appears, it would be strongest in this group. Lastly, 5 Anglo-Americans (2F, 3M) participated in this study as a control group for California English. All of these speakers were born and raised in Southern California (2 in Los Angeles County, 3 in County). All participants read and signed a written informed consent form before they participated in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the protocol was approved by the School of Literatures, Cultures, and Linguistics Institutional Review Board (SLCL-IRB) of the University of at Urbana-Champaign.

Table 1. Participants’ language backgrounds (standard deviation is presented in parentheses).

GEN1 GEN1.5 GEN2 KOR CA (N = 8) (N = 4) (N = 25) (N = 4) (N = 5) Gender 4F, 4M 1F, 3M 15F, 10M 2F, 2M 2F, 3M Age (years) 49.5 (9.3) 23.8 (3.8) 24.7 (4.4) 26.8 (6.1) 30.8 (15.4) Age of arrival (years) 25.8 (5) 10.5 (1.7) 0.5 (0.9) 22.8 (7.1) - Length of residence (years) 26.8 (10.6) 13.3 (4.9) - 4 (4.3) - English use 53.7% (24.5) 90% (4) 83.2% (15.8) 47.5% (5) 82% (18.3) Korean use 46.3% (2.4) 10% (4) 16.8% (15.8) 52.5% (5) - English proficiency 2.7 (0.8) 5 (0) 5 (0.1) 3.7 (0.6) 5 (0) 1–5 (=Native) Korean proficiency 5 (0) 4.3 (1) 2.9 (0.7) 5 (0) - 1–5 (=Native)

2.2. Data Collection and Analysis Participants’ English speech data were collected during the spring and summer of 2012. In order to elicit different speech styles, we conducted a task (i.e., controlled speech) and a picture description task (i.e., narrative speech). For the reading task the participants read out loud a passage from Aesop’s fables The North Wind and the Sun and for the picture description task they narrated the story of a wordless picture book Frog, Where are ? (Mayer 1969). In this study we will only

8 The areas are divided by regions, indicated by the suffix Do in Korean, in which different varieties of Korean are spoken.

Article Article ArticleArticle Article (Divergent) Participation in the California Vowel (Divergent)(Divergent)(Divergent)(Divergent) Participation Participation Participation Participation in the in in Californiathe the in California theCalifornia California Vowel Vowel Vowel Vowel Shift by Korean Americans in Southern California ShiftShiftShift byShift Korean by by Korean Koreanby AmericansKorean Americans Americans Americans in Southern in in Southern Southern in Southern California California California California Ji Young Kim 1,* and Nicole Wong 2 Ji YoungJiJi YoungKim Young Ji1,* KimYoung andKim Nicole1, *1, *Kimand and NicoleWong1, Nicole* and 2WongNicole Wong 2 Wong2 2 1 Department of Spanish and Portuguese, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA 1 Department1 1 Department Department of1 Spanish Department of of Spanish andSpanish Portuguese, of Spanishand and Portuguese, Portuguese, and Univer Portuguese,sity Univer Univer of California,sity sityUniver of of California, California,sity Los of Angeles, California, Los Los Angeles, Angeles,CA Los 90095, Angeles, CA CA USA 90095, 90095, CA2 USA Independent USA90095, USA Scholar, Santa Clara, CA 95050, USA; [email protected] 2 Independent2 2 Independent Independent Scholar,2 Independent Scholar, SantaScholar, Clara, Scholar,Santa Santa CA Clara, Clara, Santa95050, CA CA Clara, USA; 95050, 95050, [email protected] USA; USA;95050, [email protected] [email protected] USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] * Correspondence:* * Correspondence:Correspondence:* Correspondence: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Received: 24 September 2020; Accepted: 2 November 2020; Published: 6 November 2020 Received:Received:Received: 24 SeptemberReceived: 24 24 September September 2020; 24 September Accepted: 2020; 2020; Accepted: Accepted: 22020; November Accepted: 2 2November November 2020; 2 November Published: 2020; 2020; Published: Published: 2020; 6 November Published: 6 6November November 2020 6 November 2020 2020 2020 Abstract: This study investigates the participation in the California Vowel Shift by Korean Languages 2020, 5, 53 10 of 27 Abstract:Abstract:Abstract: ThisAbstract: study ThisThis investigatesstudy studyThis investigatesstudyinvestigates the investigates participation thethe participationparticipation the inparticipation the inCaliforniain thethe inCaliforniaCalifornia theVowel California VowelShiftVowel byAmericansVowel ShiftShift Korean by byShift Korean Koreanin Losby KoreanAngeles. Five groups of subjects participated in a picture narrative task: first-, 1.5- AmericansAmericansAmericans in LosAmericans Angeles. in in Los Los Angeles. inAngeles. Five Los groups Angeles. Five Five groupsof groups Fivesubjects groupsof of subjects subjectsparticipated of subjects participated participated in participated a picture in in a a picturenarrative picture in a picturenarrative narrative task:, narrativefirst-,and task: task: second-generation 1.5- first-, first-, task: 1.5- 1.5- first-, 1.5- Korean Americans, Anglo-Californians, and (non-immigrant) Korean late , and second-generation, ,and and second-generation second-generation, and second-generation Korean Korean Americans,Korean KoreanAmericans, Americans, Anglo- Americans, Californians,Anglo- Anglo-report Californians,Anglo-Californians, our findingsandCalifornians, (non-immigrant) and and from (non-immigrant) (non-immigrant) the and narrative (non-immigrant) Koreanlearners speech. Korean lateKorean of English. Speech Koreanlate late productions Results late showed were audio-recordeda clear distinction using between an AKG early vs. late bilinguals; while the learnerslearners learnersof English.Languageslearners of of English. English.Results 2020 of , English.5 ,Results showedxResults FOR PEER Resultsshowed showeda clearREVIEW showed adistinction a clear clear distinctiona distinction clearC520 between distinction head-mounted between between early betweenvs. early early late microphone vs. bilinguals; vs.early late late vs.bilinguals; bilinguals; andfirst-generationlate while abilinguals; Zoom the while while H4n the the whileKorean digital 4 ofthe 27Americans recorder with and athe sampling late lear rateners ofshowed 44.1 kHz apparent signs of Korean influence, first-generationfirst-generationfirst-generationfirst-generation Korean Korean AmericansKorean KoreanAmericans Americans and Americans the and lateand the lear the andlate nerslate thelearand learshowed latenersners a samplelear showed showedapparentners size showed apparent apparent signs of 16 apparent of bits. signs Koreansigns The of of signs Koreanthe influence, recordingsKorean 1.5- of Koreanandinfluence, influence, the were influence,second-generation conducted in a quietKorean enclosed Americans space participated in various in most patterns of the California the 1.5-the andthe 1.5- 1.5-thelower theand second-generationand 1.5- the andthe andsecond-generation second-generation more the second-generationretracted Korean front Korean AmericansKorean vowels KoreanAmericans Americans andparticipatedlocations Americans more participated participated fr inonted in Los participatedmost Angelesback in patternsin most vowelsmost County inpatterns patterns of most when the (e.g., VowelpatternsCalifornia of theof the participants’ the actors Shift.California Californiaof the playedHowever, California home, these divergence furnished room from in the a church).Anglo-Californians In the case ofwas observed in early bilinguals’ Vowel VowelShift.Vowel However,characters Shift.Vowel Shift. However, However,Shift. divergencethan However, whendivergence divergence from they divergence the playedfrom from Anglo-Californians the the fromnon-Californ Anglo-Californians Anglo-Californianstwo the KORAnglo-Californiansian speakerswas characters. observed was was and observed twoobserved Althoughwasin CAearly observed speakers,in inbilinguals’speech. early withoutearly in bilinguals’ the Similarbilinguals’early a recordings doubt bilinguals’ to the these late were bilinguals, conducted the in 1.5-generation a sound-attenuated speakers booth did not systematically distinguish speech.speech. Similarspeech.performances speech.Similar toSimilar the late Similarto to the bilinguals,the are late lateto exaggerated, thebilinguals, bilinguals, late the bilinguals,1.5-generation the thethey 1.5-generation 1.5-generation reflecttheat 1.5-generationspeakers a publicthe speakersvo speakers didcalic university not speakerschanges did systematicallydid innot not Illinois didthatsystematically systematically not are (KOR: systematicallydistinguish prenasalunderway 2, distinguish CA: distinguish and 1)in9 distinguishnon-prenasalandCalifornia, in Arizona /æ/. (CA: The 1) 10second-gener. After completingation speakers the tasks, demonstrated a split-/æ/ system, prenasalprenasalprenasal and namelynon-prenasalprenasal and and non-prenasal thenon-prenasal and California /æ/.non-prenasal The /æ/. Vowel/æ/. second-gener The The /æ/. Shift. second-gener second-gener The ation second-generthe speakersation participantsation speakers speakers ationdemonstrated filledspeakers demonstrated demonstrated out demonstrated a languagesplit-/æ/ a buta split-/æ/ split-/æ/ system, backgroundit awas split-/æ/ system, system,less questionnaire.pronounced system, than for the Anglo-Californians. These findings suggest that age of but it wasbutbut itless it was butwas pronounced Figureless itless was pronounced pronounced less1, thancreated pronounced for than than fromthe for Anglo-Californians. forthandata the the forAnglo-Californians.of Anglo-Californians. millennialthe Anglo-Californians.Participants’ Thesespeakers findingsThese These speech reported findings Thesefindings wassuggest orthographically infindings suggest suggestD’Onofriothatarrival age suggest that hasthat of transcribed et age aage strongal.that of of(2019) age effect on of1 Praat, on TextGridsimmigrant (Boersma minority and speakers’ Weenink participation 2020) in local sound change. In arrival arrivalhasarrival a strongdemonstrates hasarrival has a a effectstrong strong has aon effect strongtheeffect immigrant vocalic on oneffect immigrant immigrant changes minorityon immigrant involvedminority minority speakers’and minority inspeakers’ speakers’ forced theparticipation California speakers’ alignmentparticipation participation in Vowelparticipation local was in Shift.soundin performedlocal local The inchange.thesound sound localCalifornia case using change. sound change.Inof the the Vowel change. second-generationIn MontrealIn Shift In Forced Korean Aligner American (McAuliffs,e certain et al. 2017 patterns), of the California Vowel Shift the casethe theof casethe caseis thesecond-generation ofcharacterized of thecase the second-generation second-generationof the second-generation by threeKorean main Korean AmericanKorean phenomena: KoreanAmerican Americans, certainwhich American s,(1)s, certain generatedpatterns certainthe s,low-back patternscertain patterns of a the word patternsCaliforniamerger of of tier the the and California Californiaof aVowelthe/ɑwere phone/ (e.g.,California evenShiftVowel Vowel tier. bot )more We and ShiftVowel Shift extracted pronounced/ ɔ / Shift(e.g., the F1 than and for the the F2 valuesAnglo-Californians at the midpoint (i.e., of /ɪ/-lowering, /ɑ/-/ɔ/ merger, /ʊ/- were evenwerewere more even boughtevenwere pronounced more more ),even (2) pronounced the pronouncedmore lowering than pronounced for than andthanthe forretractionAnglo-Californians for than the the Anglo-Californiansfor Anglo-Californians ofthe9 lax EnglishAnglo-Californians front (i.e., vowels monophthongs /ɪ/-lowering, (i.e., (i.e., /ɪ/ (e.g.,/ ɪ//-lowering,ɪ /-lowering,(i.e., bit //i,ɑ ),//-/ɪ /-lowering,,/ɛɔ,/ æ,(e.g., merger,/ ɑand/ɑ/-//-/, ɔbet /,ɔ/ /ʌmerger, ), /-fronting).,/merger,/ɑ ʊand/-//-, u ɔ// /æ/ andmerger, / ʊ/ ʊ(e.g.,/- the/- Moreover, durations bat/ʊ/-), the of entire these vowelsvowel usingspace aof Praat the second-generation script. Korean Americans, and /ʌ/-fronting).andand / ʌ/ʌand/-fronting).and/-fronting). (3)Moreover, /ʌ /-fronting).the frontingMoreover, Moreover, the Moreover, entireof high-the the vowelentire entireand the mid-back spacevowel entirevowel of space Forvowelspace thevowels convenience second-generationof ofspace the /u/the (e.g.,second-generation ofsecond-generation the purposes, boot second-generation), / ʊKorean/ we(e.g., classified Korean bookAmericans,Koreanespecially), /o/ Korean theAmericans, Americans,(e.g., vowels female boat Americans,), using speakers,and the/ʌ/ ARPAbet was more symbols: fronted IY than (=/i /),that IH of (=/ the/), EHAnglo-Californians. These findings especiallyespeciallyespecially female(e.g.,especially femalespeakers, femalebut) (D’Onofrio speakers,female speakers, was speakers,more etwas was al. fronted more2016; more was D’Onofriofronted thanfrontedmore that frontedthan (than=/ etof/ al.),thatthe that AE than2019; Anglo-Californians.of (=/of thethat æHagiwarathe/), Anglo-Californians. AAofAnglo-Californians. the (=/ 1997;Anglo-Californians./), AO Hall-LewThese (=/suggest/ ), findingsThese AHThese 2009; ( =/ thatfindings Thesefindings Hall-Lew/), UHsecond-generation findings ( =/ et/ )al., and UW (Korean=/u/). For Americans AE, we further may dividedbe in a more advanced stage of the suggestsuggest suggestthat 2015;second-generationsuggest thatthat Hinton second-generationsecond-generation that etsecond-generation al. 1987;Korean Kennedy Korean KoreanAmericans Koreanand AmericansAmericans Gramamaythem Americans be into 2012;may mayin AE a bePodesva be andmaymore inin AEN a bea advanced moreet morein basedal. a 2015). advancedadvancedmore onstage whetherCalifornia Followingadvanced of stagestage the they Voweloftheofstage preceded the patternthe Shiftof the aofthan non-nasal Anglo-Californians or a . or the ACalifornia total of Vowel Shift is on a different CaliforniaCaliforniaCalifornia VowelGeneralCalifornia Vowel ShiftVowel American than VowelShift Shift Anglo-Californians than thanEnglishShift Anglo-Californians Anglo-Californiansthan presented Anglo-Californians or in the 28,948The or Californiaor Atlasthe tokensthe California orofCalifornia weretheNorthVowel California obtained. AmericanVowel ShiftVowel is InVowelShift Shifton thisEnglish atrajectoryis study,isdifferent Shifton on (Labova wea isdifferent different on onlyfor et atheseconsidered al.different 2006), speakers. vowels Possible with primary explanat stressions and in excluded relation to second-generation Korean trajectorytrajectorytrajectory forprenasal trajectorythese forfor speakers. these/æ/these for in speakers. thesespeakers.California Possible speakers. Possible PossibleEnglishexplanat Possible explanatisexplanations tensed,vowels inexplanations ions relationresulting produced ininions relation relationto in in second-generationa in relation split fillerstoto second-generationbetweensecond-generation (e.g., to second-generationum Americans’tensed) orKorean monosyllabic /æ/ Korean Korean intersectingin a prenasal Korean function gender, words ethnic, (e.g., andin). racial Any tokensidentities, that and were suggestions for future research are Americans’Americans’Americans’ intersectingcontextAmericans’ intersecting intersecting (e.g., gender, intersectingban) gender,and ethnic,gender, lowered gender, ethnic,and ethnic, racial /æ/ andethnic, and elsewhere identities, racial racial andmisaligned, identities, identities,racial (Eckertand identities,suggestions tooand2008). and short suggestions suggestions With and infor durationsuggestionsregard future for for researchtofuture future (discussed.

1 Figure 1 was created based on the data of millennial speakers reported in Table A1 in D’Onofrio et al. (2019). Note that BOOK-type tokens (i.e., /ʊ/) were not examined in D’Onofrio et al. (2019), thus, we added the fronting of /ʊ/ in Figure 1 based on previous studies on the California Vowel Shift (e.g., (Podesva et al. 2015; Pratt and D’Onofrio 2017)). Languages 2020, 5, 53 11 of 27 examined the phonemic status of the vowels in each group and checked whether the Korean Americans distinguished the vowel pairs IY-IH, EH-AE, UW-UH, and AH-AO. We analyzed the normalized F1 andLanguages F2 values 2020, 5, tox FOR compare PEER REVIEW the height and the frontedness of the vowel pairs. We performed11 linear of 27 mixed effects modeling with vowel and gender as fixed effects and participant and item as random effects. Table2 summarizesTable 2. Summary the statistical of the significance statistical results of the of vowelEnglish contrasts vowel contrasts. in each group. Table2. IYSummary vs. IH of the EH statistical vs. AE results UH of English vs. UW vowel contrasts. AH vs. AO CA F1: ***/F2: *** F1: ***/F2: ** F1: ***/F2: n.s. F1: ***/F2: ** IY vs. IH EH vs. AE UH vs. UW AH vs. AO GEN2 F1: ***/F2: *** F1: ***/F2: *** F1: ***/F2: n.s. F1: ***/F2: *** CA F1: ***/F2: *** F1: ***/F2: ** F1: ***/F2: n.s. F1: ***/F2: ** GEN1.5 F1: ***/F2: *** F1: ***/F2: *** F1: **/F2: n.s. F1: */F2: p = 0.057 GEN2 F1: ***/F2: *** F1: ***/F2: *** F1: ***/F2: n.s. F1: ***/F2: *** GEN1.5GEN1 F1: F1: n.s./F2: ***/F2: * *** F1: F1:***/F2: ***/F2: n.s. *** F1: n.s./F2: F1: **/F2: n.s. n.s. F1 F1:: n.s./F2: */F2: p n.s.= 0.057 GEN1KOR F1: F1: n.s./F2: n.s./F2: * * F1: F1: */F2: ***/ F2:n.s. n.s. F1: F1:n.s./F2: n.s./F2: n.s. n.s. F1: F1:n.s./F2: n.s./F2: n.s. n.s. KOR F1:***: n.s.p < /0.001,F2: * **: p < F1: 0.01, */F2: *: p n.s. < 0.05, n.s.: F1: n.s.non-significant./F2: n.s. F1: n.s./F2: n.s. ***: p < 0.001, **: p < 0.01, *: p < 0.05, n.s.: non-significant. There was a clear distinction between the GEN2 and the GEN1.5 speakers (i.e., early bilinguals) There was a clear distinction between the GEN2 and the GEN1.5 speakers (i.e., early bilinguals) and the GEN1 speakers (i.e., late bilinguals), in that the former groups patterned like the CA speakers and the GEN1 speakers (i.e., late bilinguals), in that the former groups patterned like the CA speakers and the latter group patterned like the KOR speakers. The CA speakers and the early bilinguals and the latter group patterned like the KOR speakers. The CA speakers and the early bilinguals successfully distinguished all four vowel contrasts using vowel height and frontedness except in the successfully distinguished all four vowel contrasts using vowel height and frontedness except in the case of the UH-UW contrast which was distinguished by just vowel frontedness. In comparison, the case of the UH-UW contrast which was distinguished by just vowel frontedness. In comparison, late bilinguals were able to distinguish only the contrasts either using vowel height (i.e., the late bilinguals were able to distinguish only the front vowel contrasts either using vowel height EH-AE) or vowel frontedness (i.e., IY-IH), while failing to distinguish the back vowel contrasts UH- (i.e., EH-AE) or vowel frontedness (i.e., IY-IH), while failing to distinguish the back vowel contrasts UW and AH-AO. UH-UW and AH-AO.

FigureFigure 3.3. Normalized F1-F2 space byby groupgroup andand gender.gender.

3.2. Lowering and Retraction of IH, EH, and AE 3.2. Lowering and Retraction of IH, EH, and AE ForFor thethe loweringlowering andand retractionretraction ofof frontfront laxlax vowelsvowels IH,IH, EH,EH, andand AE,AE, wewe examinedexamined thethe eeffectsffects ofof groupgroup andand gendergender onon thethe F1F1 (vowel(vowel height)height) andand thethe F2F2 (vowel(vowel frontedness)frontedness) of each of these vowels. WeWe performedperformed linearlinear mixedmixed eeffectsffects modelingmodeling withwith groupgroup (CA,(CA, GEN2,GEN2, GEN1.5,GEN1.5, GEN1,GEN1, KOR),KOR), gendergender (female,(female, male),male), andand thethe interactioninteraction betweenbetween groupgroup andand gendergender asas fixedfixed eeffectsffects andand participantparticipant andand itemitem asas randomrandom effects. effects. For For IH, IH, we we additionally additionally included included the the following following segment segment (nasal, (nasal, non-nasal) non-nasal) as asa fixed a fixed effect, effect, given given that that studies studies have have shown shown that that this this vowel vowel becomes becomes raised raised to to IY before aa nasalnasal thing consonantconsonant (e.g.,(e.g., thing)() (HintonHinton etet al.al. 19871987).). WeWe alsoalso includedincluded thethe nasalitynasality ofof thethe followingfollowing segmentsegment asas a fixed effect for the analysis of EH. As for AE, only tokens preceding a non-nasal consonant were examined. Further analysis of the effect of the nasality of the following segment on the realization of AE (i.e., AE-AEN split) will be presented in Section 3.3. The best-fitting models included random intercepts for subject and item without any random slope, except for the F1 of IH, which included a by-item random slope for gender. Languages 2020, 5, 53 12 of 27 a fixed effect for the analysis of EH. As for AE, only tokens preceding a non-nasal consonant were examined. Further analysis of the effect of the nasality of the following segment on the realization of AE (i.e., AE-AEN split) will be presented in Section 3.3. The best-fitting models included random intercepts for subject and item without any random slope, except for the F1 of IH, which included a by-item random slope for gender. Results of IH showed that there was a main effect of group (GEN2) on both the F1 (β = 0.375, SE = 0.151, t = 2.48, p < 0.01) and the F2 (β = 0.269, SE = 0.117, t = 2.307, p < 0.05), suggesting that the GEN2 speakers produced IH significantly lower11 and more fronted than the CA speakers (i.e., reference level). The GEN1 and the KOR speakers also produced this vowel significantly more fronted than the CA speaker (GEN1: β = 0.76, SE = 0.137, t = 5.551, p < 0.001; KOR: β = 0.587, SE = 0.167, t = 3.509, p < 0.001). With regard to the effect of gender, overall, the female speakers (i.e., reference level) produced IH significantly lower and more fronted than the male speakers (F1: β = 0.46, SE = 0.128, − t = 3.582, p < 0.001; F2: β = 0.497, SE = 0.093, t = 5.343, p < 0.001). For the F2, we found a significant − − − interaction between group (GEN2) and gender (β = 0.548, SE = 0.233, t = 2.355, p < 0.05) and an − − interaction approaching significance between group (GEN1) and gender (β = 0.504, SE = 0.272, − t = 1.852, p = 0.071). That is, the gender difference was larger for the GEN2 and the GEN1 speakers − than for the CA speakers. Figure4 presents the normalized F2 of IH, EH, and AE across groups and genders. Higher F2 values indicate more fronted realizations. Post-hoc pairwise comparison results confirmed that, while the CA speakers did not show significant difference between female and male speakers, the female GEN2 speakers and the female GEN1 speakers produced IH significantly more fronted than their male counterparts (GEN2: β = 0.814, SE = 0.09, t = 9.079, p < 0.001; GEN1: β = 0.769, SE = 0.165, t = 4.655, p < 0.01). Among the female speakers, the GEN1 speakers and the KOR speakers demonstrated the most fronted realizations of IH. When comparing across groups, the GEN1 speakers produced significantly more fronted IH than all the other groups, except for the KOR speakers (GEN1 vs. CA: β = 1.012, SE = 0.186, t = 5.435, p < 0.001; GEN1 vs. GEN2: β = 0.469, SE = 0.128, − − − t = 3.65, p < 0.05; GEN1 vs. GEN1.5: β = 1.226, SE = 0.22, t = 5.584, p < 0.001). The KOR speakers − − − also produced (marginally) significantly more fronted IH compared to the CA speakers (β = 0.762, − SE = 0.236, t = 3.23, p = 0.064) and the GEN1.5 speakers (β = 0.976, SE = 0.261, t = 3.745, p < 0.05). − − − Moreover, the GEN2 speakers produced significantly more fronted IH than the GEN1.5 speakers (β = 0.758, SE = 0.195, t = 3.891, p < 0.05) and the CA speakers (β = 0.544, SE = 0.155, t = 3.502, − − p < 0.05). The F2 of the GEN1.5 and the CA speakers did not differ. Therefore, female speakers’ IH frontedness can be summarized with the following order: KOR, GEN1 > GEN2 > GEN1.5, CA. No group difference was found among the male speakers, except for the difference between the GEN1 and the GEN2 speakers, in which the former produced significantly more fronted IH than the latter (β = 0.513, SE = 0.14, t = 3.671, p < 0.05). Regarding the effect of the following segment, we found − − that overall, IH preceding a nasal consonant (i.e., reference level) were significantly more fronted than in other contexts (β = 0.183, SE = 0.084, t = 2.169, p < 0.05), but they did not differ in height. With regard to EH, there was a main effect of group (GEN1) on both the F1 (β = 0.397, − SE = 0.172, t = 2.311, p < 0.05) and the F2 (β = 0.306, SE = 0.11, t = 2.796, p < 0.01), which suggests − that the GEN1 speakers produced EH significantly higher and more fronted than the CA speakers (i.e., reference level). The GEN2 speakers also produced EH significantly more fronted than the CA speakers (GEN2: β = 0.249, SE = 0.09, t = 2.777, p < 0.05), but the vowel height did not differ between the two groups. As found above, the female speakers (i.e., reference level) produced EH lower and more fronted than the male speakers (F1: β = 0.777, SE = 0.116, t = 6.723, p < 0.001; F2: β = 0.605, − − − SE = 0.074, t = 8.164, p < 0.001). Moreover, we found a significant interaction between gender and −

11 In fact, among the five groups, GEN2 speakers’ IH was produced with the lowest vowel height. Results of the same model with the GEN2 speakers as the reference group (instead of the CA speakers) confirmed that, except for the GEN1.5 speakers, the GEN2 speakers produced IH significantly lower than the other groups (CA: β = 0.375, SE = 0.151, t = 2.48, p < 0.05; GEN1: β = 0.699, SE = 0.124, t = 5.622, p < 0.001; KOR: β = 0.603, SE = 0.17, t = −3.556, p < 0.001). − − − − − Languages 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 27

Results of IH showed that there was a main effect of group (GEN2) on both the F1 (β = 0.375, SE = 0.151, t = 2.48, p < 0.01) and the F2 (β = 0.269, SE = 0.117, t = 2.307, p < 0.05), suggesting that the GEN2 speakers produced IH significantly lower11 and more fronted than the CA speakers (i.e., reference level). The GEN1 and the KOR speakers also produced this vowel significantly more fronted than the CA speaker (GEN1: β = 0.76, SE = 0.137, t = 5.551, p < 0.001; KOR: β = 0.587, SE = 0.167, t = 3.509, p < 0.001). With regard to the effect of gender, overall, the female speakers (i.e., reference level) produced IH significantly lower and more fronted than the male speakers (F1: β = −0.46, SE = 0.128, t = −3.582,

Languagesp < 0.001;2020 F2:, 5β, 53= −0.497, SE = 0.093, t = −5.343, p < 0.001). For the F2, we found a significant interaction13 of 27 between group (GEN2) and gender (β = −0.548, SE = 0.233, t = −2.355, p < 0.05) and an interaction approaching significance between group (GEN1) and gender (β = −0.504, SE = 0.272, t = −1.852, p = group0.071). (KOR)That is, for the the gender F1 (β difference= 0.932, SEwas= larger0.406, fo t =r the2.295, GEN2p < and0.05), the which GEN1 indicates speakers thatthan thefor genderthe CA dispeakers.fference Figure was larger 4 presents for the the KOR normalized speakers F2 than of forIH, theEH, CA and speakers. AE across Post-hoc groups pairwiseand genders. comparison Higher resultsF2 values confirmed indicate that more female fronted and realizations. male KOR speakers’ Post-hoc EH pairwise did not comparison differ in vowel results height, confirmed whereas that, the femalewhile the CA CA speakers speakers produced did not thisshow vowel significant significantly difference lower between than the female male CAand speakers male speakers, (β = 1.034, the SEfemale= 0.258 GEN2, t = speakers4.005, p < and0.05). the (Marginally) female GEN1 Significant speakers gender produced differences IH significantly were also foundmore fronted in the GEN2 than (theirβ = 1.017,male counterparts SE = 0.117, t (GEN2:= 8.727, βp =< 0.814,0.001) SE and = 0.09, the GEN1t = 9.079, speakers p < 0.001; (β GEN1:= 0.737, β SE= 0.769,= 0.223 SE, t= =0.165,3.302 t, p= =4.655,0.054). p The< 0.01). post-hoc Among test resultsthe female also showed speakers, that th thee femaleGEN1 GEN2speakers speakers and the produced KOR speakers EH with similardemonstrated vowel heightthe most as thefronted female realizations CA and the of femaleIH. When GEN1.5 comparing speakers, across whereas groups, they the produced GEN1 EHspeakers significantly produced lower significantly than the femalemore fronted GEN1 (IHβ = than0.639, allSE the= other0.179, groups, t = 3.577, exceptp < 0.05)for the and KOR the femalespeakers KOR (GEN1 speakers vs. CA: (β β= =0.774, −1.012, SE SE= 0.23,= 0.186, t = t3.362, = −5.435,p < 0.05).p < 0.001; No groupGEN1 divs.ff erenceGEN2: inβ = vowel −0.469, height SE = was0.128, found t = −3.65, among p < 0.05; the maleGEN1 speakers. vs. GEN1.5: For β the = −1.226, F2, we SE found = 0.22, significant t = −5.584, interactionsp < 0.001). The between KOR speakers gender andalso allproduced Korean (marginally) groups, except significantly for the GEN1.5 more fronted speakers IH (GEN2: comparedβ = to 0.413,the CA SE speakers= 0.179, ( tβ= = −0.762,2.308, − − pSE< =0.05 0.236,; GEN1: t = −3.23,β = p0.641 = 0.064), SE and= 0.217, the GEN1.5 t = 2.954, speakersp < 0.01; (β KOR:= −0.976,β = SE0.533, = 0.261, SE t= = 0.261,−3.745, t =p < 2.045,0.05). − − − − pMoreover,< 0.05). This the suggestsGEN2 speakers that the produced gender diff significantlerence wasy larger more forfronted these IH groups than thanthe GEN1.5 for the CA speakers speakers. (β Post-hoc= 0.758, SE pairwise = 0.195, comparisont = 3.891, p < results0.05) and confirmed the CA speakers that the female (β = −0.544, speakers SE = in0.155, these t = groups −3.502, produced p < 0.05). EHThe significantlyF2 of the GEN1.5 more and fronted the thanCA speakers the male did speakers not differ. (GEN2: Therefore,β = 0.623, female SE = speakers’0.074, t = 8.431,IH frontednessp < 0.001; GEN1:can be βsummarized= 0.851, SE with= 0.143, the tfollowing= 5.945, porder:< 0.001; KOR, KOR: GEN1β = >0.743, GEN2 SE >= GEN1.5,0.206, t =CA.3.6, Nop < group0.05), whereasdifference no was gender found di ffamongerence the was male found speakers, for the CAexcept speakers. for the Thedifference post-hoc between test results the GEN1 also revealed and the thatGEN2 the speakers, female CA in speakerswhich the produced former EHproduced significantly significantly less fronted more than fronted the female IH than GEN2 the (latterβ = (0.456,β = - − SE−0.513,= 0.131 SE ,= t 0.14,= 3.489, t = −3.671,p < 0.05) p < 0.05). and the Regarding female GEN1 the effect speakers of the ( βfollowing= 0.627, segment, SE = 0.161, we found t = 3.888, that − − − poverall,< 0.05 ).IH No preceding group di aff erencenasal consonant in F2 was found(i.e., referenc for thee male level) speakers. were significantly Lastly, there more was fronted no main than effect in ofother the contexts following (β segment = 0.183, SE on = either 0.084, measures. t = 2.169, p < 0.05), but they did not differ in height.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4. Normalized F2 across groups: ( a) IH; ( b) EH; (c) AE.

Regarding (non-prenasal) AE, similar to the case of EH, we found a main effect of group (GEN1) on both the F1 (β = 0.613, SE = 0.293, t = 2.092, p < 0.05) and the F2 (β = 0.557, SE = 0.183, t = 3.049, − − p11 < 0.01), In fact, indicating among thethat five thegroups, GEN1 GEN2 speakers speakers’ produced IH was AEproduced significantly with the higher lowest andvowel more height. fronted Results than of the CAthe same speakers model (i.e., with reference the GEN2 level).speakers Consistent as the referenc withe group the findings (instead of the IH CA and speakers) EH, compared confirmed to that, the maleexcept speakers, for the the GEN1.5 female speakers, speakers the (i.e., GEN2 reference speakers level)produced produced IH significantly AE lower lower (β = than0.897, the other SE = groups0.193, − t = (CA:4.656, β = p−0.375,< 0.001) SE = and 0.151, more t = − fronted2.48, p < (0.05;β = GEN1:0.423, β SE= −0.699,= 0.12, SE t== 0.124,3.552, t = −p5.622,< 0.01). p < 0.001; There KOR: was β a= − − − significant−0.603, SE interaction = 0.17, t = between−3.556, p < gender 0.001). and group (GEN1) for the F2 (β = 0.755, SE = 2.07, p < 0.05), − − which indicates that the gender difference was larger for the GEN1 speakers than for the CA speakers. Post-hoc pairwise comparison results confirmed that the female GEN1 speakers, but not the female CA speakers, produced AE significantly more fronted than their male counterparts (β = 0.863, SE = 0.234, t = 3.684, p < 0.05). Additionally, a significant gender difference was found in the GEN2 speakers (β = 0.534, SE = 0.113, t = 4.714, p < 0.01). The post-hoc test results also showed that, compared to the female CA speakers, female GEN1 speakers’ AE was more fronted, although the difference was Languages 2020, 5, 53 14 of 27 marginally significant (β = 0.934, SE = 0.283, t = 3.301, p = 0.056). No group difference in F2 was − − observed for the male speakers.

3.3. AE-AEN Split Figure5 demonstrates the normalized F1 and F2 values of non-prenasal AE and prenasal AEN across groups. In order to test whether the height (F1) and the frontedness (F2) of these two vowel types were significantly different across groups and genders, we performed linear mixed effects modeling withLanguages vowel 2020 type, 5, x FOR (AE, PEER AEN), REVIEW group (CA, GEN2, GEN1.5, GEN1, KOR), gender (female, male), and14 of the 27 interactions among vowel type, group, and gender as fixed effects and participant and item as random effects.effects. The The best best fitting fitting models models included random inte interceptsrcepts for subject and item with a by-item random slope for for gender gender for for the the F1 F1 and and with with a a by-s by-subjectubject random random slope slope for for vowel vowel for for the the F2. F2.

(a) (b)

Figure 5. AE and AEN across groups: ( aa)) Normalized Normalized F1; F1; ( (b)) Normalized Normalized F2.

Results showed that there were main effects of vowel type for both the F1 (β = 0.718, SE = 0.118, Results showed that there were main effects of vowel type for both the F1 (β =− −0.718, SE = −0.118, t = 6.097, p < 0.001) and the F2 (β = 0.515, SE = 0.097, t = 5.315, p < 0.001), which suggests that overall t = −−6.097, p < 0.001) and the F2 (β = 0.515, SE = 0.097, t = 5.315, p < 0.001), which suggests that overall AEN was produced significantly higher and more fronted than AE (i.e., reference level). We also AEN was produced significantly higher and more fronted than AE (i.e., reference level). We also found significant interactions between vowel type and all Korean groups in both measures. That is, found significant interactions between vowel type and all Korean groups in both measures. That is, the difference between AE and AEN was larger for the CA speakers than for the GEN2 (F1: β = 0.794, the difference between AE and AEN was larger for the CA speakers than for the GEN2 (F1: β = 0.794, SE = 0.182, t = 4.356, p < 0.001; F2: β = 0.693, SE = 0.172, t = 4.021, p < 0.001), the GEN1.5 (F1: β = 0.86, SE = 0.182, t = 4.356, p < 0.001; F2: β = −0.693, SE = 0.172, t = −4.021, p < 0.001), the GEN1.5 (F1: β = 0.86, SE = 0.267, t = 3.222, p < 0.01; F2: β = 0.531, SE = 0.242, t = 2.19, p < 0.05), the GEN1 (F1: β = 1.185, SE = 0.267, t = 3.222, p < 0.01; F2: β = −0.531,− SE = 0.242, t = −2.19,− p < 0.05), the GEN1 (F1: β = 1.185, SE SE = 0.248, t = 4.783, p < 0.001; F2: β = 1.001, SE = 0.221, t = 4.529, p < 0.001), and the KOR speakers = 0.248, t = 4.783, p < 0.001; F2: β = −1.001,− SE = 0.221, t = −4.529,− p < 0.001), and the KOR speakers (F1: (F1: β = 1.253, SE = 0.369, t = 3.391, p < 0.001; F2: β = 1.07, SE = 0.314, t = 3.407, p < 0.01). Results of β = 1.253, SE = 0.369, t = 3.391, p < 0.001; F2: β = −1.07,− SE = 0.314, t = −3.407,− p < 0.01). Results of post- post-hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that, compared to AEN, the CA and the GEN2 speakers hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that, compared to AEN, the CA and the GEN2 speakers produced produced AE significantly lower (CA: β = 1.537, SE = 0.188, t = 8.179, p < 0.001; GEN2: β = 0.743, AE significantly lower (CA: β = 1.537, SE = 0.188, t = 8.179, p < 0.001; GEN2: β = 0.743, SE = 0.096, t = SE = 0.096, t = 7.712, p < 0.001) and more fronted (CA: β = 1.174, SE = 0.169, t = 6.944, p < 0.001; 7.712, p < 0.001) and more fronted (CA: β = −1.174, SE = 0.169,− t = −6.944, p < 0.001; GEN2:− β = −0.481, GEN2: β = 0.481, SE = 0.086, t = 5.606, p < 0.001). The GEN1.5 speaker also showed slightly higher SE = 0.086, t− = −5.606, p < 0.001). The− GEN1.5 speaker also showed slightly higher and more fronted and more fronted AEN than AE, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (F1: β = 0.676, AEN than AE, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (F1: β = 0.676, SE = 0.222, t = SE = 0.222, t = 3.041, p = 0.077; F2: 0.643, SE = 3.333, p = 0.057). The late learners (i.e., GEN1 and 3.041, p = 0.077; F2: −0.643, SE = −3.333,− p = 0.057).− The late learners (i.e., GEN1 and KOR) did not KOR) did not distinguish the two vowel types. The effect of gender on the F1 and the F2 maintained in distinguish the two vowel types. The effect of gender on the F1 and the F2 maintained in the the combined AE-AEN data (F1: β = 0.943, SE = 0.178, t = 5.3, p < 0.001; F2: β = 0.561, SE = 0.132, combined AE-AEN data (F1: β = −0.943,− SE = 0.178, t = −5.3,− p < 0.001; F2: β = −0.561,− SE = 0.132, t = t = 4.244, p < 0.001). For the F2, there was a marginally significant interaction between gender and −4.244,− p < 0.001). For the F2, there was a marginally significant interaction between gender and group group (GEN2) (β = 0.665, SE = 0.324, t = 2.051, p = 0.05) and a significant difference between gender (GEN2) (β = −0.665,− SE = 0.324, t = −2.051,− p = 0.05) and a significant difference between gender and and group (GEN1) (β = 1.062, SE = 0.379, t = 2.803, p < 0.01). That is, the gender difference was group (GEN1) (β = −1.062,− SE = 0.379, t = −2.803, p− < 0.01). That is, the gender difference was larger for larger for these speakers than for the CA speakers. According to the results of the post-hoc pairwise these speakers than for the CA speakers. According to the results of the post-hoc pairwise comparisons, the gender difference was significant for both the GEN2 (β = 0.603, SE = 0.126, t = 4.793, comparisons, the gender difference was significant for both the GEN2 (β = 0.603, SE = 0.126, t = 4.793, p < 0.01) and for the GEN1 speakers (β = 1, SE = 0.235, t = 4.256, p < 0.01), while the CA speakers p < 0.01) and for the GEN1 speakers (β = 1, SE = 0.235, t = 4.256, p < 0.01), while the CA speakers did not show any gender difference. We also found a three-way interaction among vowel type, group (GEN1.5), and gender, suggesting that the interaction between vowel type and group (GEN1.5) showed a different pattern between female and male speakers. We further examined this by running separate models for each gender and found that, while significant interaction between vowel type and group (GEN1.5) appeared in the male data (β = −1.114, SE = 0.198, t = −5.635, p < 0.001), it did not appear in the female data. Given that we only had one female speaker in the GEN1.5 group, these results should be interpreted with caution.

Languages 2020, 5, 53 15 of 27 did not show any gender difference. We also found a three-way interaction among vowel type, group (GEN1.5), and gender, suggesting that the interaction between vowel type and group (GEN1.5) showed a different pattern between female and male speakers. We further examined this by running separate models for each gender and found that, while significant interaction between vowel type and group (GEN1.5) appeared in the male data (β = 1.114, SE = 0.198, t = 5.635, p < 0.001), it did not appear in − − the female data. Given that we only had one female speaker in the GEN1.5 group, these results should Languagesbe interpreted 2020, 5, withx FOR caution.PEER REVIEW 15 of 27

3.4. AA-AO AA-AO Merger Figure 66 demonstratesdemonstrates thethe normalizednormalized F1F1 andand F2F2 valuesvalues ofof AAAA andand AOAO acrossacross groups.groups. InIn orderorder to test whether these two vowels are produced as one category, we performed linear mixed effects effects modeling with vowel (AA, AO), group (CA, GEN2, GEN1.5, GEN1, KOR), gender (female, male), and the interaction among vowel, group, and gend genderer as fixed fixed effects effects and participant and item as random effects. effects. The The best best fitting fitting models models included included random random intercepts intercepts for forsubject subject and and item item with with a by- a subjectby-subject random random slope slope for forvowel vowel for forthe theF1 and F1 and with with a by-item a by-item random random slope slope for forgender gender for forthe theF2. F2.

(a) (b)

Figure 6. AA and AO across groups: ( a)) Normalized Normalized F1; ( b) Normalized F2.

Results showed that there was a main effect effect of vowel on both the F1 and the F2, which suggests that overall AA (i.e., reference level) was produced significantlysignificantly lower and more fronted than AO (F1: β = 0.291, SE = 0.094, t = 3.102, p < 0.01; F2: β = 0.289, SE = 0.073, t = 3.947, p < 0.001). (F1: β = −−0.291, SE = 0.094, t = −3.102,− p < 0.01; F2: β = −0.289,− SE = 0.073, t = −3.947, −p < 0.001). A main Aeffect main of e groupffect of (GEN2) group (GEN2) was found was found(β = 0.221, (β = 0.221,SE = 0.094, SE = 0.094,t = 2.354, t = 2.354,p < 0.05)p < for0.05) the for F2, the indicating F2, indicating that overallthat overall the GEN2 the GEN2 speakers speakers produced produced the vowels the vowels signif significantlyicantly more more fronted fronted than thanthe CA the speakers CA speakers (i.e., (i.e.,reference reference level). level). For the For F1, the there F1, therewas a wasmarginally a marginally significant significant interaction interaction between between vowel voweland group and group (GEN1) (β = 0.419, SE = 0.208, t = 2.014, p = 0.055). Post-hoc pairwise comparison results (GEN1) (β = −0.419, −SE = 0.208, t = −2.014, p− = 0.055). Post-hoc pairwise comparison results revealed thatrevealed the GEN1 that the speakers GEN1 produced speakers producedAA significantly AA significantly lower than lowerAO (β than = 0.607, AO SE (β == 0.15,0.607, t =SE 4.051,= 0.15, p < 0.01),t = 4.051 whereas, p < 0.01), the CA whereas speakers the CAdid speakers not distinguish did not these distinguish vowels. these With vowels. regard With to the regard F2, we to thefound F2, wesignificant found significant interactions interactions between vowel between and vowel group and (GEN2) group (β (GEN2) = 0.171, (β SE= 0.171,= 0.072, SE t == 0.072,2.392, tp= < 2.3920.05), p < 0.05) and between vowel and group (GEN1) (β = 0.223, SE = 0.09, t = 2.468, p < 0.05). That is, and between vowel and group (GEN1) (β = −0.223, SE =− 0.09, t = −2.468, p < 0.05).− That is, the difference inthe F2 di betweenfference AA in F2 and between AO of AAthe CA and speakers AO of the was CA larger speakers than the was GEN2 larger speakers than the and GEN2 smaller speakers than theand GEN1 smaller speakers. than the Post-hoc GEN1 pairwise speakers. comparison Post-hoc pairwise results revealed comparison that the results CA speakers revealed and that the the early CA bilingualsspeakers and (i.e., the GEN2, early bilingualsGEN1.5) (i.e.,produced GEN2, AA GEN1.5) and producedAO similarly, AA and whereas AO similarly, the late whereas bilinguals the distinguishedlate bilinguals them distinguished (GEN1: β them= 0.421, (GEN1: SE = 0.09,β = t 0.421,= 4.659, SE p =< 0.001;0.09, t KOR:= 4.659, β =p 0.417,< 0.001; SE = KOR: 0.127,β t == 3.288,0.417, pSE < =0.05).0.127 AA, t = and3.288 AO, p did< 0.05). not differ AA andin any AO meas didures not diacrossffer ingroups, any measures except between across groups,the GEN2 except and thebetween GEN1 the speakers GEN2 and in the the production GEN1 speakers of AO in (F1: the productionβ = 0.707, SE of = AO 0.155, (F1: t β= =4.549,0.707, p SE< 0.01;= 0.155, F2: βt = 0.288,4.549, SEp < =0.01; 0.079,F2: t =β 3.629,= 0.288 p <, SE0.05).= 0.079, That is, t = the3.629, GEN2p < speakers0.05). That produced is, the GEN2 this vowel speakers significantly produced thislower vowel and moresignificantly fronted lowerthan the and GEN1 more speake frontedrs. thanThe GEN2 the GEN1 speakers speakers. also produced The GEN2 AO speakers more fronted also produced than the AOCA morespeakers, fronted in which than thethe CAdifference speakers, approached in which thestatistical difference significance approached (β = statistical 0.306, SE significance= 0.093, t = (3.289,β = 0.306 p = ,0.061). SE = 0.093, Lastly, t = 3.289, the femalep = 0.061). speakers Lastly, produced the female the speakers vowels produced significantly the vowels lower significantly and more fronted than the male speakers (F1: β = −0.291, SE = 0.094, t = −3.102, p < 0.01; F2: β = −0.467, SE = 0.084, t = −5.55, p < 0.001).

3.5. Fronting of UW, UH, and AH For the fronting of UW, UH, and AH, we examined the effects of group and gender on the frontedness (F2) of each of these vowels. We performed linear mixed effects modeling with group (CA, GEN2, GEN1.5, GEN1, KOR), gender (female, male), and the interaction between group and gender as fixed effects and participant and item as random effects. In the case of UW, since there was no male token in the data, we did not include the interaction between group and gender as a fixed Languages 2020, 5, 53 16 of 27 lower and more fronted than the male speakers (F1: β = 0.291, SE = 0.094, t = 3.102, p < 0.01; − − F2: β = 0.467, SE = 0.084, t = 5.55, p < 0.001). − − 3.5. Fronting of UW, UH, and AH For the fronting of UW, UH, and AH, we examined the effects of group and gender on the frontedness (F2) of each of these vowels. We performed linear mixed effects modeling with group (CA, GEN2, GEN1.5, GEN1, KOR), gender (female, male), and the interaction between group and gender as fixed effects and participant and item as random effects. In the case of UW, since there was no male token in the data, we did not include the interaction between group and gender as a fixed effect. Additionally, we included the previous segment (coronal, non-coronal) as a fixed effect, since studies have shown that these vowels demonstrate more advanced fronting after coronal than in other phonological environments (D’Onofrio et al. 2019; Podesva et al. 2015). The best-fitting models included random intercepts for subject and item without any random slope. Results showed that group (GEN2) had an effect on the frontedness of UH (β = 0.581, SE = 0.171, t = 3.393, p < 0.01) and AH (β = 0.394, SE = 0.135, t = 2.922, p < 0.01). That is, compared to the CA speakers (i.e., reference level), the GEN2 speakers produced these vowels more fronted. No difference was found between the two groups in the production of UW. Lastly, regarding gender, the female speakers produced the three vowel types significantly more fronted than the male speakers (UW: β = 0.431, SE = 0.199, t = 2.159, p < 0.05; UH: β = 0.765, SE = 0.144, t = 5.318, p < 0.001; − − − − AH: β = 0.568, SE = 0.105, t = 5.415, p < 0.001). No significant interaction was found between group − − and gender in UH and AH. Moreover, no effect of previous segment was found in any of the vowels.

4. Discussion

4.1. Effect of Age of Arrival on the Participation in Local Sound Change In this study we examined the effect of age of arrival on Korean Americans’ participation in the California Vowel Shift. We compared the speech of Korean Americans of three generations who clearly differed in the age of arrival to Los Angeles: first-generation (GEN1) (i.e., adulthood), 1.5-generation (GEN1.5) (i.e., late childhood), and second-generation (GEN2) (i.e., early childhood). We predicted that, despite their long residence in the US (average 26.8 years), the GEN1 speakers would show signs of L1 Korean influence in their speech, similar to Korean international students (KOR) who spent less time in the US (average 4 years). On the other hand, younger generation Koreans (i.e., GEN1.5 and GEN2) would perform more similarly to Anglo-Californians (CA) than the KOR speakers and influence from Korean phonology, if any, would appear to a lesser extent for the GEN2 speakers than for the GEN1.5 speakers. We examined four main patterns of the California Vowel Shift: (1) lowering and retraction of IH, EH, and AE, (2) AE-AEN split, (3) AA-AO merger, and (4) fronting of UW, UH, and AH. For each vowel, we predicted the outcomes based on previous findings of Korean-English late bilinguals and cross-linguistic studies between Korean and English vowels (Baker and Trofimovich 2005; Baker et al. 2002; Trofimovich et al. 2011; Tsukada et al. 2005; Yang 1996; Yoon and Kim 2015). With regard to IH, as Korean does not have a high front lax vowel, Korean-English late bilinguals tend to merge this vowel to IY which is almost identical to the Korean /i/ (Baker and Trofimovich 2005; Yang 1996). Thus, we predicted that, if influence from Korean phonology occurs, Korean Americans would merge IH with IY and, thus, would not participate in the lowering and retraction of IH. Results showed that the early bilinguals (i.e., GEN2 and GEN1.5) aligned with the CA speakers in that they distinguished the IY-IH contrast using both vowel height and frontedness. On the other hand, the late bilinguals (i.e., GEN1 and KOR) patterned similarly to each other; they only used vowel frontedness to distinguish the contrast. Although the GEN1 and the KOR speakers did not completely merge IH with IY, which would have been a strong indication of Korean influence, their IH approached IY in the vowel space (see Figure3). Indeed, when comparing the di fference of the average normalized Languages 2020, 5, 53 17 of 27

F2 (i.e., vowel frontedness) between IY and IH across groups, the late bilinguals demonstrated smaller differences (GEN1: 0.11, KOR: 0.44) than the CA speakers (1.08) and the early bilinguals (GEN2: 0.89, GEN1.5: 1.35). Moreover, we found that both the GEN1 and the KOR speakers produced IH more fronted than the CA speakers. The GEN2 speakers also produced this vowel more fronted than the CA speakers. However, unlike the GEN1 and the KOR speakers, we do not believe that this is due to influence from Korean phonology, given that the GEN2 speakers additionally produced this vowel lower than the CA speakers. If the Korean /i/ had an effect on GEN2 speakers’ IH, it would have demonstrated higher vowel height than CA speakers’ IH. In fact, among the five groups, GEN2 speakers’ IH was produced with the lowest vowel height (see Footnote 12). Rather than influence from Korean phonology, GEN2 speakers’ divergence from the CA speakers could be explained through the nature of their vowel space. The vowel space of the GEN2 speakers was overall more fronted than that of the CA speakers. Regarding EH and AE, we made different predictions for the two vowels. While Korean does not have any vowel that acoustically overlaps with either EH or AE, Korean-English bilinguals often identify both vowels as the Korean /e/ (Baker et al. 2002; Trofimovich et al. 2011), which is positioned higher in the vowel space (Baker and Trofimovich 2005; Yoon and Kim 2015). However, instead of assimilating the merged EH-AE category to the Korean /e/, Korean-English bilinguals, especially late bilinguals, tend to demonstrate two categories in the front mid/low region of the vowel space: the Korean /e/ and a single EH-AH category in which AE merges with EH (Baker and Trofimovich 2005). Therefore, we predicted that, if influence from Korean occurs, Korean Americans would merge AE with EH; their EH may demonstrate lowering and retraction, but their AE would not, because it would be positioned higher in the vowel space due to the merger with EH. Contrary to our prediction, the Korean Americans in our study maintained the EH-AE contrast regardless of their age of arrival to the US. As in the case of IH, we found a different pattern between the early bilinguals and the late bilinguals. The GEN2 and the GEN1.5 speakers performed like the CA speakers in that they produced EH andLanguages AE distinctly 2020, 5, usingx FOR PEER both REVIEW vowel height and frontedness. On the other hand, the GEN1 speakers 4 of 27 and the KOR speakers kept the EH-AE contrast using only one measure (i.e., vowel height). Whilelower the and GEN1 more speakers retracted distinguished front vowels the and EH-AH more fr contrast,onted back they vowels produced when both the vowels actors higherplayed these and morecharacters fronted than than when the CA they speakers, played indicating non-Californ thatian these characters. speakers Although did not participatewithout a indoubt the these loweringperformances and retraction are of exaggerated, EH and AE. The they GEN2 reflect speakers the vo alsocalic produced changes EH that more are fronted underway than thein California, CA speakers,namely but no the di Californiafference in Vowel vowel heightShift. was found between the two groups. As mentioned above, we believeFigure that is due1, created to their from overall data more of millennial fronted vowel speakers space reported compared in toD’Onofrio the CA speakers.et al. (2019) 1 , Althoughdemonstrates participants’ the birth vocalic year changes was not involved the main focusin the ofCalifornia our study, Vowel it is worth Shift. pointingThe California out that Vowel the Shift GEN1 speakersis characterized were overall by three older main than phenomena: the other groups (1) the (see low-back Table1). merger Although of we/ɑ/ formulated(e.g., bot) and our /ɔ/ (e.g., predictionsbought with), (2) the the assumption lowering and that retraction the merger of lax between front vowels the Korean /ɪ/ (e.g.,/e/ andbit), /ɛ/ (e.g.,is established bet), and across/æ/ (e.g., bat), most ageand groups (3) the (frontingKang 2014 of ;high- Jang and et al. mid-back 2015), it vowels is possible /u/ (e.g., that boot the), GEN1 /ʊ/ (e.g., speakers book), /o/ arrived (e.g., inboat the), and /ʌ/ US during(e.g., the but time) (D’Onofrio when the et mergeral. 2016; was D’Onofrio still in progress.et al. 2019;For Hagiwara instance, 1997; Yang Hall-Lew(1996) demonstrated 2009; Hall-Lew et al. that Korean2015; maleHinton adults et al. in 1987; the 1990s Kennedy maintained and Grama the distinction 2012; Podesva between et al. the 2015). Korean Following/e/ and / /the, while pattern of KoreanGeneral female adultsAmerican produced English them presented indistinguishably, in The Atlas suggesting of North that American the Korean English/e/-/ /(Labovmerger et was al. 2006), still in progressprenasal during/æ/ in thisCalifornia period English and female is tensed, speakers resulting led the change.in a split Most between of the tensed GEN1 speakers/æ/ in a inprenasal our studycontext immigrated (e.g., ban to) and the lowered US during /æ/ the elsewhere 1970s and (Eckert the 1980s. 2008). AfterWith aregard long periodto the back of time vowels away /u/ and from Korea,/o/, the it isfronting likely thatis more the GEN1advanced speakers after a do coronal not participate consonant in (e.g., sound too changes and toe) in due Korea to its that high are F2 (i.e., still in progressfronted) orenvironment that were established and prohibited after theywhen left. followed In fact, by linguistic the velarized conservatism coda /-l/ has (e.g., often cool been and goal), observedbecause in diasporic of its low communities F2 (i.e., retracted) (Johannessen environment and Laake (Hall-Lew 2015; Parodi 2011). 2014 ; Polinsky 2018). Thus, it is possible that the GEN1 speakers kept the Korean /e/-/ / contrast that they brought with them, which may have affected their production of (unmerged) EH and AE. With regard to the KOR speakers, given that these speakers were much younger than the GEN1 speakers and left Korea recently (see Table1), it is unlikely that they maintain the Korean /e/-/ / contrast. When comparing the difference of the average normalized F1 (i.e., vowel height) between EH and AE across groups, the KOR speakers demonstrated a smaller difference (0.42), compared to the CA

Figure 1. California Vowel Shift (adapted from D’Onofrio et al. (2019)).

While the California Vowel Shift has been understood as a chain shift affecting the front lax vowels /ɪ/, /ɛ/, and /æ/, the cause of the chain shift is under debate. Similar to the Canadian Vowel Shift in which /ɪ/, /ɛ/, and /æ/ are lowered due to the merging of /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ (Clarke et al. 1995), the lowering of /ɪ/, /ɛ/, and /æ/ in California English may also be the result of a pull-chain initiated by the /ɑ/-/ɔ/ merger. However, Kennedy and Grama (2012) found that some young California English speakers demonstrated the chain-shifted lowering of the front lax vowels, while maintaining /ɑ/ in the traditional low-central position in the vowel space. Moreover, while both male and female speakers exhibited similar F1 values for /ɪ/ and /ɛ/, the female speakers produced higher F1 values (i.e., lower vowel height) for /æ/ than the male speakers. Since women generally are leaders of linguistic change (Coates 1993; Labov 1990; Milroy and Milroy 1985; Trudgill 1972), the gender difference indicates that /æ/ is the most recent step of the chain shift (Kennedy and Grama 2012). Thus, Kennedy and Grama (2012) suggested an alternative explanation to the chain shift which involves a push-chain initiated by the lowering of /ɪ/, resulting in the lowering of /ɛ/ and subsequently the lowering of /æ/. This process is likely to be independent of the /ɑ/-/ɔ/ merger which in some cases

1 Figure 1 was created based on the data of millennial speakers reported in Table A1 in D’Onofrio et al. (2019). Note that BOOK-type tokens (i.e., /ʊ/) were not examined in D’Onofrio et al. (2019), thus, we added the fronting of /ʊ/ in Figure 1 based on previous studies on the California Vowel Shift (e.g., (Podesva et al. 2015; Pratt and D’Onofrio 2017)).

Article (Divergent) Participation in the California Vowel Languages 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 27 Shift by Korean Americans in Southern California lower and more retracted front vowels and more fronted back vowels when the actors played these Languages 2020, 5, 53 18 of 27 characters than when they played non-Californian characters. Although without a doubt these Ji Young Kim 1,* and Nicole Wong 2 performances are exaggerated, they reflect the vocalic changes that are underway in California, namely the California Vowelspeakers Shift. (0.75) and the early bilinguals (GEN2: 0.64, GEN1.5: 0.66). On the other hand, GEN1 speakers’1 Department of Spanish and Portuguese, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA Figure 1, created fromvowel data height of dimillennialfference between speakers EH reported and AE (0.71)in D’Onofrio was comparable et al. to(2019) that1 of, the CA speakers and2 Independent the Scholar, Santa Clara, CA 95050, USA; [email protected] demonstrates the vocalic earlychanges bilinguals. involved Thus, in the it California appears that Vowel both Shift. the GEN1 The California and the KOR Vowel speakers Shift demonstrate influence* Correspondence: [email protected] is characterized by threefrom main Korean phenomena: phonology (1) the when low-back producing merger EH and of AE,/ɑ/ (e.g., but in bot a) di andfferent /ɔ/ way.(e.g., While the GEN1 speakersReceived: 24 September 2020; Accepted: 2 November 2020; Published: 6 November 2020 bought), (2) the lowering andassimilate retraction EH of and laxAE front to vowels the Korean /ɪ/ (e.g.,/e/ andbit), /ɛ/, (e.g., respectively, bet), and the/æ/ KOR(e.g., bat speakers), acquire the EH-AE and (3) the fronting of high-contrast and mid-back using vowel vowels height, /u/ but(e.g., do boot so), less /ʊ/consistently (e.g., book), /o/ than (e.g., the boat CA), speakers, and /ʌ/ similar to the caseAbstract: of the This study investigates the participation in the California Vowel Shift by Korean (e.g., but) (D’Onofrio et al.IY-IH 2016; contrast. D’Onofrio To et confirm al. 2019; this, Hagiwara future research1997; Hall-Lew should 2009; examine Hall-Lew GEN1 et speakers’ al. and KOR speakers’Americans in Los Angeles. Five groups of subjects participated in a picture narrative task: first-, 1.5- 2015; Hinton et al. 1987; realizationKennedy and of both Grama English 2012; and Podesva Korean et vowels. al. 2015). Following the pattern of , and second-generation Korean Americans, Anglo-Californians, and (non-immigrant) Korean late General American English presentedIn this study, in The we Atlas examined of North whether American Korean (Labov produce et al. 2006), AE differently basedlearners on the of English. Results showed a clear distinction between early vs. late bilinguals; while the prenasal /æ/ in Californianasality English of is the tensed, following resulting consonant in a split (i.e., AE-AENbetween tensed split). Korean/æ/ in a does prenasal not demonstrate a systematicfirst-generation Korean Americans and the late learners showed apparent signs of Korean influence, context (e.g., ban) and loweredsplit between /æ/ elsewhere non-prenasal (Eckert and2008). prenasal With regard vowels, to thus,the back we predictedvowels /u/ that, and if influence from Koreanthe 1.5- and the second-generation Korean Americans participated in most patterns of the California /o/, the fronting is more advancedphonology after occurs, a coronal Korean consonant Americans (e.g., would too and not toe distinguish) due to its AE high and F2 AEN. (i.e., Our results showedVowel that Shift. However, divergence from the Anglo-Californians was observed in early bilinguals’ fronted) environment andlate prohibited bilinguals when (i.e., fo GEN1llowed and by KOR)the velarized and the coda GEN1.5 /-l/ (e.g., speakers cool and did notgoal), distinguish AE andspeech. AEN. Similar to the late bilinguals, the 1.5-generation speakers did not systematically distinguish because of its low F2 (i.e.,The retracted) GEN2 speakers,environment on the(Hall-Lew other hand, 2011). produced AE and AEN distinctly using both vowelprenasal height and non-prenasal /æ/. The second-generation speakers demonstrated a split-/æ/ system, and frontedness, but the difference between these two vowels were smaller than for the CA speakers.but it was less pronounced than for the Anglo-Californians. These findings suggest that age of This finding suggests that the GEN2 speakers participate in the AE-AEN split, but to a lesserarrival extent has a strong effect on immigrant minority speakers’ participation in local sound change. In than the CA speakers. the case of the second-generation Korean Americans, certain patterns of the California Vowel Shift Regarding the low back vowels AA and AO, Korean does not have a vowel that acousticallywere even more pronounced than for the Anglo-Californians (i.e., /ɪ/-lowering, /ɑ/-/ɔ/ merger, /ʊ/- overlaps with any of these vowels. The closest vowels in Korean would be /a/ (low central)and /ʌ/-fronting)./ Moreover, the entire vowel space of the second-generation Korean Americans, (near-low back) (Baker et al. 2002; Trofimovich et al. 2011; Tsukada et al. 2005). Thus, we predictedespecially that female speakers, was more fronted than that of the Anglo-Californians. These findings if influence from Korean occurs, they would either assimilate both vowels to the Korean /a/ (Outcomesuggest that second-generation Korean Americans may be in a more advanced stage of the 1: Participation in AA-AO merger but more fronted than expected) or distinguish them by assimilatingCalifornia Vowel Shift than Anglo-Californians or the California Vowel Shift is on a different AA to the Korean /a/ and assimilating AO to the Korean / / (Outcome 2: No participation in AA-AOtrajectory for these speakers. Possible explanations in relation to second-generation Korean merger). Results showed that the late bilinguals (i.e., GEN1 and the KOR) produced AA more frontedAmericans’ intersecting gender, ethnic, and racial identities, and suggestions for future research are than AO. Additionally, the GEN1 speakers produced AA lower than AO. These findings suggestdiscussed. that the late bilinguals did not participate in the AA-AO merger, most likely because they assimilated AA to the Korean /a/ and assimilated AO to the Korean / / (i.e., Outcome 2). The finding that these speakersKeywords: Korean Americans; California Vowel Shift; second language phonology; bilingualism; produced AO indistinctly from AH, which is the closest vowel to the Korean / / (see Sectionimmigrant 3.1), minority speakers; sound change supports the possibility that they assimilated AO to the Korean / /. As for the GEN2 and the GEN1.5 Figure 1.speakers, California they Vowel patterned Shift (adapted like the from CA D’Onofrio speakers inet al. that (2019)). they showed an overlap between AA and AO. In the case of the GEN2 speakers, the AA-AO merger was even stronger than the CA speakers, suggesting 1. Introduction While the Californiathat Vowel the GEN2Shift has speakers been mayunderstood be in a moreas a chain advanced shift stage affecting of the the AA-AO front merger.lax However, compared vowels /ɪ/, /ɛ/, and /æ/, theto thecause CA of speakers the chain their shift productions is under debate. were Similar overall to more the fronted.Canadian Although Vowel the results seem toOver be the past few decades, research on second language (L2) phonology has provided empirical Shift in which /ɪ/, /ɛ/, andpointing /æ/ are towardlowered Outcome due to the 1(i.e., merging assimilation of /ɑ/ and to the/ɔ/ Korean(Clarke /eta/ ),al. this 1995), is unlikely. the Compared toevidence the CA that early bilinguals are generally more successful in acquiring L2 speech sounds than late lowering of /ɪ/, /ɛ/, and /æ/speakers, in California GEN2 English speakers’ may AO also was be the more result fronted, of a pull-chain but not lower, initiated which by wouldthe have been thebilinguals case if (Flege et al. 1995, 1997; Flege and MacKay 2011; Stevens 1999; Yeni-Komshian et al. 2000). /ɑ/-/ɔ/ merger. However,the Kennedy GEN2 speakers and Grama assimilated (2012) found the merged that some AA-AO young category California to the KoreanEnglish/ a/. As shown in FigureModels3, in L2 phonology, such as Flege’s (1995) Speech Learning Model (SLM) and Best and Tyler’s speakers demonstrated theAA chain-shifted is positioned lowering in the low-back of the areafront in lax GEN2 vowels, speakers’ while vowel maintaining space, whereas /ɑ/ in for the late bilinguals(2007) Perceptual it Assimilation Model (PAM)-L2, posit that bilinguals’ L1 and L2 phones interact in the traditional low-centralis positionedposition in in the the vowel low-mid space. area betweenMoreover, AE while and AO.both If male the GEN2 and female speakers assimilated AAa common to the phonological space. Thus, the development of L2 sounds would depend on the perceptual speakers exhibited similarKorean F1 values/a/, which for /ɪ/ isand what /ɛ/, we the believe female happened speakers produced in the speech higher of the F1 latevalues bilinguals, they wouldsimilarity have to existing L1 sounds. That is, bilinguals would assimilate an L2 sound to an L1 sound if (i.e., lower vowel height)shown for /æ/ similar than patternsthe male as speakers. the late bilinguals. Since women Thus, generally as in the caseare ofleaders the front of vowels, GEN2 speakers’the two are perceived identical or if the L2 sound is perceived as a deviant variant of the L1 sound. linguistic change (Coatesoverall 1993; frontedLabov 1990; vowel Milroy space seemsand Milroy to be a1985; more Trudgill plausible 1972), explanation the gender to their divergence fromHowever, the if an L2 sound is perceptually distinct from existing L1 sounds, bilinguals would create a difference indicates that CA/æ/ speakers.is the most recent step of the chain shift (Kennedy and Grama 2012). new category. Early bilinguals tend to be successful at simultaneously maintaining language-internal Thus, Kennedy and Grama (2012)Lastly, suggested with regard an alternative to the high explanation back vowels to UWthe chain and UH, shift Korean-English which bilingualsand tendcross-linguistic contrasts (Chang et al. 2011) because they begin establishing L2 sounds when involves a push-chain initiatedto assimilate by the lowering both vowels of /ɪ/, resulting to the Korean in the lowering/u/ which of is/ɛ/ more and subsequently back (Baker and Trofimovich 2005). the lowering of /æ/. This processThus, we is predictedlikely to bethat, independent if influence of from the / Koreanɑ/-/ɔ/ merger phonology which occurs, in some Korean cases Americans wouldLanguages merge 2020, 5, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/languages UW and UH and produce them more back than the CA speakers. Similarly, AH would be produced 1 Figure 1 was created basedmore on the back data than of millennial the CAspeakers speakers reported due to influencein Table A1 from in D’Onofrio the Korean et al. /(2019)./. Our data showed that the Note that BOOK-type tokenslate bilinguals (i.e., /ʊ/) were produced not examined UW and in UH D’Onofri indistinguishably,o et al. (2019), suggestingthus, we added a strong the influence from Korean fronting of /ʊ/ in Figure phonology.1 based on previous However, studies unlike on the what California we expected, Vowel Shift they (e.g., did not(Podesva produce et al. the 2015; merged UW-UH more back Pratt and D’Onofrio 2017)).than CA speakers. One possible explanation is that, rather than to the Korean /u/, these speakers Languages 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 27 occurs in the low-central position of /ɑ/ (Kennedy and Grama 2012) and in other cases is not fully instantiated (Hall-Lew 2009). Chain shifts are claimed to occur in order to maintain enough phonetic distance between phonemes in the vowel space so that they are perceptually distinctive (D’Onofrio et al. 2019; Gordon 2011; Martinet 1952). If a phoneme moves within the vowel space, this leads to subsequent phonetic movements of neighboring vowels. Thus, in order to identify the vowel that triggered the movement, it is important to examine the temporal establishment of the chain shift in real or apparent time (D’Onofrio et al. 2019; Gordon 2011; Labov 2010, p. 145). That is, speakers from a certain age group in a more recent time period or younger speakers should exhibit more advanced movements of the chain shift than speakers of the same age group in an older time period or older speakers. D’Onofrio et al. (2019) conducted an apparent time study, comparing the vowels produced by speakers of four generations which were determined based on their birth year: Silent Generation (1928–1945), Baby Boomer (1946–1964), Generation X (1965–1980), and Millennial (after 1980). Results showed that, across the span of four generations, the speakers exhibited an overall reduction of dispersion mainly in the F2 dimension (i.e., frontedness), demonstrating a more advanced backing of front vowels and fronting of back vowels in younger generations. Most of these changes (i.e., /ɑ/-/ɔ/ merger, backing of /ɛ/ and /æ/, and fronting of postcoronal /u/ and /o/) appeared between the Silent and the Baby Boomer generations, suggesting that the horizontal compression of the vowel space occurred contemporaneously. In subsequent generations, continued /æ/-backing and /ɑ/-/ɔ/ merger were observed, as well as additional changes involving /ɪ/-backing, non-postcoronal /u/-fronting, lowering of /ɛ/, /æ/, and /i/, and raising of /ɑ/ and /ʌ/. These findings indicate that rather than a stepwise chain shift which has been previously claimed, the California Vowel Shift seems to show holistic compression of the vowel space. Phonologically speaking, this is contrary to the general tendency toward maximizing the phonetic space between phonemes as a means to maintain perceptual distinctiveness (Flemming 1996; Labov et al. 2006; Liljencrants and Lindblom 1972). Thus, D’Onofrio et al. (2019) proposed that the unexpected holistic compression at the root of the California Vowel Shift may be driven by speakers’ projection of localized social meanings within a community (Eckert 1989; Fought 1999; Podesva 2011), not by purely phonological motivations. That is, it is possible that vowel space compression is achieved through speakers’ manipulation of their articulatory settings (e.g., lowered jaw, protruded jaw and lips) (Pratt and D’Onofrio 2017) to index varied social meanings (e.g., young Californian, middle class membership, non-gang status, laid back, partier, urban, coastal) (D’Onofrio et al. 2019; Fought 1999; Podesva 2011; Podesva et al. 2015). Languages 2020, 5, 53 19 of 27 1.3. Vowels in Korean and Comparison between Korean and American English Vowel Systems

Modernmay have South assimilated Korean has the 7–8 UW-UH monophthongs category /i, to e, the (ɛ), Korean a, ʌ, o,/ ɨ,/ u/which (Jang is et acoustically al. 2015; Kang more 2014; similar to Kwak 2003;these Lee vowels. 2000; FutureLee and research Ramsey examining 2011 Yang late 1996) bilinguals’2. Due to recent combined merger L1 and of the L2 mid-front vowel space vowels would help /e/ and confirm/ɛ/, which this. is most Unlike likely the caused late bilinguals, by the raising the early of / bilingualsɛ/, many Koreans aligned no with longer the CAdistinguish speakers these in that they vowelsmaintained (Baker and theTrofimovich UW-UH contrast 2005; Kang using 2014; vowel Kw heightak 2003;12. ComparedJang et al. 2015; to the Lee CA and speakers, Ramsey only 2011; the GEN2 Yang 1996).speakers Studies demonstrated examining more Korean fronted vowel UH change and AH. in apparent As mentioned time (Jang above, et we al. believe2015; Kang that this2014) is due to have showntheir morethat the fronted Korean vowel /e/ and space. /ɛ/ are produced with overlapping F1 and F2 values across ages, except for someOverall, older our speakers data showed3 who produced a clear distinction them distinctly, between supporting the GEN2 that and young-generation the GEN1.5 speakers Koreans(i.e., have early a seven-vowel bilinguals), system on the with one hand,one mid-front and the vowel GEN1 /e/ speakers (Kwak (i.e.,2003). late bilinguals), on the other, confirming an effect of age of arrival to the US on Korean Americans’ realization of English vowels. Similar to the KOR speakers, the GEN1 speakers did not distinguish the front vowels contrasts IY-IH and EH-AE, using the same strategies as the CA speakers, and failed to maintain the back vowel 2 In somecontrasts cases, UW-UH front rounded and AH-AO. vowels Moreover,/y/ and /ø/ they may did be notadditionally participate observed in the Californiain the speech Vowel of older Shift, which generationis mostly speakers, likely but due in to modern influence South from Korean their these L1 Korean.sounds are Unlike mostly the replaced late bilinguals, by the diphthongs the early [we] bilinguals and successfully[wi], respectively maintained (Ahn and the Iverson four vowel2007; Kwak contrasts 2003; using Jang et the al. same2015). phonetic strategies as the CA speakers. 3 KangMoreover, (2014) specified the CA these speakers speakers and asthe male early speakers bilinguals born before demonstrated 1962 (i.e., horizontallybirth-year-based), narrower while andin Jang vertically et al.more (2015), expanded these speakers vowel were space male than and thefemale late speakers bilinguals in their (see 60s Figure (i.e., 3age-base). This indicatesd). Since the that data these in Jang speakers et al. (2015) were collected between 2014 and 2015, we speculate that these speakers were born between 1945 followed the linguistic trend of California English which is characterized by a horizontal compression and 1955. of vowel space (D’Onofrio et al. 2019). However, the early bilinguals did not demonstrate a complete convergence toward the CA speakers, especially when producing non-prenasal AE and prenasal AEN. While the GEN2 speakers distinguished the two vowel types, their split was less pronounced than the CA speakers. The GEN1.5 speakers, on the other hand, did not demonstrate a systematic distinction between AE and AEN, following the patterns of the late bilinguals. Less pronounced or lack of AE-AEN split among Korean Americans has also been reported in other studies (Cheng 2016; Lee 2016). Since Korean does not have AE-AEN split, this finding suggests that Korean phonology has an effect on early bilinguals’ production of AE and AEN and that the GEN1.5 speakers demonstrate a stronger influence from Korean phonology than the GEN2 speakers due to their later exposure to California English (i.e., age effect).

4.2. Second-Generation Korean Americans’ Divergent Participation in the California Vowel Shift In the case of the GEN2 speakers, apart from the less pronounced AE-AEN split, we found that these speakers additionally demonstrated an overall more fronted realization of the vowels than the CA speakers. Except for front vowel retraction, all the patterns of the California Vowel Shift examined in this study were observed in GEN2 speakers’ speech (i.e., front vowel lowering, back vowel fronting, AE-AEN split, AA-AO merger). In fact, in certain aspects, the GEN2 speakers seemed to be in a more advanced stage of the California Vowel Shift than the CA speakers (i.e., IH-lowering, AA-AO merger, UH- and AH-fronting). These findings, along with the less pronounced AE-AEN split, are highly consistent with those of Korean Americans in Berkeley (Cheng 2016), which suggests that Korean Americans in Southern and may share similar patterns. Based on visual inspection of participants’ vowel space in Figure3, the GEN2 speakers seemed to demonstrate the narrowest vowel space across groups. Thus, it is possible that GEN2 speakers’ fronted vowel space occurs in combination with more advanced horizontal compression than the CA speakers.

12 It is noteworthy that the CA speakers and the early bilinguals did not use vowel frontedness to distinguish the UW-UH contrast, whereas they used both vowel height and frontedness when distinguishing other contrasts (see Table2). We suspect that this is linked to the lack of a main effect of previous consonant on the production of UW and UH. The findings of this study differed from previous research (D’Onofrio et al. 2019; Hall-Lew 2009; Podesva et al. 2015) in that the production of UW and UH was not conditioned by the phonological context that encourages fronting (i.e., post-coronal position). Although our data do not have enough tokens in post-coronal position to further examine its effect on individual speakers, these findings seem to indicate that the fronting of UW and UH is well established among the CA speakers and the early bilinguals. A similar claim has been made by Hall-Lew(2009, 2011) that back vowel fronting is nearing completion in Northern California. Languages 2020, 5, 53 20 of 27

While further examination of GEN2 speakers’ holistic vowel space (e.g., area and dispersion) should be carried out, it appears that there is a link between GEN2 speakers’ narrow vowel space and their pronounced back vowel fronting. Pronounced back vowel fronting has also been found in other Asian American groups. For instance, Hall-Lew(2009, 2011) demonstrated that Chinese Americans in San Francisco may be in a more advanced stage of back vowel fronting than Anglo-Californians. Similarly, Cheng(2016) found that, apart from the Korean Americans, South Asians also demonstrated more pronounced UH-fronting than Anglo-Californians. Thus, it is possible that some Asian Americans in California collectively demonstrate stronger participation in back vowel fronting than Anglo-Californians to express their pan-ethnic Asian American identity. According to Wei(1993, p. 1 ), being Asian American “implies that there can be a communal consciousness and a unique culture that is neither Asian or American, but Asian American.” US-born Asian Americans often experience microaggressions challenging their American-ness due to their phenotypic traits that are distinct from the mainstream Americans (i.e., Anglo-Americans) (Lee 2019). The shared racialization experiences, which contradicts the covert oppression exerted upon Asian Americans behind the model minority stereotype (e.g., docile, hard-working, good citizens) (Chou and Feagin 2010; Kawai 2005; Lee 2019), may lead some Asian Americans to overemphasize their American-ness using linguistic resources. In other words, the pronounced back vowel fronting observed in the GEN2 speakers may be a result of the speakers overcompensating for their perceived un-American-ness by taking the back vowel fronting of the California Vowel Shift even further than the CA speakers. This may eventually cause for the front vowels to be pushed forward in order to maintain sufficient perceptual contrasts between front and back vowels (Lindblom 1990; Lindblom and Engstrand 1989). Future research should examine the social meanings of back vowel fronting and the relationship between the degree of back vowel fronting and pan-ethnic Asian American membership across different Asian American groups, as well as its effect on the realization of front vowels. It is important to note that, unlike the GEN2 speakers, the GEN1.5 speakers did not demonstrate pronounced back vowel fronting or an overall fronted vowel space. If we extend our argument from above, it is possible that the GEN1.5 speakers may not feel the need to overemphasize their American-ness through back vowel fronting in the same way as the GEN2 speakers, since GEN1.5 speakers often demonstrate a strong affiliation to Korean cultures as part of their dual identity (Kim and Stodolska 2013). Thus, it is likely that GEN1.5 speakers identify themselves more strongly as Koreans or Korean Americans than Asian Americans. Due to the small sample size (N = 4), it is premature to make an assumption on GEN1.5 speakers’ speech . Future research should include a balanced number of GEN1.5 and GEN2 speakers to test whether their English vowels systematically differ from each other and whether their pan-ethnic Asian American identity in relation to their Korean or Korean American identity has an effect on their realization of English vowels. Another possible explanation to GEN2 speakers’ fronted vowel space is the social meaning associated with gender in Korean culture. Cross-linguistically, female speakers have higher fundamental frequency (F0) and formant frequencies than male speakers due to differences in their vocal anatomy (Escudero et al. 2009; Jacewicz et al. 2007; Pisanski et al. 2016; Simpson 2002; Yoon and Kim 2015). Thus, compared to male speakers, female speakers generally have a higher-pitched and produce vowels with lower height (i.e., higher F1) and more fronted (i.e., higher F2). In this study, we normalized participants’ formant frequencies in order to examine gender effects on English vowel production while controlling for physiological differences between female and male speakers. As demonstrated in Figure3, the vowel space of CA female and male speakers largely overlapped in the front-back dimension13, whereas clear gender differences were observed across Korean groups,

13 The only gender difference in the CA group was found in the vowel height of EH. That is, the CA female speakers produced EH lower than the male speakers. Kennedy and Grama(2012) found similar results in that female and male Californians in Santa Barbara (Southern California) differed in the height of AE (i.e., women produced it lower than men), but did not show any significant difference in vowel frontedness. Since women in general are leaders of sound changes (Coates 1993; Milroy Languages 2020, 5, 53 21 of 27 especially among the GEN2 and the GEN1 speakers. That is, even after normalizing formant frequencies, the Korean female speakers produced English vowels more fronted than the Korean male speakers. These findings suggest that Korean female speakers shift their vowel space forward as a way to express their femininity. Femininity is indexed differently across cultures. For instance, in American culture, women use creaky voice to enhance their female desirability (Pennock-Speck 2005; Yuasa 2010), whereas Japanese women use high-pitched voice to sound cute, young, and charming (Van Bezooijen 1995; Ohara 1998; Yuasa 2010). Although to a lesser degree than in Japanese culture, Korean women also use high-pitched voice to express femininity (Ohara 1998; Puzar and Hong 2018). High-pitched voice is a characteristic of performed winsomeness called aegyo, which is the cutified and infantilized figuration of femininity in Korean culture14 (Puzar and Hong 2018). Due to the close relationship between F0 and formants, it is likely that performers of aegyo also produce fronted vowel space. According to Pisanski et al.(2016), speakers across genders and cultures modulate their vocal tract length and F0 to imitate a physically large and small body size. That is, they shorten their vocal tract and increase their F0 to sound physically small and do the opposite to sound physically large. Thus, it is possible that the GEN2 female speakers move their vowel space forward to express Korean femininity. Here we would like to emphasize that among the four Korean groups (i.e., GEN2, GEN1.5, GEN1, and KOR), gender differences surfaced most systematically in the vowels of the GEN2 and the GEN1 speakers and that the front region of GEN2 speakers’ vowel space largely overlapped with that of the GEN1 speakers. That is, GEN2 speakers’ fronted vowel space reflects features that are present in both the CA speakers (i.e., horizontal compression and vertical expansion of the vowel space) and the Korean speakers (i.e., more fronted vowel space among female than male speakers), particularly those of their parents’ generation. Although evidence of individual vowels disfavors the possibility of influence from Korean phonology, the findings suggest that the vowel space of the female GEN2 speakers is moving forward to align with the front region of the female GEN1 speakers. Studies have shown that children of immigrants who acquire the majority language natively may use ethnolectal features as additional linguistic resources to mark social meanings (e.g., association with ethnicity) (Cheshire et al. 2011; Clyne et al. 2001; Gnevsheva 2020). While ethnolectal features may originate from first-generation immigrants’ foreign-accented speech, in second generation they may be reallocated for sociolinguistic purposes (Clyne et al. 2001; Gnevsheva 2020; Hoffman and Walker 2010). Thus, it is possible that the female GEN2 speakers shift their entire vowel space forward to index their intersecting ethnic and gender identities (i.e., cute and charming Korean female persona). The vowel space shift may occur independently or in combination with pronounced back vowel fronting to additionally express their pan-ethnic Asian American identity, as proposed above. Future research should examine intra-speaker of GEN2 speakers’ vowel productions (e.g., style-shifting) to understand the social meanings of their fronted vowel space. Moreover, a perceptual study should be accompanied to examine whether such social meanings are shared by the Korean American community.

5. Conclusions In this study, we examined Korean Americans’ participation in the California Vowel Shift. Although the first-generation Korean Americans had spent a much longer time in the US than the Korean international students, influence from Korean still persisted in their speech. On the other hand, Korean Americans who were born and raised in Los Angeles (i.e., second-generation) or those who

and Milroy 1985; Labov 1990; Trudgill 1972), it appears that the lowering of mid and low front vowels EH and AE is still in progress in California English, whereas changes in the front-back dimension (i.e., retraction of front vowels and fronting of back vowels) may be nearing stability for the CA speakers. 14 According to Puzar and Hong(2018), aegyo is not a direct emulation of child behaviors, but a performative repertoire of secondary infantilisation (Goffman 1979, pp. 72–77) used for various purposes (e.g., playfulness, seduction, negotiation, pleasing superiors). Thus, performers of aegyo, particularly young women, use this speech style to “negotiate the imbalance of power within patriarchal, androcentric and ageist/gerontocratic environments” (Puzar and Hong 2018). Similar concepts exist in other East Asian cultures, such as sajiao in China (Farris 1994) and kawaii in Japan (Brown 2011; Madge 1998). Languages 2020, 5, 53 22 of 27 came to the US during childhood (i.e., 1.5-generation) demonstrated most patterns of the California Vowel Shift. However, divergence from the Anglo-Californians was observed in their production of prenasal and non-prenasal /æ/. The 1.5-generation speakers did not systematically distinguish the two vowel types, similar to the late bilinguals. The second-generation speakers demonstrated a split-/æ/ system, but it was less pronounced than for the Anglo-Californians. These findings suggests that age of arrival has a strong effect on immigrant minority speakers’ participation in local sound change. Our findings also showed that the second-generation Korean Americans, in particular the female speakers, demonstrated an overall more fronted realization of the vowels than the Anglo-Californians. Second-generation Korean Americans’ fronted vowel space reflected features that were present in both the Anglo-Californians (i.e., horizontal compression and vertical expansion of the vowel space) and the Korean speakers, particularly those of the first-generation Korean Americans (i.e., more fronted vowel space among female than male speakers). These findings suggest that second-generation Korean Americans may shift their vowel space forward to express their intersecting gender, racial, and ethnic identities. Future research should examine the social meanings of the fronting of vowel space.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.Y.K.; Data curation, N.W.; Formal analysis, J.Y.K.; Investigation, J.Y.K. and N.W.; Methodology, J.Y.K. and N.W.; Visualization, J.Y.K. and N.W.; Writing—original draft, J.Y.K.; Writing—review & editing, J.Y.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

ReferencesArticle Ahn, Sang-Cheol, and Gregory K. Iverson. 2007. Structured imbalances in the emergence of the Korean vowel(Divergent) system. In Historical Participation Linguistics 2005: Selected Papers in fromthe the 17thCalifornia International Conference Vowel on Historical LinguisticsShift. Editedby Korean by Joseph C. Salmons Americans and Shannon Dubenion-Smith.in Southern Amsterdam California and : John Benjamins, pp. 275–93. Baker, Wendy, and Pavel Trofimovich. 2005. Interaction of Native- and Second-Language Vowels System(s) in Ji Young Kim 1,* and Nicole Wong 2 Early and Late Bilinguals. Language and Speech 48: 1–27. [CrossRef] Baker, Wendy,1 Department Pavel Trofimovich, of Spanish and Molly Portuguese, Mack, and Univer Jamessity E. of Flege.California, 2002. Los The Angeles, Effect ofCA Perceived 90095, USA Phonetic Similarity2 Independent on Non-Native Scholar, SoundSanta Clara, Learning CA by95050, Children USA; [email protected] Adults. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual University* Correspondence: Conference on [email protected] Language Development . Edited by Barbora Skarabela, Sarah and Anna H.-J. Do. Somerville: Cascadilla Press, pp. 36–47. Received: 24 September 2020; Accepted: 2 November 2020; Published: 6 November 2020 Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Bon Bolker, and Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting Linear Mixed-effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67: 1–48. [CrossRef] Abstract: This study investigates the participation in the California Vowel Shift by Korean Best, Catherine T., and Michael D. Tyler. 2007. Nonnative and Second-language Speech Perception: Commonalities Americans in Los Angeles. Five groups of subjects participated in a picture narrative task: first-, 1.5- and Complementarities. In Language Experience in Second Language Speech Learning: In Honor of James Emil , and second-generation Korean Americans, Anglo-Californians, and (non-immigrant) Korean late Flege. Edited by Ocke-Schwen Bohn and Murray J. Munro. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, learners of English. Results showed a clear distinction between early vs. late bilinguals; while the pp. 13–34. first-generation Korean Americans and the late learners showed apparent signs of Korean influence, Boberg, Charles. 2004. Ethnic Patterns in the of Montreal English. Journal of 8: 538–68. [CrossRefthe 1.5-] and the second-generation Korean Americans participated in most patterns of the California Boersma,Vowel Paul, Shift. and David However, Weenink. divergence 2020. Praat: from Doing the PhoneticsAnglo-Californians by Computer. was Computer observed Program. in early Version bilinguals’ 5.1.31.speech. Available Similar online: to the http: late// www.praat.orgbilinguals, the/ (accessed1.5-generation on 3 July speakers 2020). did not systematically distinguish Brown,prenasal Janice. 2011. and Re-framing non-prenasal “Kawaii”: /æ/. The Interrogating second-gener Globalation Anxieties speakers Surrounding demonstrated the Culture a split-/æ/ of ‘Cute’ system, in Japanesebut it Artwas and less Consumer pronounced Products. thanInternational for the Anglo-Californians. Journal of the Image 1: These 1–10. [CrossReffindings] suggest that age of Carter, Philliparrival E.,has Lydda a strong L. Valdez, effect and on Nandiimmigrant Sims. minority 2020. New speakers’ Dialect Formation participation through in local Language sound Contact: change. In Vocalicthe case and of Prosodic the second-generation Developments in Miami Korean English. AmericanAmericans, certain Speech patterns95: 119–48. of [theCrossRef California] Vowel Shift Casillas,were Joseph even V., more and Miquel pronounced Simonet. than 2016. for Productionthe Anglo-Californians and Perception (i.e., of the/ɪ/-lowering, English/æ/ -//ɑ/-//Contrastɔ/ merger, in /ʊ/- Switched-dominanceand /ʌ/-fronting). Speakers.Moreover,Second the Languageentire vowel Research space32: 171–95.of the [second-generationCrossRef] Korean Americans, Chang,especially Charles B., Yaofemale Yao, speakers, Erin F. Haynes, was andmore Russell fronted Rhodes. than 2011.that Productionof the Anglo-Californians. of Phonetic and Phonological These findings Contrastsuggest by that Heritage second-generation Speakers of Mandarin. KoreanThe Americans Journal of the may Acoustical be inSociety a more of America advanced129: 3964–80.stage of the [CrossRefCalifornia][PubMed Vowel] Shift than Anglo-Californians or the California Vowel Shift is on a different trajectory for these speakers. Possible explanations in relation to second-generation Korean Americans’ intersecting gender, ethnic, and racial identities, and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Keywords: Korean Americans; California Vowel Shift; second language phonology; bilingualism; immigrant minority speakers; sound change

1. Introduction Over the past few decades, research on second language (L2) phonology has provided empirical evidence that early bilinguals are generally more successful in acquiring L2 speech sounds than late bilinguals (Flege et al. 1995, 1997; Flege and MacKay 2011; Stevens 1999; Yeni-Komshian et al. 2000). Models in L2 phonology, such as Flege’s (1995) Speech Learning Model (SLM) and Best and Tyler’s (2007) Perceptual Assimilation Model (PAM)-L2, posit that bilinguals’ L1 and L2 phones interact in a common phonological space. Thus, the development of L2 sounds would depend on the perceptual similarity to existing L1 sounds. That is, bilinguals would assimilate an L2 sound to an L1 sound if the two are perceived identical or if the L2 sound is perceived as a deviant variant of the L1 sound. However, if an L2 sound is perceptually distinct from existing L1 sounds, bilinguals would create a new category. Early bilinguals tend to be successful at simultaneously maintaining language-internal and cross-linguistic contrasts (Chang et al. 2011) because they begin establishing L2 sounds when

Languages 2020, 5, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/languages Languages 2020, 5, 53 23 of 27

Cheng, Andrew. 2016. A Survey of English Vowel Spaces of Asian American Californians. UC Berkeley Phonetics and Phonology Lab Annual Report 12: 348–84. Cheshire, Jenny, Paul Kerswill, Sue Fox, and Eivind Torgersen. 2011. Contact, the Feature Pool and the Speech Community: The Emergence of Multicultural London English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15: 151–96. [CrossRef] Chou, Rosalind S., and Joe R. Feagin. 2010. The Myth of the Model Minority: Asian Americans Facing Racism. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers. Clarke, Sandra, Ford Elms, and Amani Youssef. 1995. The Third Dialect of English: Some Canadian Evidence. Language Variation and Change 7: 209–28. [CrossRef] Clyne, Michael G., Edina Eisikovits, and Laura F. Tollfree. 2001. Ethnic varieties of . In English in . Edited by David Blair and Peter Collins. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 223–38. Coates, Jennifer. 1993. Women, Men, and Language: A Sociolinguistic Account of Gender Differences in Language, 2nd ed. London: Longman. D’Onofrio, Annette, Penelope Eckert, J. Podesva, Teresa Pratt, and Janneke Van Hofwegen. 2016. The Low Vowels in California’s Central Valley. Publication of the 101: 11–32. [CrossRef] D’Onofrio, Annette, Teresa Pratt, and Janneke Van Hofwegen. 2019. Compression in the California Vowel Shift: Tracking Generational Sound Change in California’s Central Valley. Language Variation and Change 31: 193–217. [CrossRef] Eckert, Penelope. 1989. Jocks and Burnouts: Social Categories and Identity in the High School. New York: Teachers College Press. Eckert, Penelope. 2008. Where Do Ethnolects Stop? International Journal of Bilingualism 12: 25–42. [CrossRef] Escudero, Paola, Paul Boersma, Adréia Schurt Rauber, and Ricardo A. H. Bion. 2009. A Cross-dialect Acoustic Description of vowels: Brazilian and European Portuguese. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126: 1379–93. [CrossRef] Farris, Catherine S. 1994. A Semiotic Analysis of Sajiao as a Gender Marked Communication Style in Chinese. In Unbound Taiwan: Closeups from a Distance, Select Papers 8. Edited by Marshall Johnson and Fred Y. L. Chiu. Chicago: Center for East Asian Studies, University of Chicago, pp. 2–29. Flege, James. E. 1995. Second-language Speech Learning: Theory, Findings, and Problems. In Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research. Edited by Winifred Strange. Timonium: York Press, pp. 229–73. Flege, James. E. 1999. Age of Learning and Second-language Speech. In Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis. Edited by David Birdsong. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Press, pp. 101–32. Flege, James E., and Ian R. A. MacKay. 2011. What Accounts for “Age” Effects on Overall Degree of Foreign Accent? In Achievements and Perspectives in the Acquisition of Second Language Speech. New Sounds. Edited by Magdalena Wrembel, Malgorzata Kul and Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk. Bern: Peter Lang, vol. 2, pp. 65–82. Flege, James. E., Murray Munro, and Ian R. A. MacKay. 1995. Factors Affecting Strength of Perceived Foreign Accent in a Second Language. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97: 3125–34. [CrossRef] Flege, James. E., Ocke-Schewen Bohn, and Sunyoung Jang. 1997. Effects of Experience on Non-native Speakers’ Production and Perception of English Vowels. Journal of Phonetics 25: 437–70. [CrossRef] Flemming, Edward. 1996. Evidence for Constraints on Contrast: The Dispersion Theory of Contrast. UCLA Working Papers in Phonology 1: 86–106. Fought, Carmen. 1999. A Majority Sound Change in a Minority Community:/u/-Fronting in . Journal of Sociolinguistics 3: 5–23. [CrossRef] Fought, Carmen. 2003. Chicano English in Context. New York: Macmillan. Gnevsheva, Ksenia. 2020. The Role of Style in the Ethnolect: Style-Shifting in the Use of Ethnolectal Features in the First- and Second-generation Speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 1–20. [CrossRef] Goffman, Erving. 1979. Gender Advertisements, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Press. Gordon, Matthew. 2011. Methodological and Theoretical Issues in the Study of Chain Shifting. Language and Linguistics Compass 5: 784–94. [CrossRef] Hagiwara, Robert. 1997. Dialect Variation and Formant Frequency: The American English Vowels Revisited. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 102: 655–8. [CrossRef] Languages 2020, 5, 53 24 of 27

Hall-Lew, Lauren. 2009. Ethnicity and Sound Change in San Francisco English. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 35: 111–22. [CrossRef] Hall-Lew, Lauren. 2011. The Completion of a Sound Change in California English. Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 17: 807–10. Hall-Lew, Lauren, and Rebecca L. Starr. 2010. Beyond the 2nd Generation: English Use Among Chinese Americans in the . English Today 26: 12–19. [CrossRef] Hall-Lew, Lauren, Amanda Cardoso, Yova Kemenchedjieva, Kieran Wilson, Ruaridh Purse, and Julie Saigusa. 2015. San Francisco English and the California Vowel Shift. Paper presented at 18th International Conference of the Phonetic Sciences, , UK, 10–14 August 2015. Hinton, Leanne, Birch Moonwomon, Sue Bremner, Herb Luthin, Mary Van Clay, Jean Lerner, and Hazel Corcoran. 1987. It’s Not Just the Valley Girls: A study of California English. Paper presented at Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, CA, USA, 14–16 February 1987; pp. 117–28. Hoffman, Michol F. 2010. The Role of Social Factors in the Canadian Vowel Shift: Evidence from Toronto. American Speech 85: 121–40. [CrossRef] Hoffman, Michol F., and James A. Walker. 2010. Ethnolects and the City: Ethnic Orientation and Linguistic Variation in Toronto English. Language Variation and Change 22: 37–67. [CrossRef] Ito, Rika. 2010. Accommodation to the Local Majority Norm by in the Twin Cities, Minnesota. American Speech 85: 141–62. [CrossRef] Jacewicz, Ewa, Robert Allen Fox, and Joseph Salmons. 2007. Vowel Space Areas across Dialects and Gender. In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Edited by Jürgen Trouvain and William John Barry. Saarbrücken: University of Saarland, pp. 1465–68. Jang, Hyejin, Jiyoung Shin, and Hosung Nam. 2015. Aspects of Vowels by Ages in Seoul Dialect. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology, and 21: 341–58. [CrossRef] Jia, Gisela, and Doris Aaronson. 2003. A Longitudinal Study of Chinese Children and Adolescents Learning English in the . Applied Psycholinguistics 24: 131–61. [CrossRef] Johannessen, Janne Bondi, and Signe Laake. 2015. On two myths of the in America: Is it old-fashioned? Is it approaching the written Bokmål standard? In Germanic Heritage Languages in . Edited by Janne Bondi Johannessen and Joseph C. Salmons. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 299–322. Kang, Yoonjung. 2014. A Corpus-based Study of Positional Variation in Seoul Korean Vowels. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 23: 1–20. Kang, Jieun, and Eun Jong Kong. 2016. Static and Dynamic Spectral Properties of the Monophthong Vowels in Seoul Korean: Implication on Sound Change. Phonetics and Speech Sciences 8: 39–47. [CrossRef] Kawai, Yuko. 2005. Stereotyping Asian Americans: The Dialectic of the Model Minority and the Yellow Peril. The Howard Journal of Communications 16: 109–30. [CrossRef] Kennedy, Robert, and James Grama. 2012. Chain Shifting and Centralization in California Vowels: An Acoustic Analysis. American Speech 87: 39–56. [CrossRef] Kim, Jungeun, and Monika Stodolska. 2013. Impacts of Diaspora Travel on Ethnic Identity Development among 1.5 Generation Korean American College Students. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change 11: 187–207. [CrossRef] Kuhl, Patricia K., Karern A. Williams, Francisco Lacerda, Kenneth N. Stevens, and Björn Lindblom. 1992. Linguistic Experience Alters Phonetic Perception in Infants by 6 Months of Age. Science 255: 606–8. [CrossRef] Kuznetsova Alexandra, Brockhoff Per B., and Christensen Rune H. B. 2017. LmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software 82: 1–26. [CrossRef] Kwak, Chung-gu. 2003. The Vowel System of Contemporary Korean and Direction of Change. Journal of Korean Linguistics 41: 59–91. Labov, William. 1972. Language in the Inner City: Studies in Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Press. Labov, William. 1990. The Intersection of Sex and Social Class in the Course of Linguistic Change. Language Variation and Change 2: 205–54. [CrossRef] Labov, William. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change: Social Factors. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, vol. 2. Labov, William. 2010. Principles of Linguistic Change: Cognitive and Cultural Factors. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, vol. 3. Languages 2020, 5, 53 25 of 27

Labov, William, Sharon Ash, and Charles Boberg. 2006. The Atlas of : Phonetics, Phonology, and Sound Change. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Lee, Hikyong. 2000. Korean Americans as Speakers of English: The Acquisition of General and Regional Features. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Lee, Jinsok. 2016. The Participation of a Northern Korean American Community in Local and Variation. American Speech 91: 327–60. [CrossRef] Lee, Jess. 2019. Many Dimensions of Asian American Pan-ethnicity. Sociology Compass 13: 1–16. [CrossRef] Lee, Ki-Moon, and S. Robert Ramsey. 2011. A History of the . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lee, Hyangwon, Woobong Shin, and Jiyoung Shin. 2017. A Sociophonetic Study on High/Mid Back Vowels in Korean. Phonetics and Speech Sciences 9: 39–51. Lenth, Russell. 2020. Emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R Package Version 1.5.0. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans (accessed on 8 September 2020). Liljencrants, Johan, and Björn Lindblom. 1972. Numerical Simulation of Vowel Quality Systems: The Role of Perceptual Contrast. Language 48: 839–62. [CrossRef] Lindblom, Björn. 1990. Explaining Phonetic Variation: A Sketch of the H&H Theory. In Speech Production and Speech Modelling. Edited by William J. Hardcastle and Alain Marchal. : Springer, pp. 403–39. Lindblom, Björn, and Olle Engstrand. 1989. In What Sense is Speech Quantal? Journal of Phonetics 17: 107–21. [CrossRef] Lloyd-Smith, Anika, Marieke Einfeldt, and Tanja Kupisch. 2020. Italian-German Bilinguals: The Effects of Heritage Language Use on Accent in Early-Acquired Languages. International Journal of Bilingualism 24: 289–304. [CrossRef] Lobanov, Boris. 1971. Classification of Russian Vowels Spoken by Different Speakers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 49: 606–8. [CrossRef] Madge, Leila. 1998. Capitalizing on ‘Cuteness’: The Aesthetics of Social Relations in a New Postwar Japanese Order. Japanstudien 9: 155–74. [CrossRef] Martinet, André. 1952. Function, Structure, and Sound Change. Word 8: 1–32. [CrossRef] Mayer, Mercer. 1969. Frog, Where Are You? New York: Dial Press. McAuliffe, Michael, Michaela Socolof, Sarah Mihuc, Michael Wagner, and Morgan Sonderegger. 2017. Montreal Forced Aligner [Computer Program]. Version 0.9.0. Available online: http://montrealcorpustools.github.io/ Montreal-Forced-Aligner/ (accessed on 17 January 2017). McCloy, Daniel R. 2016. PhonR: Tools for Phoneticians and Phonologists. R Package Version 1.0-7. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=phonR (accessed on 8 September 2020). Mendoza-Denton, Norma. 1999. Fighting Words: Latina Girls, Gangs, and Language Attitudes. In Speaking Chicana: Voice, Power, and Identity. Edited by D. Letticia Galindo and María D. Gonzales. Tucson: Press, pp. 39–56. Mendoza-Denton, Norma, and Melissa Iwai. 1993. They Speak more Caucasian: Generation Differences in the Speech of Japanese-Americans. In Texas Linguistics Forum, Number 33. Austin: University of Texas, Department of Linguistics, pp. 58–67. Milroy, James, and Lesley Milroy. 1985. Linguistic Change, Social Network and Speaker Innovation. Journal of Linguistics 21: 339–84. [CrossRef] Ohara, Yumiko. 1998. Two Languages, Two Cultures, and Two Vocal Apparati? Sociolinguistic Explanation for Phonetic Phenomena in Bilingual Speakers of Korean and Japanese. In The Life of Language, the Language of Life: Selected Papers from the First College-Wide Conference for Students in Languages, Linguistics, and Literature. Edited by Dina Yoshimi and Marilyn Plumlee. Honolulu: University of at Manoa, pp. 124–33. 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 R. Barriga Villanueva and E. Herrera Zendejas. Tlalpan: El Colegio de México, Centro de Estudios Lingüísticos y Literarios, pp. 1101–23. Pennock-Speck, Barry. 2005. The Changing Voice of Women. In Actas del XXVIII Congreso Internacional de AEDEAN. Edited by Juan José Calvo García de Leonardo, Jesús Tronch Pérez, Milagros del Saz Rubio, Carme Manuel Cuenca, Barry Pennock Speck and Maria José Coperías Aguilar. Valencia: Dept. de Filologia Anglesa i Alemanya, Univ. de València, pp. 407–15. Languages 2020, 5, 53 26 of 27

Pisanski, Katarzyna, Emanual C. Mora, Annette Pisanski, David Reby, Piotr Sorokowski, Tomasz Frackowiak, and David R. Feinberg. 2016. Volitional Exaggeration of Boday Size through Fundamental and Formant Frequency Modulation in Humans. Scientific Reports 6: 34389. [CrossRef] Podesva, Robert J. 2011. The California Vowel Shift and Gay Identity. American Speech 86: 32–51. [CrossRef] Podesva, Robert J., Annette D’Onofrio, Janneke Van Hofwegen, and Seung Kyung Kim. 2015. Country Ideology and the California Vowel Shift. Language Variation and Change 27: 157–86. [CrossRef] Polinsky, Maria. 2018. Heritage Languages and Their Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 159. Pratt, Teresa, and Annette D’Onofrio. 2017. Jaw Setting and the California Vowel Shift in Parodic Performance. Language in Society 46: 283–312. [CrossRef] Puzar, Aljosa, and Yewon Hong. 2018. Korean Cuties: Understanding Performed Winsomeness (Aegyo) in South Korea. The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 19: 333–49. [CrossRef] R Development Core Team. 2020. R Development Core Team, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Available online: https://www.r-project.org/ (accessed on 8 September 2020). Roeder, Rebecca V. 2010. Northern Cities Mexican American English: Vowel Production and Perception. American Speech 85: 163–84. [CrossRef] Simpson, Adrian P. 2002. Gender-specific Articulatory-acoustic Relations in Vowel Sequences. Journal of Phonetics 30: 417–35. [CrossRef] Sohn, Ho-min. 1999. The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stevens, Gillian. 1999. Age at Immigration and Second Language Proficiency among Foreign-born Adults. Language in Society 28: 555–78. [CrossRef] Thomas, Erik R. 2000. Spectral Differences in/ai/Offsets Conditioned by Voicing of the Following Consonant. Journal of Phonetics 28: 1–25. [CrossRef] Thomas, Erik R. 2001. An Acoustic Analysis of Vowel Variation in New World English. In Publication of the American Dialect Society 85. Durham: Duke University Press. Traunmüller, Hartmut. 1997. Auditory Scales of Frequency Representation. Stockholm: Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University, Available online: http://www.ling.su.se/staff/hartmut/bark.htm (accessed on 8 September 2020). Trofimovich, Pavel, Wendy Baker, and Molly Mack. 2011. Context- and Experience-based Effects on the Learning of Vowels in a Second Language. Studies in the Linguistics Sciences 31: 167–86. Trudgill, Peter. 1972. Sex, Covert Prestige and Linguistic Change in the Urban of Norwich. Language in Society 1: 179–95. [CrossRef] Tseng, Amelia. 2015. Vowel Variation, Style, and Identity Construction in the English of Latinos in Washington, D.C. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA. Tsukada, Kimiko, David Birdsong, Ellen Bialystok, Molly Mack, Hyekyung Sung, and James E. Flege. 2005. A Developmental Study of English Vowel Production and Perception by Native Korean Adults and Children. Journal of Phonetics 33: 263–90. [CrossRef] Van Bezooijen, Reneé. 1995. Sociocultural Aspects of Pitch Differences between Japanese and Dutch Women. Language and Speech 38: 253–65. [CrossRef] Wei, William. 1993. The Asian American Movement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Weinfeld, Morton. 1985. Myth and Reality in the Canadian Mosaic: Affective ethnicity. In Ethnicity and Ethnic Relations in : A Book of , 2nd ed. Edited by Rita M. Bienvenue and Jay E. Goldstein. Toronto: Butterworths, pp. 65–86. Werker, Janet F., and Richard C. Tees. 1984. Cross-language Speech Perception: Evidence for Perceptual Reorganization during the First Year of Life. Infant and Development 7: 49–63. [CrossRef] Yang, Byunggon. 1996. A Comparative Study of American English and Korean Vowels Produced by Male and Female Speakers. Journal of Phonetics 24: 245–61. [CrossRef] Yeni-Komshian, Grace H., James E. Flege, and Serena Liu. 2000. Pronunciation Proficiency in the First and Second Languages of Korean-English Bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3: 131–49. [CrossRef] Yoon, Kyuchul, and Soonok Kim. 2015. A Comparative Study on the Male and Female Vowel Formants of the Korean Corpus of Spontaneous Speech. Phonetics and Speech Sciences 7: 131–38. [CrossRef] Languages 2020, 5, 53 27 of 27

Yuasa, Ikuko Patricia. 2010. Creaky Voice: A New Feminine Voice Quality for Young Urban-oriented Upwardly Mobile American Women? American Speech 85: 315–37. [CrossRef] Zampini, Mary. 2008. L2 Speech Production Research: Findings, Issues and Advances. In Phonology and Second Language Acquisition. Edited by Jette. G. Hansen Edwards and Mary Zampini. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 219–50.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).