An Examination of Social, Phonetic, and Lexical Variables on the Lenition of Intervocalic Voiced Stops by Spanish Heritage Speakers

Home , Mid vowel, Occlusive, Segment (linguistics)

Article An Examination of Social, Phonetic, and Lexical Variables on the Lenition of Intervocalic Voiced Stops by Spanish Heritage Speakers

Kaylyn Blair 1,* and Sarah Lease 2

1 Department of Modern Languages, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO 80204, USA 2 Department of Spanish and Portuguese, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-413-636-8936

Abstract: The lenition of Spanish intervocalic voiced stops, commonly grouped as /bdg/, has increasingly been examined within Spanish as a Heritage Language research. This study seeks to identify social, phonetic, and lexical factors that predict the degree of lenition of /bdg/ among heritage speakers of Spanish. We analyzed 850 intervocalic productions of /bdg/ by 20 adult Spanish heritage speakers of various generations in an oral word list production task. Using spectrographic analyses, productions were categorized as full approximant, tense approximant, and occlusive. Results from linear mixed-effects models indicated that the phonetic context and the number of family generations residing in the US significantly predicted the degree of lenition of intervocalic voiced segments while age of acquisition of Spanish, current contact hours, and cognate status did not predict changes in the degree of lenition. Specifically, as the speaker’s number of family generations residing in the US increased, fewer segments were lenited. We conclude that variations in /bdg/ lenition among heritage speakers of Spanish reflect the changes in pronunciation of other segments Citation: Blair, Kaylyn, and Sarah of heritage speakers over generations. Lease. 2021. An Examination of Social, Phonetic, and Lexical Variables on the Lenition of Intervocalic Voiced Keywords: heritage speakers; heritage language acquisition; bilingualism; generation; phonetics Stops by Spanish Heritage Speakers. Languages 6: 108. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/languages6020108 1. Introduction Academic Editor: Bradley Hoot Given individual differences in linguistic and cultural experiences, the speech practices of heritage speakers of Spanish (HSS) are often described as “heterogenous”. HSS in the Received: 30 March 2021 United States can be defined as an individual who was raised in a home where Spanish is Accepted: 10 June 2021 spoken, who speaks or at least understands Spanish, and who is to some degree bilingual Published: 17 June 2021 in Spanish and in English, the societally dominant language (Valdés 2001, p. 38). This definition also encompasses individuals who have a cultural connection to the heritage Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral language (Fishman 2001). HSS may be simultaneous bilinguals with exposure to both with regard to jurisdictional claims in the majority language, English, and the heritage language, Spanish, before the onset of published maps and institutional affil- schooling. They may also be sequential bilinguals, who receive exposure to Spanish until iations. they start preschool or kindergarten when a shift towards primarily using English may begin. The sequential or simultaneous acquisition of Spanish and of English, the frequency of use of Spanish, and the number of family generations in the United States have all been identified as factors contributing to linguistic variation among heritage speakers (Escobar Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. and Potowski 2015). This paper will examine some of the social and linguistic factors that Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. may affect the degree of lenition of /bdg/, among HSS. Many factors have been presented This article is an open access article in the literature to account for this phonetic variation. Here we focus on the effects of age of distributed under the terms and acquisition of Spanish, generation, current use of Spanish (social factors), and the phonetic conditions of the Creative Commons context (linguistic factor). Additionally, we examine the role of cognate status in /bdg/ Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// production. creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

Languages 2021, 6, 108. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6020108 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/languages Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 22

Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 22 Languages 2021, 6, 108 2 of 22

2. Literature Review 2. Literature Review 2. Literature2.1. Intervocalic Review Voiced Stops in Spanish and English 2.1.2.1. Intervocalic IntervocalicSpanish Voiced isVoiced described Stops Stops in inas Spanish Spanish having and and six English Englishstop segments, three voiced and three unvoiced. HereSpanishSpanish we focus is is described described on the three as as having having voiced six six segments, stop stop segments, segments, /bdg/. three Thethree segments voiced voiced and and differ three three in unvoiced. unvoiced.their place of HereHerearticulation: we we focus focus on /b/ on the is the a three bilabial, three voiced voiced /d/ segments,is segments, classified /bdg/. /bdg/.as a coronal The The segments segments segment, differ differ and in in/g/ their their is a place velar.place of Inof the articulation:articulation:present study, /b/ /b/ iswe a bilabial,focus on /d/ the is isphonetic classified classified process as as a acoron coronal of allenition, segment, segment, which and and /g/is /g/ variable is a is velar. a velar. in In both the In fre‐ thepresentquent present andstudy, study, infrequent we we focus focus English on on the the phonetic contact phonetic varietiesprocess process of of oflenition, Spanish lenition, which (Simonet which is variable is et variable al. 2012; in both in Rao both fre 2014,‐ frequentquent2015). and andLenition infrequent infrequent is defined English English as contact the weakening varieties of ofof an SpanishSpanish intervocalic ( (SimonetSimonet voiced et et al. al. 2012stop 2012;; (HualdeRao Rao 2014 2014, 2014)., 20152015).For). Lenitionthat Lenition reason, is is defined definedthey are as as phonetically the the weakening weakening considered of of an an intervocalic intervocalic approximants. voiced voiced In stop stop intervocalic ( Hualde(Hualde 2014 2014).contexts,). ForFor/bdg/ that that reason,often reason, lenite, they they are as are phoneticallyin phonetically examples considered1a–3a. considered Lenition approximants. approximants. of these segments In In intervocalic intervocalic occurs contexts, contexts, over word /bdg//bdg/boundaries oftenoften lenite,lenite, as well asas (Hualde in in examples examples 2014; 1a–3a. 1a–3a. Rao 2015), LenitionLenition as in ofof examples these these segments segments 1b–3b. occurs Additionally,occurs over over word word lenition boundaries as well (Hualde 2014; Rao 2015), as in examples 1b–3b. Additionally, lenition boundariesis less likely as well in the (Hualde word ‐2014initial; Rao position, 2015), asafter in examples a nasal consonant, 1b–3b. Additionally, and, for the lenition coronal is seg‐ is less likely in the word‐initial position, after a nasal consonant, and, for the coronal seg‐ lessment, likely when in the it word-initial is preceded position, by a lateral after segment a nasal consonant, (Hualde 2014; and, for Simonet the coronal et al. segment, 2012). In ex‐ ment, when it is preceded by a lateral segment (Hualde 2014; Simonet et al. 2012). In ex‐ whenamples it is preceded 1a and 2a, by the a lateral first segments segment (wouldHualde more 2014 ;likely Simonet be articulated et al. 2012). as In examplesocclusives. 1a andamples 2a, the 1a first and segments 2a, the first would segments more would likely bemore articulated likely be as articulated occlusives. as occlusives. 1a. Word medial: él bebe [el‐′ˈbe‐βe] ‘he drinks’ 1b. Word initial: yo bailo [ʝo-ˈβaj‐lo] ‘I dance’ 1a. Word medial: él bebe [el‐ˈbe‐βe] ‘he drinks’ 1b. Word initial: yo bailo [ʝo-ˈβaj‐lo] ‘I dance’ 2a. Word medial: el dedo [el‐ˈde‐ðo] ‘the finger’ 2b. Word initial: la dama [la‐ˈða‐ma] ‘the lady’ 2a. Word medial: el dedo [el‐ˈde‐ðo] ‘the finger’ 2b. Word initial: la dama [la‐ˈða‐ma] ‘the lady’ 3a. Word medial: él llega [el‐ˈʝe‐ɣa] ‘he arrives’ 3b. Word initial: ella gana [ˈe‐ʝa‐ˈɣa‐na] ‘she wins’ 3a. Word medial: él llega [el‐ˈʝe‐ɣa] ‘he arrives’ 3b. Word initial: ella gana [ˈe‐ʝa‐ˈɣa‐na] ‘she wins’ OnOnOn the the the other other other hand, hand, hand, the the the English English English /bdg/ /bdg/ /bdg/ are are are articulated articulated articulated as as occlusives asocclusives occlusives in in word wordin word medial medial medial (Examples(Examples(Examples 4a–6a) 4a–6a) 4a–6a) and and and initial initial initial (Examples (Examples (Examples 4b–6b) 4b–6b) 4b–6b) positions. positions. positions. There There There is is a ais full full a stoppingfull stopping stopping of of the the of the articulatorsarticulatorsarticulators and and and a a subsequent asubsequent subsequent burst burst burst of of airflow. ofairflow. airflow. The The The weakening weakening weakening phenomena phenomena phenomena of of these these of these stops stops stops dododo not not not result result result in in thein the the same same same approximant approximant approximant segments segments segments as as in asin Spanish Spanin Spanishish (Thomas (Thomas (Thomas 2011 2011). ).2011). 4a. Word medial:medial: a a baby baby [ ə‐[ə‐ˈbeˈbeɪ‐ɪbi]‐bi] 4b.4b. Word Word initial: initial: a baby a baby [ə‐ ˈ[beə‐ˈɪbe‐bi]ɪ‐ bi] 5a. Word medial:medial: today today [t [tə‐ə‐ˈdeˈdeɪ]ɪ ] 5b.5b. Word Word initial: initial: a dance a dance [ə‐ dæns][ə‐dæns] 6a. Word medial:medial: wagon wagon [ ˈ[wæˈwæ‐g‐gɪn]ɪn] 6b.6b. Word Word initial: initial: a ghost a ghost [ə‐ go[ə‐ʊgost]ʊ st] GivenGivenGiven that that that the the the majority majority majority of of HSSof HSS HSS in in the inthe the United United United States States States speak speak speak English, English, English, it it is is it natural natural is natural to to to wonderwonderwonder if if the if the the variability variability variability of of /bdg/ of /bdg/ /bdg/ in in their intheir their speech speech speech varieties varieties varieties is is influenced influenced is influenced by by the theby non-lenited thenon non‐lenited‐lenited characteristicscharacteristicscharacteristics of of theseof these these segments segments segments in in English. inEnglish. English. In In the Inthe the following following following sections, sections, sections, we we will wewill will examine examine examine pastpastpast research research research on on linguisticon linguistic linguistic and and and social social social factors fa ctorsfactors that that that can can affectcan affect affect the the degree the degree degree of of lenition. lenition. of lenition.

2.2.22.2. Linguistic2. .Linguistic Linguistic Factors Factors Factors Affecting Affecting Affecting /bdg/ /bdg/ /bdg/ Lenition Lenition Lenition VariousVariousVarious linguistic linguistic linguistic factors factors factors contribute contribute contribute to to variation tovariation variation in in the thein degree the degree degree of of lenition lenitionof lenition of of /bdg/ /bdg/ of /bdg/ in in in HSSHSSHSS and and and in in otherin other other bilingual bilingual bilingual populations populations populations (Ronquest (Ronquest (Ronquest and and and Rao Rao Rao2018 2018; 2018;; Simonet Simonet Simonet et et al. al. et 2012 2012).al. ).2012). Rao Rao Rao (2014) examined the lenition of /b/ in the speech of 11 adult HSS. He found that tense (2014)(2014) examined examined the the lenition lenition of of /b/ /b/ in inthe the speech speech of of11 11adul adultt HSS. HSS. He Hefound found that that tense tense approximants and occlusives were pronounced at a higher rate in stressed syllables, and approximantsapproximants and and occlusives occlusives were were pronounced pronounced at aat higher a higher rate rate in stressedin stressed syllables, syllables, and and full approximants were articulated at a higher rate in unstressed syllables. Word position fullfull approximants approximants were were articulated articulated at ata highera higher rate rate in unstressedin unstressed syllables. syllables. Word Word position position (initial or medial) did not have a main effect, but the speakers who reported using English (initial(initial or or medial) medial) did did not not have have a maina main effect, effect, but but the the speakers speakers who who reported reported using using English English more frequently than Spanish at home had significantly lower rates of full approximant moremore frequently frequently than than Spanish Spanish at athome home had had significantly significantly lower lower rates rates of fullof full approximant approximant productionsproductions in in word word initial initial position. position. productionsThese patterns in word were initial found position. again in Rao(2015) when all three voiced stops were TheseThese patterns patterns were were found found again again in inRao Rao (2015) (2015) when when all allthree three voiced voiced stops stops were were an‐ an‐ analyzedalyzed in in a a read read-speech‐speech task and in an image descriptiondescription task.task. ThereThere werewere lower lower rates rates of of occlusionalyzed in a the read spontaneous‐speech task speaking and in an task image than description the read-speech task. task There for were each lower segment. rates of occlusionocclusion in in the the spontaneous spontaneous speaking speaking task task than than the the read read‐speech‐speech task task for foreach each segment. segment. TheThe researcher researcher again again foundfound that stressed stressed syllables syllables and and word word boundaries boundaries decrease decrease the like the‐ likelihoodThe researcher of lenition. again Interestingly, found that stressed these segments syllables were and word not homogenously boundaries decrease influenced the like‐ lihood of lenition. Interestingly, these segments were not homogenously influenced by the bylihood the phonetic of lenition. context, Interestingly, because /b/ these was segments distinctly were more not lenited homogenously than both /d/ influenced and /g/. by the phonetic context, because /b/ was distinctly more lenited than both /d/ and /g/. The coronal Thephonetic coronal context, segment because had a slightly /b/ was lower distinctly rate ofmore approximant lenited than production both /d/ and than /g/. /b/, The and coronal segment had a slightly lower rate of approximant production than /b/, and intervocalic /g/ intervocalicsegment had /g/ a had slightly the lowest lower raterate of fullapproximant approximant production production. than While /b/, and these intervocalic studies /g/ had the lowest rate of full approximant production. While these studies demonstrate how demonstratehad the lowest how rate word of boundaries full approximant and syllable production. stress affectWhile the these degree studies of lenition, demonstrate other how word boundaries and syllable stress affect the degree of lenition, other research on Span‐ researchword boundaries on Spanish-Catalan and syllable bilinguals stress affect finds the additional degree of effects lenition, of vowel other heightresearch on on the Span‐ ish‐Catalan bilinguals finds additional effects of vowel height on the degree of lenition. degree of lenition. ish‐CatalanIn an acoustic bilinguals analysis finds of additional intensity differenceseffects of vowel and ratiosheight between on the degree segments of lenition. of /d/ In an acoustic analysis of intensity differences and ratios between segments of /d/ and theIn adjacentan acoustic vowel, analysis Simonet of intensityet al. (2012) differences found that and articulations ratios between of /d/ segmentsby Spanish of‐ /d/ and the adjacent vowel, Simonet et al.(2012) found that articulations of /d/ by Spanish- Catalanand the speakers adjacent in vowel, Mallorca Simonet were etthe al. least (2012) constricted found that when articulations preceded byof low/d/ by vowels. Spanish ‐ CatalanCatalan speakers speakers in Mallorcain Mallorca were were the the least least constricted constricted when when preceded preceded by low by low vowels. vowels. The intensity difference and ratio between vocalic and /d/ realizations was larger for

Languages 2021, 6, 108 3 of 22

sequences of mid and high vowels and /d/, thus the segments were less lenited. The study also again demonstrated that /d/ realizations are less constricted in unstressed syllables. However, to the authors’ knowledge, no previous work has examined these vowel height effects on the lenition of /bdg/ among HSS. In the present study, we examine the effect of vowel height on /bdg/ variation using Rao’s (2014, 2015) three-scale classiﬁcation of production types of intervocalic voiced stops: full approximant, tense approximant, and occlusive. Besides this, we will examine the effects of various social factors.

2.3. Social Factors Affecting /bdg/ Lenition The imposed hegemony of English, negative attitudes toward minority languages, and the persistent societal belief that one must acquire the dominant language, in this case English, can contribute to the displacement of Spanish in the United States. Language shift, the displacement of one language over another typically over three generations, is a common result of these pressures. Therefore, the children and grandchildren of Spanish-speaking parents and grandparents growing up in the US can sometimes exhibit greater listening comprehension than speaking abilities. This is partially due to the adults’ attempt to prevent further discriminatory experiences for younger generations (MacGregor- Mendoza 2000). Then, in some cases, the (grand)children’s Spanish production differs from their older relatives, because their first languages can be different, and the children may spend less time using Spanish (Silva-Corvalán 2014). Cases of changes in variability in Spanish grammar over generations are widely documented in morphosyntax work examining variable subject pronoun expression (Otheguy and Zentella 2011). If these aspects of language change, pronunciation can too. In an analysis of the production and duration of Spanish rhotics of first- and second- generation Spanish speakers, Henriksen(2015) found that second-generation speakers who were born and grew up in the United States produced fewer full taps than first-generation speakers. G2 speakers also had a lower mean occlusion for trills than G1 speakers. The duration of the segments did not change over one generation. His results point towards changes in pronunciation that affect the manner of a segment more than the duration. Spanish rhotic pronunciations by G2 were less similar to Spanish speakers who had not grown up in situations of daily English language contact, but the segments were not more English-like, because there were no English-like r- realizations. If generational differences are evident in these segments, it seems possible that this could also happen with the intervocalic voiced stops. Besides a generational effect, the age of acquisition, the order of acquisition of the speaker’s languages, and the continued use of Spanish can contribute to variation in /bdg/ productions by HSS (Leeman 2005; Rao 2014, 2015). For example, in Rao(2015), the participants were classified by their age of acquisition, level of education, and by their lived linguistic experiences. His regular speakers (henceforth, adulthood speakers) were HSS who consistently spoke Spanish through childhood and adolescence, and the childhood speakers were HSS who did not report speaking Spanish after late childhood/early adolescence. The third group was composed of individuals whose linguistic experiences fell between those of adult- and childhood speakers. The adulthood speakers produced /bdg/ as full approximant in at least 80% of their tokens, and the childhood speakers were more variable. One speaker produced /bdg/ as occlusive in over half of the tokens and the other two childhood speakers most often articulated the segments as full approximants. Like Rao(2015), Rao(2014) found that HSS with more at-home language contact and daily use of Spanish produced significantly more approximants than HSS who do not use Spanish frequently. The findings suggest that while an early age of acquisition of Spanish contributed to the likelihood of realizing /bdg/ as a full approximant, the consistent use of Spanish is another important factor. In addition to differences in production over generations and differing levels of Spanish use among HSS, Ronquest and Rao’s (2018, p. 167) survey of heritage speaker phonology reminds us that HSS are different from Spanish speakers in infrequent language Languages 2021, 6, 108 4 of 22

contact settings in the perception of these segments. They state: “discrimination of the voiced and voiceless stops and front and back vowels revealed that [heritage speakers] were just as accurate as the control group in discriminating /p/ and /b/, /t/ and /d/, and vocalic contrasts, but patterned with long-term immigrants in being less accurate with respect to /k/ and /g/”. Kissling(2015) also notes a link between perception and production of the Spanish voiced stops in L2 Spanish speakers, which could be observed among HSS as well. Previous research on /bdg/ lenition has come from a relatively small pool of participants, and the changes in pronunciation have only been examined over one generation. Also, we have yet to examine the effect of the preceding and following phones on the lenition of intervocalic voiced stops among HSS. To address these gaps, this study will identify social (generation, age of acquisition of Spanish, contact hours) and phonetic factors (vowel height) affecting the lenition of these intervocalic voiced stop segments by HSS in the western United States. Additionally, the current study analyzes a lexical factor (cognate status) that could account for higher rates of occlusion of /bdg/ productions.

2.4. Cognate Status Effects in Spanish-English Speakers Carroll(1992, p. 93) deﬁnes cognates as “lexical items from different languages which are identiﬁed by bilinguals as somehow being ‘the same’.” For example, the word cognado in Spanish and cognate in English would be considered equivalent if the speaker is aware of both of their like meanings and forms. Boada et al.(2013, p. 191) state that cognates “are systematically more frequent than non-cognates, thus suggesting that the cognate effect may be confounded by a frequency difference between cognates and non-cognates”. Therefore, the relative frequency of cognates and non-cognates could contribute to a speaker’s different behavior for the respective word types. While word frequency was not controlled for in Boada et al.(2013) nor in the present study, it is important to keep in mind that word frequency and word familiarity may be another factor operating over the cognate effects presented in the following literature. Research into cognate status effects on phonetics-phonology is largely focused on L2 and ESL learners, yet this research has not disambiguated the relationship between cognate status and phonetic transfer (Flege and Munro 1994; Flege et al. 1998). Flege and Munro(1994) found that Spanish-English bilinguals pronounced the /t/ in taco with a less English-like VOT1 compared to other words in English without a Spanish cognate. Further, their acoustic analysis showed that if one segment of the word taco was pronounced with more English-like characteristics, the other three segments followed suit. However, a later study by Flege et al.(1998) reported no effect of cognate status, word familiarity, nor the learned order of words on the VOT of initial /t/ by L1 Spanish ESL learners. L1 Spanish speakers’ pronunciation was not affected by the increased use of English. Together, these studies demonstrate that lexical factors, such as the word’s cultural status, can play a role in the realizations of phonetic segments in bilingual speakers. To compare cognate-status results with Flege and Munro(1994), who solely studied productions of the cultural cognate taco, the present study included similar words such as empanada. Cognate status has also been examined in populations of HSS. Amengual(2012) found that adult HSS, advanced L2 English learners, and L2 Spanish learners produced higher rates of longer (more English-like) VOT of /t/ within cognates than in non-cognates. The cognates, as compared to non-cognates, had prolonged VOT. The author attributed the pattern to cross-language transfer given that the longer VOT is characteristic of English sound patterns. If cognate status affects the VOT of the Spanish voiceless stops, the status of the lexical item may also affect the voiced stops. An underlying factor in cognate status is language dominance. Robinson Anthony and Blumenfeld’s (2019) analysis of receptive and expressive vocabulary and spatial Stroop

1 In Spanish, the voiceless stops have a short period between the release of the consonant and the onset of vowel voicing. In English, word position and cluster position affect VOT (voice onset time), but in general, English voiceless stops have longer VOTs than the same segments in Spanish (Hualde 2014; Thomas 2011). Languages 2021, 6, 108 5 of 22

tasks demonstrated a relationship between language dominance and cognate status. Similar to Amengual(2012) and Flege and Munro(1994), these researchers concluded that the more dominant language saturated the pronunciation of the cognate. This conclusion was based on a word-level analysis rather than a segmental analysis, which led Robinson Anthony and Blumenfeld(2019) to argue that the word entirely reflected the dominant language of the speakers. The lack of segmental analysis calls into question which specific segmental and/or suprasegmental aspects of the lexical item contribute most to the saturation. Both individual and sequences of segments are pertinent to cognate effects, and the present study focuses on the former. Knowing that a combination of linguistic and social factors can contribute to differences in pronunciation, we contribute to research on Spanish pronunciation among HSS by comparing these factors simultaneously. The specific social factors we will assess are generation, age of acquisition of Spanish, and current contact hours. The examined linguistic factor is the height of the preceding and following vowel. In addition, we will examine if the degree of lenition changes depending on the cognate status of the word. The aim of this study is to identify social, linguistic, and lexical factors that predict phonetic variation in the production of /bdg/ by HSS. Therefore, we ask these three research questions. 1. Which social factors (age of acquisition of Spanish, number of family generations in the US, and weekly contact hours with Spanish) have an impact on heritage speakers’ lenition of /bdg/? 2. Does vowel height affect the lenition of /bdg/ among heritage speakers? 3. Does the cognate status of the lexical item have an impact on heritage speakers’ lenition of /bdg/?

3. Materials and Methods 3.1. Participants The participants for this study were 20 students from a university in the western US. The heterogeneity attributed to heritage speakers as a population is strongly represented in these participants’ wide range of ages, ages of acquisition, family generations, weekly contact hours with Spanish, course enrollment, and experience abroad. While all participants were enrolled in university classes, not all were traditional college-aged students (M = 21.65, SD = 3.79, range 17 years). Participants reported any- where from 1.2 h of current weekly language contact with Spanish to over 20 h of contact (M = 6.61, SD = 6.57, range = 18.8). Fourteen participants were concurrently enrolled in Spanish classes on campus at the time of this study, while six had not taken a Spanish language course in 1.5–6 years. Two participants were Spanish minors, and one was a Spanish major. Participants were between generation 1.5 and generation 4 in the United States (M = 2.5, SD = 0.8, range 2.5). The present study did not include any ﬁrst-generation speakers who immigrated to the United States after age 12, as they would be considered native speakers of Spanish rather than heritage speakers (Escobar and Potowski 2015). We considered any speakers who moved to the United States before age 12 as generation 1.5. Fourteen participants reported acquiring Spanish from birth, but six participants reported acquiring Spanish in childhood or adolescence. All participants reported having L1 Spanish-speaking relatives. There was still an early age of acquisition of Spanish (M = 1.67, SD = 2.68, range 15 years). The six participants who did not report learning Spanish in their immediate home were from generations 2 through 4. These participants heard/used Spanish with other relatives who did not live with them in childhood. These participants’ answers also reﬂect the age that the participant started Spanish classes in school or the age the participant feels that they started speaking Spanish, that is, produced the language. These participants are sequential HSS whose L1 is English. Participants who reported their age of acquisition of Spanish as 0 and reported acquiring both languages from birth are simultaneous bilinguals. Languages 2021, 6, 108 6 of 22

3.2. Instruments Participants completed a background survey based on the survey used in Beaudrie et al. (2015). The survey asked participants with whom they spoke Spanish and with what frequency. Participants also reported their age of acquisition of Spanish (AoAS), language acquisition order, their weekly use of Spanish, and their comfort when speaking in Spanish before the recording sessions. Additionally, participants reported which relatives speak Spanish and how many generations of their families have lived in the United States. See AppendixA for the survey. Next, participants read a list of words out loud in a quiet room with the ﬁrst author. The ﬁrst author is an English-dominant bilingual. The instructions were verbally given in the language that the participant was most comfortable with. Some of the participants did not feel comfortable speaking spontaneously in Spanish, so the word list facilitated their comfort with the study. Each word included one or more of the consonants in question in the intervocalic position. The words were presented individually on index cards so as to not confuse the participants, who otherwise might see the words directly above and below on the list and lose their spot. There were 34 words on the list, with 14 possible elicited tokens of /b/ and /g/ and 15 possible tokens of /d/, resulting in a maximum of 43 tokens per participant. For the purposes of examining the degree of lenition in speakers who potentially make the phonological /b/ vs. /v/ distinction, instances of “v” were not included in the analysis2. While all segments were in word-medial position, their stress and the height of the preceding and following vowel varied. The word list also included 16 cognates and 18 non-cognates. There was a subset of cognates that are considered cultural cognates: a lexical-cultural item in Spanish incorporated into English, i.e., empanada. The cognates are marked with an asterisk in AppendixB. They were not marked on the word list given to participants. The distribution of /bdg/ throughout these variables is presented in Table1.

Table 1. Distribution of /bdg/ throughout word list.

n /b/ % b n /d/ % d n /g/ % g Total 252 292 276 Syllable Stress Atonic syllable 172 68.3 195 66.8 197 71.4 Tonic syllable 80 31.7 97 33.2 79 28.6 Preceding vowel height Prec-low vowel 132 52.4 115 39.4 59 21.4 Prec-mid vowel 60 23.8 77 26.4 158 57.2 Prec-high vowel 80 23.8 100 34.2 59 21.4 Following vowel height Foll-low vowel 132 52.4 78 26.7 138 50.0 Foll-mid vowel 60 23.8 155 53.1 79 28.6 Foll-high vowel 60 23.8 59 20.2 59 21.4 Cognate Status Cognate 99 39.3 176 60.3 99 35.9 Non-cogate 153 60.7 116 39.7 177 64.1

3.3. Analysis This study utilized PRAAT (Boersma and Weenink 2018) to investigate the gradience between full approximant and occlusive realizations of intervocalic voiced stops by the

2 Some speakers of varieties of Colorado and New Mexican Spanish have retained the labiodental realization of [v] that corresponds to the grapheme “v” in a word like universidad (Waltermire 2017). This feature has been passed down throughout younger generations although the younger generations use them less “since many of them do not speak Spanish and largely possess receptive skills in this language” (2017, p.180). While a reviewer pointed out that this feature may apply more directly to third generation speakers and beyond, it is also possible that younger speakers have adopted the feature if it is frequent enough in their speech community. It is also possible that the inﬂuence of these bilinguals’ other language, English, maintains the phonological contrast. Regardless of the justiﬁcation of labiodental maintenance, its phonetic characteristics fall outside of the spectrum of lenition we are investigating. Languages 2021, 6, 108 7 of 22

Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 22 Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 22

participating HSS. Following the three categories used in Rao(2014, 2015) each token was assigned a value of 1–3, which represents a continuous scale of the degree of lenition. Pro- Segments wereductions rated labeled as 1 when as ‘1’ are they occlusives, were andproduced productions most labeled like asan ‘2’ occlusive are tense approximants. with a Segments were rated as 1 when they were produced most like an occlusive with a large, abrupt decreaseThe productions in amplitude, labeled no as continuity ‘3’ are full approximants, between the and, adjacent while the vowel tokens wereformants, ultimately large, abrupt decreaseexcluded, in amplitude, a value of ‘4’ wasno continuity assigned to realizationsbetween the that adjacent fell out of thevowel scale. formants, and/or a distinct stop burst. As can be seen in Figure 1, the formant structure is not main‐ and/or a distinct stopSegments burst. As were can rated be seen as 1 in when Figure they 1, were the produced formant most structure like an is occlusive not main with‐ a tained in the segment. Segments like that in Figure 2 were rated 3 when there was minimal tained in the segment.large, Segments abrupt decrease like inthat amplitude, in Figure no 2 continuity were rated between 3 when the adjacentthere was vowel minimal formants, to no amplitude decreaseand/or a and distinct minimal stop burst. to no As break can be in seenthe formant in Figure1 structure, the formant of the structure vowels is not to no amplitude decrease and minimal to no break in the formant structure of the vowels adjacent to the segment.maintained In Figure in the segment. 2, there Segments was only like a that slight in Figure decrease2 were in rated the 3 amplitude, when there was adjacent to the segment. In Figure 2, there was only a slight decrease in the amplitude, and the formant structureminimal to was no amplitudemaintained decrease between and minimalthe vowels. to no breakWhen in the the realization formant structure fell of and the formant structurethe vowels was adjacent maintained to the segment. between In Figure the vowels.2, there was When only the a slight realization decrease infell the in between these two extremes, as is the case for the segment in Figure 3, it was scored as in between these amplitude,two extremes, and the as formantis the case structure for the was segment maintained in Figure between 3, the it was vowels. scored When as the a 2. In Figure 3, therealization amplitude fell indid between decrease these over two extremes,the duration as is the of casethe forcoronal the segment segment, in Figure but3 , it a 2. In Figure 3, the amplitude did decrease over the duration of the coronal segment, but the formant structurewas scoredis maintained as a 2. In Figure and there3, the amplitude is no stop did burst. decrease over the duration of the coronal the formant structuresegment, is maintained but the formant and structure there is is maintainedno stop burst. and there is no stop burst. P20 P20

1 1 d d timido timido 60.85 61.3 60.85 61.3 Time (s) Time (s) Figure 1. /d/ segment with a score of 1 (occlusive). Figure 1. /d/ segment withFigure a score 1. /d/ of segment1 (occlusive). with a score of 1 (occlusive).

P17 P17

3 3 d d abogado abogado 2.686 3.268 2.686 3.268 Time (s) Time (s) Figure 2. /d/ segment withFigure a score 2. /d/ of segment 3 (full with approximant). a score of 3 (full approximant). Figure 2. /d/ segment with a score of 3 (full approximant).

Languages 2021, 6, 108 8 of 22 Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 22

P17

dedo

19.33 19.71 Time (s) Figure 3. /d/ segment Figurewith a 3. score/d/ segment of 2 (tense with approximant). a score of 2 (tense approximant). In addition to these types of productions, participants sometimes produced different In addition to theseIn addition types of toproductions, these types participants of productions, sometimes participants produced different sometimes produced different In addition to these types of productions, participants sometimes produced differentsounds or omitted the segments in question: [ˈde-bo] instead of [ˈde-ðo] for dedo and Insounds addition or omitted to these the segments types in of question: productions, [ˈde-bo] instead participants of [ˈde-ðo] for sometimes dedo and produced different sounds or omitted the segments in question: [ˈde-bo] instead of [ˈde-ðo] for dedo and [tɾa- ˈba-xa] instead of [tɾa-βa-ˈxa-βa] for trabajaba. Per Kissling (2013, p. 728) these sounds or omitted the segments in question: for dedo and sounds or omitted the segments[t ɾina- ˈ ba-xa]question: instead of [ ˈ[tdeɾa-β‐a-bo]ˈxa-β insteada] for trabajaba of. Per[ˈde Kissling‐ðo] (2013, for p.dedo 728)instances theseand [t ɾwerea‐ excluded. After excluding 21 segments for these purposes, we were left [tɾa- ˈba-xa] instead of [tɾinstancesa-βa-ˈxa- wereβa] forexcluded. trabajaba After. Per excluding Kissling 21 segments (2013, p. for 728) these these purposes, we were left ˈba‐xa] instead of instead[tɾa‐βa of‐ˈxa‐βa] for trabajabafor trabajaba. Per. PerKissling Kissling (2013,(2013, p. 728) thesethese instanceswith instances 850 tokens were in the analysis. instances were excluded.excluded. After Afterwith excluding excluding 850 tokens 21 in21 thesegments segments analysis. for forthese these purposes, purposes, we were we wereleft left with 850 tokens in with 850 tokens in the analysis. were excluded. Afterthe analysis. excluding 21 segments for these purposes, we were left with 850

tokens in the analysis.Statistical analyses were conducted to determine the relationship between production Statistical analysestype, age were of acquisition conducted of Spanishto determine (AoAS), the weekly relationship contact hours, between generation, produc current‐ tion type, age of acquisitionage, and phonetic of Spanish context. (AoAS), Using weekly R statistical contact software hours, (RStudio generation, Team 2020 current) and the lme4 package (Bates et al. 2015), three separate linear mixed-effects models were created age, and phonetic context. Using R statistical software (RStudio Team 2020) and the lme4 for each segment based on its place of articulation, and one model was created that package (Bates et combinedal. 2015), all three segments. separate These linear models mixed allow for‐effects a comparison models between were created continuous for and each segment basedcategorical on its place variables of articulation, with a continuous and one dependent model was variable. created The that dependent combined variable all segments. Theseshould models be interpreted allow for as a the comparison degree of lenition, between which continuous ranges from and 1 (occlusive) categorical to 3 (full variables with a continuousapproximant). dependent The independent variable. variables The dependent and fixed effects variable were AoAS,should weekly be inter contact‐ hours, generation, current age, preceding vowel height, and following vowel height. preted as the degreeParticipant of lenition, was included which as ranges a random from effect 1 (occlusive) in mixed linear-effects to 3 (full models. approximant). Variables that The independent werevariables not significant and fixed were effects dropped were from the AoAS, model weekly until the lowestcontact AIC hours, value wasgenera obtained.‐ tion, current age, Finally,preceding the likelihood vowel height, of non-lenited and following productions vowel in cognates height. and non-cognatesParticipant forwas each included as a randomsegment effect were in computed mixed linear using‐effects Chi-squares models. (Preacher Variables 2001). To that carry were out thesenot signif tests, only‐ productions categorized as 1 (occlusive) were analyzed. Using the occlusive productions icant were dropped from the model until the lowest AIC value was obtained. Finally, the will best demonstrate any differential influence of English in cognates and non-cognates. likelihood of non‐lenited productions in cognates and non‐cognates for each segment were computed using4. Results Chi‐squares (Preacher 2001). To carry out these tests, only produc‐ tions categorized as4.1. 1 Overall(occlusive) Lenition were Rates analyzed. Using the occlusive productions will best demonstrate any differentialEach of theinfluence three segments of English analyzed in cognates was either and most non frequently‐cognates. articulated as full approximants or tense approximants. For the bilabial segment, 46% of the 252 tokens were articulated as tense approximants. Of the 276 velar segments, 41% were also realized 4. Results as tense approximants, and 36% of the 292 coronal segments were articulated as full 4.1. Overall Lenitionapproximants. Rates Interestingly, the second most common productions of the coronal and velar segments were occlusives. That is, /d/ and /g/ were more often occlusive than Each of the threefully approximant, segments analyzed while occlusive was andeither full most approximant frequently productions articulated were just as asfull likely approximants or tense approximants. For the bilabial segment, 46% of the 252 tokens were articulated as tense approximants. Of the 276 velar segments, 41% were also realized as tense approximants, and 36% of the 292 coronal segments were articulated as full approx‐ imants. Interestingly, the second most common productions of the coronal and velar seg‐ ments were occlusives. That is, /d/ and /g/ were more often occlusive than fully approxi‐ mant, while occlusive and full approximant productions were just as likely for the bilabial segment. For segments of /d/, only 30% of tokens were realized as tense approximants. Finally, the velar segment was only produced as a full approximant in 25% of the tokens.

Figure 4 visualizes1 the rates of each production category for each segment.

Languages 2021, 6, 108 9 of 22

for the bilabial segment. For segments of /d/, only 30% of tokens were realized as tense LanguagesLanguages 2021 2021, ,6 6, ,x x FOR FOR PEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW approximants. Finally, the velar segment was only produced as a full approximant99 ofof 2222 in 25%

of the tokens. Figure4 visualizes the rates of each production category for each segment.

50%50% 45%45% 40%40% 35%35% 30%30% 25%25% 20%20% 15%15% 10%10% 5%5% 0%0% /b//b/ /d/ /d/ /g/ /g/

fullfull approximant(3)approximant(3) tensetense approximantapproximant (2)(2) occlusiveocclusive (1)(1)

FigureFigure 4.4. RatesRates ofof productionproductionFigure 4. Rates typestypes of forfor production allall segments.segments. types for all segments.

4.4.22.. ResearchResearch4.2. QuestionQuestion Research 1:1: EffectsEffects Question ofof Generation,Generation, 1: Effects of ContactContact Generation, Hours,Hours, Contact andand AgeAge Hours, ofof AcquisitionAcquisition and Age of ofof Acquisition SpanishSpanish of Spanish ThereThere werewere There changeschanges were inin the changesthe frequencyfrequency in the ofof frequency productionproduction of production typestypes overover generations, typesgenerations, over generations, andand thethe and the changeschanges arearechanges firstfirst visiblevisible are in ﬁrstin FigureFigure visible 5.5. Speakers inSpeakers Figure 5inin. generationgeneration Speakers in 1.51.5 generation (G1.5)(G1.5) producedproduced 1.5 (G1.5) fullfull produced apap‐‐ full proximantsproximants approximants inin 69%69% ofof theirtheir in tokens.tokens. 69% of Of theirOf theirtheir tokens. productions,productions, Of their productions, 24%24% werewere tensetense 24% approximants,approximants, were tense approximants, andand onlyonly 7% 7%and were were only occlusive.occlusive. 7% were SpeakersSpeakers occlusive. from from Speakers generationgeneration from 22 generation (G2) (G2) producedproduced 2 (G2) full full produced approximants approximants full approximants 33%33% ofof thethe 33%time,time, of andand the theythey time, producedproduced and they tensetense produced approximantsapproximants tense approximants inin 41%41% ofof theirtheir in 41% tokens.tokens. of their TheseThese tokens. These speakersspeakers onlyonlyspeakers producedproduced only occlusiveocclusive produced soundssounds occlusive inin sounds26%26% ofof intheirtheir 26% tokens.tokens. of their SpeakersSpeakers tokens. Speakers fromfrom generagenera from‐‐ generation tiontion 33 (G3)(G3) producedproduced3 (G3) produced fullfull approximantsapproximants full approximants 23%23% ofof 23% thethe time, oftime, the andand time, theythey and producedproduced they produced tensetense approx tenseapprox approximants‐‐ imantsimants inin 46%46%in 46% ofof theirtheir of their tokens.tokens. tokens. TheseThese These speakersspeakers speakers onlyonly produced onlyproduced produced occlusiveocclusive occlusive soundssounds sounds inin 30%30% in ofof 30% of their theirtheir tokens.tokens.tokens. DifferentDifferent Different fromfrom thesethese from generations,generations, these generations, speakersspeakers speakers inin generationgeneration in generation 44 (G4)(G4) diddid 4 (G4) notnot did propro not‐‐ produce duceduce fullfull approximantsapproximantsfull approximants atat all.all. at TheyThey all. produced Theyproduced produced tensetense tense approximantsapproximants approximants inin 17%17% in of 17%of theirtheir of their tokenstokens tokens and in andand inin 83%83% of83%of theirtheir of their tokens,tokens, tokens, theythey they realizedrealized realized /bdg//bdg/ /bdg/ asas occlusive.occlusive. as occlusive.

90%90% 80%80% 70%70% 60%60% 50%50% 40%40% 30%30% 20%20% 10%10% 0%0% GG 1.51.5 G G 2G2G 3G3G 44

fullfull approximant(3)approximant(3) tensetense approximantapproximant (2)(2) occlusiveocclusive (1)(1)

FigureFigure 5.5. RatesRates ofof Figureproductionproduction 5. Rates typestypes of for productionfor eacheach generation.generation. types for each generation.

ForFor thethe statisticalstatistical analysis,analysis, thethe dependentdependent variablevariable (degree(degree ofof lenition)lenition) waswas analyzedanalyzed continuouslycontinuously fromfrom 11 (occlusive)(occlusive) toto 33 (full(full approximant).approximant). AppendixAppendix CC hashas thethe fullfull statisticalstatistical

Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 22

Languages 2021, 6, 108 10 of 22 models. A summary of significant and not significant effects is available in Table 2, where each significant effect of each of the three segments is indicated by a checkmark. Through linear mixed‐effects models, we observed that contact hours, age of acquisition of Spanish, For the statistical analysis, the dependent variable (degree of lenition) was analyzed and the speaker’scontinuously current age from have 1 (occlusive) no significant to 3 (full bearing approximant). on the Appendix lenitionC of has these the full segments. statistical However, the generationmodels. A summaryof the speaker of significant had a and significant not significant effect effects on the is available degree in of Table lenition2, where of each segment. Aseach the significant number effect of family of each generations of the three segments residing is in indicated the United by a checkmark. States increased, Through lenition of theselinear intervocalic mixed-effects segments models, is we significantly observed that less contact likely hours, to occur age of for acquisition the coronal of Spanish, (p = and the speaker’s current age have no significant bearing on the lenition of these segments. 0.003), the velar However,segment the (p generation= 0.002), and of the the speaker labial had segment a significant (p = effect 0.001). on theSpeakers degree ofwho lenition have of more family generationseach segment. residing As the in number the US of familyproduce generations fewer lenited residing segments. in the United States increased, lenition of these intervocalic segments is significantly less likely to occur for the coronal Table 2. Summary(p of= 0.003significant), the velar effects segment on lenition (p = 0.002), of /bdg/. and the labial segment (p = 0.001). Speakers who have more family generations residing in the US produce fewer lenited segments. Segment Age AoAS Contact Hours Generation Phonetic Context Cognate Status /b/ Table 2. Summary of significant effects on √ lenition of /bdg/. √

/d/ √ Contact √ Phonetic Cognate Segment Age AoAS Generation /g/ √ Hours √ Context Status √ √ /b/ √ √ Figure 6 has the/d/ rates of production types for the bilabial segment√ across √ generations. /g/ The increasing production of non‐lenited /b/ as the generation increases is striking. In G1.5, 46% of productions were full approximants, and 46% were tense approximants. G1.5 Figure6 has the rates of production types for the bilabial segment across generations. speakers producedThe increasing occlusives production in only of8% non-lenited of their /b/tokens. as the Both generation G2 and increases G3 speakers is striking. are In variable in theirG1.5, productions, 46% of productions but both were generations full approximants, most and often 46% were produce tense approximants. tense approxi G1.5‐ mants, 47% andspeakers 59%, respectively. produced occlusives In G2, in34% only of 8% productions of their tokens. were Both full G2 approximant and G3 speakers and are 19% were occlusive.variable By in G3, their occlusives productions, account but both generationsfor 27% in most this oftenpopulation produce tenseof HSS. approximants, Finally, the speakers of 47%G4 produce and 59%, respectively. no full approximants. In G2, 34% of productions Of their productions, were full approximant 15% are and tense 19% wereap‐ occlusive. By G3, occlusives account for 27% in this population of HSS. Finally, the speakers proximants, andof 85% G4 produce are occlusives. no full approximants. From G1.5 Of their to G4, productions, the rate 15% of areocclusive tense approximants, productions and increased by 80%.85% are occlusives. From G1.5 to G4, the rate of occlusive productions increased by 80%.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% G1.5 G2 G3 G4

Full approximant Tense approximant Occlusive

Figure 6. Rates of /b/ productionFigure 6. Rates types of /b/ by production generation. types by generation.

Languages 2021, 6, 108 11 of 22

Over the course of four generations, the same phonetic shift is visible for the coronal segment in Figure7. However, the change in /d/ productions is more pronounced than in /b/. In G1.5, 100% of the speakers’ productions are realized as full approximants. In G2 and G3, the production types are all well represented. Speciﬁcally, G2 speakers produce Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 22 full approximants in 29% of their words, and they produced tense approximants in 33% of their tokens. From G1.5 to G2 the rate of occlusive productions moves from 0% to 38%. Likewise, G3 speakers produce occlusives in 32% of their tokens, and they produce tense approximants in 37% of their words. Finally, like the /b/ segment, G4 speakers no full approximantproduce coronal no full segments. approximant In coronal 17% of segments. their tokens, In 17% ofthey their produce tokens, they tense produce approx tense‐ imants, and 83%approximants, of their productions and 83% of are their occlusive. productions are occlusive.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% G1.5 G2 G3 G4

Full approximant Tense approximant Occlusive

Figure 7. Rates of /d/ productionFigure 7. Rates types of /d/ by production generation. types by generation.

In Figure8, the rates of production types for the velar segment across generations In Figure 8,are the presented. rates of production Like the previous types two for segments, the velar there segment is a decrease across in generations the rate of full are and presented. Like tensethe previous approximant two segments segments, over thethere course is a of decrease four generations. in the rate The G4of speakersfull and produce tense approximant segmentsocclusives over 82% the of the course time, and of four they producegenerations. tense approximants The G4 speakers in 18% produce of their tokens. oc‐ clusives 82% of theG2 and time, G3 and speakers, they again, produce use atense variety approximants of production types,in 18% but of they their most tokens. commonly G2 use tense approximants. Both speaker groups produce tense approximants in 44% of their and G3 speakers, again, use a variety of production types, but they most commonly use tokens. However, G2 speakers produce more full approximants, 27%, than G3 speakers, tense approximants.23%. FromBoth G2speaker to G3, thegroups rate of produce occlusive tense productions approximants increases byin 4%.44% Unlike of their the to /b/‐ kens. However,and G2 /d/ speakers segments, produce the speakers more in full G1.5 approximants, produced more occlusive27%, than segments G3 speakers, for velars. 23%. From G2 toHowever, G3, the occlusiverate of occlusive productions productions only accounted increases for 14% ofby productions. 4%. Unlike These the /b/ speakers and /d/ segments, theproduced speakers tense in approximants G1.5 produced in 29% more of their occlusive words, and segments they produced for full velars. approximants How‐ in 57% of their tokens. ever, occlusive productions only accounted for 14% of productions. These speakers pro‐ duced tense approximants in 29% of their words, and they produced full approximants in 57% of their tokens.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% G1.5 G2 G3 G4

Full approximant Tense approximant Occlusive

Figure 8. Rates of /g/ production types by generation.

Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 22

no full approximant coronal segments. In 17% of their tokens, they produce tense approx‐ imants, and 83% of their productions are occlusive.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% G1.5 G2 G3 G4

Full approximant Tense approximant Occlusive

Figure 7. Rates of /d/ production types by generation.

In Figure 8, the rates of production types for the velar segment across generations are presented. Like the previous two segments, there is a decrease in the rate of full and tense approximant segments over the course of four generations. The G4 speakers produce oc‐ clusives 82% of the time, and they produce tense approximants in 18% of their tokens. G2 and G3 speakers, again, use a variety of production types, but they most commonly use tense approximants. Both speaker groups produce tense approximants in 44% of their to‐ kens. However, G2 speakers produce more full approximants, 27%, than G3 speakers, 23%. From G2 to G3, the rate of occlusive productions increases by 4%. Unlike the /b/ and /d/ segments, the speakers in G1.5 produced more occlusive segments for velars. How‐ ever, occlusive productions only accounted for 14% of productions. These speakers pro‐ Languages 2021duced, 6, 108 tense approximants in 29% of their words, and they produced full approximants12 of in 22 57% of their tokens.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% G1.5 G2 G3 G4

Full approximant Tense approximant Occlusive

Figure 8. Rates of /g/ productionFigure 8. Rates types of /g/ by production generation. types by generation.

In summary, the degree of lenition of /bdg/ among these speakers is primarily predicted by their generations, but not by the other social factors. As the number of family generations living in the US increases, productions vary more and ultimately are most frequently occlusive.

4.3. Research Question 2: Phonetic Context As indicated in Table2, the phonetic context of /bdg/ significantly predicts the degree of lenition. In the statistical models, the baseline condition was set as a ‘high’ vowel, because we wanted to examine what predicts lenition. The linear mixed-effects models showed that when preceded by a mid vowel, the bilabial segment was significantly less likely to lenite (p = 0.03). However, after a mid vowel, the bilabial segment was produced as occlusive only in 31% of contexts. The velar segments were significantly more likely to lenite when preceded by mid vowels (p < 0.001). After a mid vowel, the velar segment was articulated with high constriction in only 24% of contexts. The coronal segment was also significantly more likely to lenite when preceded by low vowels (p < 0.001). After a low vowel, 49% of /d/ segments were articulated as full approximants. When examining the following phonetic context with the linear mixed-effects models, we found that the bilabial segment was significantly more likely to lenite when followed by a middle vowel (p = 0.02). Before a mid vowel, only 23% of /b/ tokens were occlusive. Productions of intervocalic /d/ and /g/ were not significantly affected by the following segment in this analysis. Thus, even though the generation primarily predicted the degree of lenition, so did the phonetic context.

4.4. Research Question 3: Cognate Effects While the speaker’s generation and the phonetic context of the segment significantly affected the degree of lenition, the cognate status of the word did not significantly affect the rate of occlusive productions. While Figure9 shows the rates of production types in cognates and non-cognates for each segment, our analysis focused on the occlusive productions as the variation between full and tense approximants is less telling of English- language influence. A chi-square showed that there were not significantly more occlusive productions of the labial segment in cognates than in non-cognates, (X2 (1) = 0.335, p = 0.56). Languages 2021, 6, 108 13 of 22

Only 30% of productions of the labial sound in cognates were occlusives, and 27% of productions of this segment were occlusive in non-cognates. There was also not a signiﬁcant difference between the number of occlusive productions of /d/ in cognates and non- cognates (X2 (1) = 0.455, p = 0.49). Moreover, 32% of cognate /d/ tokens were occlusive, and 36% of non-cognate /d/ tokens were occlusive. Finally, like the two other segments, Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW there was no signiﬁcant difference between the number of occlusive productions13 of /g/of 22 in cognates and non-cognates (X2 (1) = 0.013, p = 0.91). In both cognates and non-cognates, 32% of the productions were occlusive.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Cognate /b/ Non‐cognate Cognate /d/ Non‐cognate Cognate /g/ Non‐cognate /b/ /d/ /g/

Full approximant Tense approximant Occlusive

Figure 9. RatesFigure of production 9. Rates of production types by types segment by segment in cognates in cognates and and non non-cognates.‐cognates.

As explained in the literature review, the type of cognate could affect the way the word 100% is produced. Rates of production types in cognates and non-cognates in non-cultural cog- 90% nates are presented in Figure 10. When these cognates (Cuba, Colorado, Galápago, empanada) were excluded from the Chi-square analyses, there were still no significant differences 80% between occlusive production rates in cognates and non-cognates. In 34% of cognates, /b/ 70% was articulated as an occlusive, and 24% of /b/ in non-cognates were occlusive, but the difference was not significant (X2 (1) = 2.605, p = 0.11). The difference between occlusive 60% productions of /d/ in cognates and non-cognates was also not significant (X2 (1) = 0.078, 50% p = 0.78). For /d/ cognates, 35% of productions were occlusive and for /d/ non-cognates, 40% 36% were occlusive. Finally, there was not a significant difference between occlusive /g/ productions for cognates and non-cognates (X2 (1) = 1.109, p = 0.74); 33% of /g/ cognate 30% tokens and 35% of /g/ non-cognate tokens were occlusive. 20% 10% 0% Cognate /b/ Non‐cognate Cognate /d/ Non‐cognate Cognate /g/ Non‐cognate /b/ /d/ /g/

Full approximant Tense approximant Occlusive

Figure 10. Rates of production types for all segments in cognates and non‐cognates excluding cul‐ tural cognates.

In summary, while the height of the preceding and following vowels predicts the de‐ gree of lenition of each segment, one social factor, the generation of the speaker, also signif‐ icantly impacts the lenition of each analyzed intervocalic segment. Finally, the cognate sta‐ tus of the word, in this speaker population, does not significantly influence the degree of lenition.

5. Discussion 5.1. Research Question 1: Effects of Generation, Contact Hours, and Age of Acquisition of Spanish Among the four social variables evaluated in the present study, age of acquisition of Spanish, current weekly contact hours, and the speaker’s age were not significant predic‐ tors of the degree of lenition of /bdg/. However, the number of family generations living in the United States significantly predicted the lenition of these segments. This particular study was cross‐sectional by evaluating participants’ current weekly contact with Spanish, and while many participants verbally reported that their use of

Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 22

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Cognate /b/ Non‐cognate Cognate /d/ Non‐cognate Cognate /g/ Non‐cognate /b/ /d/ /g/

Full approximant Tense approximant Occlusive Languages 2021, 6, 108 14 of 22 Figure 9. Rates of production types by segment in cognates and non‐cognates.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Cognate /b/ Non‐cognate Cognate /d/ Non‐cognate Cognate /g/ Non‐cognate /b/ /d/ /g/

Full approximant Tense approximant Occlusive

FigureFigure 10. 10.Rates Rates of production of production types for types all segments for all in segments cognates and in cognates non-cognates and excluding non‐cognates cultural cognates.excluding cul‐ tural cognates. In summary, while the height of the preceding and following vowels predicts the degree of lenition of each segment, one social factor, the generation of the speaker, also In summary,significantly while the impacts height the of lenition the preceding of each analyzed and following intervocalic vowels segment. predicts Finally, the the cognate de‐ gree of lenition ofstatus each of segment, the word, one in this social speaker factor, population, the generation does not significantly of the speaker, influence also the signif degree‐ icantly impacts theof lenition. lenition of each analyzed intervocalic segment. Finally, the cognate sta‐ tus of the word, 5.in Discussion this speaker population, does not significantly influence the degree of lenition. 5.1. Research Question 1: Effects of Generation, Contact Hours, and Age of Acquisition of Spanish Among the four social variables evaluated in the present study, age of acquisition of 5. Discussion Spanish, current weekly contact hours, and the speaker’s age were not significant predictors 5.1. Research Questionof the 1: degree Effects of lenitionof Generation, of /bdg/. Contact However, Hours, the and number Age of of family Acquisition generations of Spanish living in the United States significantly predicted the lenition of these segments. Among the fourThis social particular variables study evaluated was cross-sectional in the present by evaluating study, participants’ age of acquisition current weekly of Spanish, currentcontact weekly with contact Spanish, hours, and whileand the many speaker’s participants age verbally were not reported significant that their predic use‐ of tors of the degreeSpanish of lenition since childhood of /bdg/. had However, decreased, the we number did not obtainof family a quantitative generations measure. living As pointed out by a reviewer, longitudinal measures of contact could be better predictors of in the United Stateslenition significantly than use measurements predicted the at any lenition one given of these point in segments. time. The AoAS variable may This particularalso havestudy been was not cross significant‐sectional because by these evaluating sounds are participants’ generally early current acquired weekly (Acevedo contact with Spanish,1993), which and couldwhile make many them participants less likely to changeverbally over reported time. These that variables their mayuse alsoof have had non-significant effects because, unlike many studies, our speakers were spread out over four generations. The speaker’s generation, which was not a binary factor, most likely ended up accounting for more variability than the other social variables. Unlike these three social variables, non-lenited segments were increasingly common as the number of family generations of the speaker increased. This follows findings for Spanish rhotic segments that change over generations as speakers continue to acquire and use language in different linguistic and social contexts in the US (Henriksen 2015). In Figure5 , 83% of productions of each segment by speakers from G4 were occlusive, and speakers from G1.5 produced occlusives in 14% of their tokens. When each segment was analyzed within its own model, generation predicted the degree of lenition in each segment. That is, as the number of generations increased, lenited segments were significantly less frequent. Languages 2021, 6, 108 15 of 22

Henriksen(2015) found a similar change in the production of Spanish rhotics over one generation, but again, in the present study, the change in /bdg/ production occurs over four generations. In contrast to Henriksen(2015) and the results of the present study, Ronquest et al.(2020) did not find a significant main effect for generation on the level of constriction for /bdg/ when lenition changes were assessed over one generation. This shows that changes in pronunciation over generations occur at different rates. We speculate that the rate of change could partially depend on the sounds in questions and when they are acquired. In studies on phonological development of bilingual children, Acevedo(1993) found that segments of /bdg/ and the Spanish rhotics become adult-like at different ages. The bilabial segment was articulated as an approximant in intervocalic position by 3;06. The coronal segment followed at four years, but the lenition of the velar segment was somewhat variable into the sixth year. Fabiano-Smith and Goldstein (2010) also found that adult-like /b/ productions are acquired earlier than /d/ and /g/ in bilingual children. The Spanish rhotics were considered ‘late-acquired’ in both of these studies because the lingual precision to articulate rhotics as full taps and full trills took longer to develop. These differences in time and order of acquisition of the segments could explain why significant changes in lenition of /bdg/ are borne over four generations as opposed to two generations for rhotics. Interestingly, in both cases, the latest acquired articulations, /g/ and the rhotics, have the most varied productions among adult HSS. So, earlier acquired sounds, like the intervocalic voiced segments, appear to be less likely to shift over one generation than later acquired segments. Additionally, while Ronquest et al.(2020) did not observe a significant main effect on lenition over two generations, the individual analysis of HSS and speakers who acquired Spanish in an infrequent English contact setting showed that more HSS produced the ‘contact-induced’ pattern, that is, less lenited /bdg/. Ronquest et al.(2020, p. 17) suggest that “HSs tend to precede IMs (foreign-born immigrants) in favoring contact-induced realizations”. This echoes the position brought forth in Potowski(2013) that HSS in the US may acquire contact varieties as compared to their older family members who may have acquired a variety of Spanish with little English contact. The position applies to the current study. In addition, our study shows that the rate of contact-induced realizations of /bdg/ is not stagnant over subsequent generations, which further suggests that contact varieties of Spanish vary as more of the societally dominant language is introduced to the speaker earlier in acquisition. Speakers of later generations appear to be even more likely to favor English contact-induced realizations. Each subsequent generation receives more input from the other language, English, if the use of Spanish decreases. The likely result is the increased frequency of activating English- like /bdg/ sound patterns by the third and fourth generations and the increased presence of occlusion in intervocalic /bdg/ in Spanish. Thus, the increased rate of non-lenited productions may reflect the time spent activating the more English-like sound patterns, where occlusive /bdg/ is most frequent. However, among the participants from G2, the rate of occlusive productions ranged from 4% to 57%, highlighting the need for further investigation into the individual experiences of each speaker. Henriksen(2015) noted substantial variation in both generations, and Ronquest et al.(2020) find similar variability. Thus, future studies can take an indi- vidualist approach to identify salient factors impacting heritage speaker pronunciation beyond or in congruence with generation. For instance, one participant reported using Spanish with their grandparents as a child, however, the passing of their grandparents decreased the participant’s input and opportunities to speak Spanish. These are types of social interactions and experiences that could help to further explain variability and changes in pronunciation among Spanish-speaking populations in the US.

5.2. Research Question 2: Phonetic Context As found in Spanish-Catalan speakers (Simonet et al. 2012), the height of the vowels surrounding the segments in question signiﬁcantly predicted the presence of lenition. In Languages 2021, 6, 108 16 of 22

particular, middle and low vowels promote lenition in velar and coronal segments, respectively. However, preceding middle vowels promote constriction of the bilabial segment, and following middle vowels coincided with more lenition of /b/. The relationships between vowel height and lenition or constriction are predictable when considering that speech sounds are coarticulated. The coarticulation with these preceding and following middle and low vowels positions the jaw and the tongue lower to facilitate approximants productions. Here, it is clear that the HSS are not too different from other Spanish speakers whose other language is also abundant in intervocalic lenition (Simonet et al. 2012). The effects of the phonetic context of /bdg/, at least here, appear to compare rather than contrast populations of Spanish speakers. Further studies should combine vowel height variables with other phonetic factors (word boundaries and syllable stress), because it is not clear the degree to which all of these phonetic factors similarly predict lenition in different speaker populations. Additionally, speech rate was not analyzed here, but increasing speech rate is correlated with productions of the voiceless stops (Balukas and Koops 2014), rhotic tap lenition (Kim and Repiso- Puigdelliura 2020) and increased /bdg/ lenition in speakers of Mexican varieties of Spanish (Limanni 2009). A shortcoming of the current analysis is the lack of a speech rate measure, as the participants who spoke slower may have also produced fewer non-lenited intervocalic voiced stops. Finding the implications of speech rate on /bdg/ lenition among HSS is an endeavor for future investigation.

5.3. Research Question 3: Cognate Effects Based on previously documented higher rates of phonetic transfer from English in cognates than in non-cognates (Amengual 2012; Flege et al. 1998; Anthony and Blumenfeld 2019), we hypothesized that we would find more occlusive productions in the cognates than in non-cognates. For example, words such as video would be more likely to have higher occlusive production rates than words such as abogado. Contrary to our predictions, we did not find significant differences between lenition rates in cognates or in non-cognates. When the dataset was restricted to non-cultural cognates, the same result was found. The non-significant result of cognate status brings us back to the generation variable. The participants who produced more occlusive /bdg/ in cognates were also the speakers who had higher rates of occlusive productions in non-cognates, and, of course, these participants were from G4. In 74.5% of their cognate tokens, speakers from G4 produced occlusives, and 88% of their productions for non-cognate items were also occlusive. In comparison, only up to 33% of cognate productions were occlusive in the other three generations, and no more than 28% of non-cognate tokens were occlusive among generations 1.5 to 3. Thus, the generation of the speaker, and therefore, the differing frequency of activation of Spanish, predicts the likelihood of occlusion in cognates and non-cognates. This conclusion diverges from what has been found in previous studies regarding lexical factors affecting pronunciation among HSS. For instance, in Amengual(2012) there was more English-like VOT of /ptk/ in cognates than in non-cognates. However, the results of the current study still fit into the framework provided by Robinson Anthony and Blumenfeld(2019), because the phonetic system of the more frequently activated language, in this case English, saturated the pronunciation of cognates and non-cognates equally. It is evident that the likelihood of producing English-like sounds in Spanish contexts is not solely dependent on the ‘sameness’ of the lexical item. We instead speculate that the frequent use of English over Spanish and the speaker’s generation are more telling of the degree of lenition of /bdg/ than the lexical item’s cognate status.

5.4. Limitations Before concluding, we should take into account the limitations of this study. Given that participants in the present study read from a word list, the orthographic representations that we are taught to associate with sound patterns (Port 2010) could have affected their pronunciation, as was the case in Zampini(1998). Languages 2021, 6, 108 17 of 22

In addition to orthography influences, task formality could change the degree of lenition. This has been found in Spanish speakers who do not use English (Díaz-Campos 2005) and those who do frequently use English (Rao 2014, 2015). The first author originally also collected data in an image description task, but due to time constraints and the participants’ reported low levels of comfort spontaneously speaking in Spanish, the present study only considered data from a read-speech task. Future studies should continue to compare lenition in spontaneous and read-speech tasks. A spontaneous speech task could also help to identify high-frequency words that participants may reduce/lenite more often than lower-frequency words. Such a comparison removes the limitations of the influence of orthography, and it introduces pertinent frequency factors. Finally, a population of participants equally balanced between generations could give a more robust comparison of lenition and this variable. Participants in Generation 4 most often realized the segments as occlusives, but a larger pool of G4 speakers would confirm the pattern documented here.

6. Conclusions This study has demonstrated that generation is a strong predictor of changes in the degree of lenition of /bdg/ among HSS. We found that G1.5 speakers had the highest lenition rates while G4 speakers had the highest rates of non-lenited realizations of these segments. This is similar to Henriksen(2015) in that as generation increases, pronunciations slightly shift from what is documented in infrequent English contact speech communities. However, changes in /bdg/ are slower to emerge than production changes in Spanish rhotics. We speculate that this is due to the order of acquisition and the articulatory precision of certain segments. Furthermore, our results showed that the cognate status of the lexical item does not significantly predict the degree of lenition. We attribute this back to the generation variable because the G4 speakers accounted for the majority of occlusive productions in both cognates and non-cognates. Finally, the results showed that, like other Spanish speakers, productions of intervocalic /bdg/ are constrained by linguistic factors like the height of the adjacent vowels. One should always keep in mind that social and linguistic factors play a part in phonetic shifts. As was the case in Henriksen(2015) and Kim and Repiso-Puigdelliura (2020), careful attention should be paid to the speech patterns of individual speakers. In the present study, no speaker systematically pronounced all analyzed segments as “occlusive” or “full-approximant”, and the degree of lenition is variable regardless of the speaker’s generation. Nevertheless, our findings coincide with language shifts that typically occur over three generations, specifically a shift from high lenition rates in G1.5 to high occlusion rates in G4. It is up to future investigations to firmly establish the predictors of phonetic shifts in HSS populations, and this endeavor will most certainly entail leveraging social and linguistic factors against speaker-based variation.

Author Contributions: K.B. contributed to the conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, visualization, writing of the original draft, and editing. S.L. contributed to the formal analysis, resources, validation, visualization, and the writing and editing of subsequent versions of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of University of Colorado Denver (Protocol 19–2359 14 October 2019). Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to participant conﬁdentiality. Languages 2021, 6, 108 18 of 22

Acknowledgments: The authors thank Alyssa Martoccio and Richard File-Muriel, the editor, and the three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions on earlier versions of the paper. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest.

Appendix A Background Survey Please respond to the questions as they are true to you and your life experience with the Spanish language. Your sincerity will aid the success of the investigation. There are no wrong answers. Thank you for your participation. 1. What is your name? 2. How old are you? 3. Are you a current university student? 4. What language did you learn from birth? 5. What language or languages have you learned since then? 6. At what age did you start learning/speaking/hearing them? 7. Where did your family immigrate from? 8. Has your use of Spanish decreased as you got older or has it remained the same? 9. How many generations of your family have lived in the United States? 10. Does it feel like you can listen and understand but cannot speak Spanish? Contact with Spanish A: Check the appropriate box based on your own life experiences 11. Do you SPEAK in Spanish in any of the following contexts? If yes, indicate the frequency by checking the appropriate box.

Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never N/A With your mother, father, or both With your grandparents With your siblings With at least one of your relatives With at least one of your friends At work At school At social events Others: Please specify 12. Do the following people ADDRESS you in Spanish in any of the following contexts? If yes, indicate the frequency by checking the appropriate box.

13. Do you listen to conversations in Spanish between the following people? If yes, indicate the frequency by checking the appropriate box.

Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never N/A With your mother, father, or both With your grandparents With your siblings With at least one of your relatives With at least one of your friends At work At school At social events Others: Please specify Contact with Spanish B: In this section, please circle the appropriate answer. If your answer is MORE, indicate how many hours of contact. *** For questions 16–18 please select if you SPEAK or LISTEN TO Spanish or both. 14. How many hours per week do you SPEAK or LISTEN TO Spanish? N/A Never 1–2 h a week 3–4 h a week 5–6 h a week More 15. How many hours per week do you SPEAK or LISTEN TO Spanish with your grandparents? N/A Never 1–2 h a week 3–4 h a week 5–6 h a week More 16. How many hours per week do you SPEAK or LISTEN TO Spanish with your parents? N/A Never 1–2 h a week 3–4 h a week 5–6 h a week More 17. How many hours per week do you SPEAK or LISTEN TO Spanish with your siblings? N/A Never 1–2 h a week 3–4 h a week 5–6 h a week More 18. How many hours per week do you SPEAK or LISTEN TO Spanish with your friends? N/A Never 1–2 h a week 3–4 h a week 5–6 h a week More 19. Do you watch any TV or movies in Spanish? N/A Never 1–2 h a week 3–4 h a week 5–6 h a week More 20. Do you listen to any Spanish music? N/A Never 1–2 h a week 3–4 h a week 5–6 h a week More Contact with Spanish C: For questions 21–30 provide as much detail as possible 21. Do you attend functions or events in which the dominant language is Spanish? 22. If so, what are the events? 23. Have you ever studied in or visited Spanish speaking countries or communities such as the US /Mexico border where you were immersed in Spanish most of or all of the time? 24. If so, where did you go and how long were you there for? 25. Have you used Spanish in any other situations? (i.e., job, volunteer work, etc.) 26. Have you ever taken a Spanish class? 27. If so, when was the last time you took a Spanish class? 28. How many hours per week do/did you spend in a formal Spanish class? 29. How many quarters, semesters, or years of Spanish classes did you take? 30. What was your motivation for taking the class? Languages 2021, 6, 108 20 of 22

Appendix B Word List |34 words | 16 cognates* Abogado Lawyer Aburrido Boring Beber To drink Bodega Store Colorado* Colorado Cuba* Country Debate* Debate Dedo Finger Dibujar To Draw Empanada* Empanada (food) Galápago * Ecuador Islands Graduación* Graduation Grabar To Record Hago I do Hormigas Ants Idea* Idea Inseguro Unsure/Unsafe Legal* Legal Liga * League Madrugada Early Morning Murciélago Bat (animal) Negociar* To Negotiate Obediente* Obedient Prohibir* To Prohibit Quedaba Stayed Radio* Radio Regatear To Bargain Segundo Second Sílaba* Syllable Tímido* Timid Trabajaba Worked Universidad* University Vídeo* Video

Appendix C Table A1. Statistical results from Linear Mixed-Effects Models; the dependent variable is continuous from 1 (occlusive) to 3 (full approximant).

Random Segment N Fixed Effects ß SE t p Variance SD Effects Intercept 3.03 0.32 9.33 <0.001 AoAS ns Generation −0.41 0.13 −3.23 0.001 Age ns /b/ 252 Contact Hours ns Speaker 0.56 0.37 Preceding low ns Preceding mid −0.29 0.14 −2.15 0.03 Following low ns Following mid 0.34 0.14 2.41 0.02 Languages 2021, 6, 108 21 of 22

Table A1. Cont.

Random Segment N Fixed Effects ß SE t p Variance SD Effects Intercept 2.81 0.34 8.29 <0.001 AoAS ns Generation −0.4 0.13 −2.95 0.003 Age ns /d/ 292 Contact Hours ns Speaker 0.66 0.38 Preceding low 0.34 0.09 3.69 <0.001 Preceding mid ns Following low ns Following mid ns Intercept 2.43 0.25 9.67 <0.001 AoAS ns Generation −0.34 0.09 −3.55 0.002 Age ns /g/ 276 Contact Hours ns Speaker 0.66 0.23 Preceding low ns Preceding mid 0.46 0.1 4.56 <0.001 Following low ns Following mid ns

References Acevedo, Mary Ann. 1993. Development of Spanish Consonants in Preschool Children. Journal of Childhood Communication Disorders 15: 9–15. [CrossRef] Amengual, Mark. 2012. Interlingual inﬂuence in bilingual speech: Cognate Status Effect in a Continuum of Bilingualism. Bilingualism 15: 517–30. [CrossRef] Anthony, Jonathan Jd Robinson, and Henrike K. Blumenfeld. 2019. Language dominance predicts cognate effects and inhibitory control in young adult bilinguals. Bilingualism 22: 1068–84. [CrossRef] Balukas, Colleen, and Christian Koops. 2014. Spanish-English Bilingual Voice Onset Time in Spontaneous Code-switching. International Journal of Bilingualism 20: 1–21. [CrossRef] Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker, and Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67: 1–48. [CrossRef] Beaudrie, Sara, Cynthia Ducar, and Kim Potowski. 2015. Goals and Principles in Heritage Language Instruction. In Heritage Language Teaching: Research and Practice. New York: McGraw Hill, vol. 4, pp. 57–60. Boada, Roger, Rosa Sãnchez-Casas, José M. Gavilãn, José E. Garcãa-Albea, and Natasha Tokowicz. 2013. Effect of multiple translations and cognate status on translation recognition performance of balanced bilinguals. Bilingualism 16: 183–97. [CrossRef] Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink. 2018. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [Computer Program]. Version 6.0.37. Available online: http://www.praat.org/ (accessed on 1 November 2019). Díaz-Campos, Manuel. 2005. The Emergence of Adult-like Command of Sociolinguistic Variables: A Study of Consonant Weakening in Spanish-speaking Children. In Selected Proceedings of the 6th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages. Edited by David Eddington. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 56–65. Carroll, E. Susanne. 1992. On cognates. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin (Utrecht) 8: 93–119. [CrossRef] Escobar, Anna María, and Kim Potowski. 2015. La adquisición del español como lengua minoritaria. In El Espanol de los Estados Unidos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 81–111. Fabiano-Smith, Leah, and Brian A. Goldstein. 2010. Phonological acquisition in bilingual Spanish–English speaking children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research.[CrossRef] Fishman, A. Joshua. 2001. 300-Plus Years of Heritage Language Education in the United States. In Heritage Langauge in America: Preserving a National Resource. Edited by Joy Kreeft Peyton, Donald A. Ranard and Scott McGinnis. Washington and McHenry: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems, pp. 81–89. Flege, James, and Murray Munro. 1994. The word unit in L2 speech production and perception. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16: 381–411. [CrossRef] Flege, James, Elaina Frieda, Amanda Walley, and Lauren Randazza. 1998. Lexical Factors and Segmental Accuracy in Second Language Speech Production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20: 155–87. [CrossRef] Henriksen, C. Nicholas. 2015. Acoustic analysis of the rhotic contrast in Chicagoland Spanish: An Intergenerational Study. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5: 285–321. [CrossRef] Hualde, I. José. 2014. Los Sonidos Del Español. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Languages 2021, 6, 108 22 of 22

Kim, Ji Young, and Gemma Repiso-Puigdelliura. 2020. Deconstructing Heritage Language Dominance: Effects of Proficiency, Use, and Input on Heritage Speakers’ Production of the Spanish Alveolar Tap. Phonetica 77: 55–80. [CrossRef] Kissling, M. Elizabeth. 2013. Teaching pronunciation: Is explicit phonetics instruction beneficial for FL learners? The Modern Language Journal 97: 720–44. [CrossRef] Kissling, M. Elizabeth. 2015. Phonetics instruction improves learners’ perception of L2 sounds. Language Teaching Research 19: 254–275. [CrossRef] Leeman, Jennifer. 2005. Engaging critical pedagogy: Spanish for native speakers. Foreign Language Annals 38: 35–45. [CrossRef] Limanni, Anna. 2009. Men, Women and Lenition: Gender Differences in the Production of Intervocalic Voiced Stops in Mexican Spanish. Canadian Acoustics 37: 194–95. MacGregor-Mendoza, Patricia. 2000. Aquí No Se Habla Español: Stories of Linguistic Repression in Southwest Schools. Bilingual Research Journal 24: 355–67. [CrossRef] Otheguy, Ricardo, and Ana C. Zentella. 2011. Spanish in New York: Language Contact, Dialectal Leveling, and Structural Continuity. Oxford: OUP USA. Port, Robert F. 2010. Rich Memory and Distributed Phonology. Language Sciences 32: 43–55. [CrossRef] Potowski, Kim. 2013. Heritage Learners of Spanish. In The Handbook of Spanish Second Language Acquisition. Edited by Kimberly L. Geeslin. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 404–22. Preacher, Kristopher J. 2001. Calculation for the Chi-Square Test: An Interactive Calculation Tool for Chi Square Tests of Goodness of Fit and Independence. [Computer Software]. Available online: www.quantpsy.org/chisq/chisq.htm (accessed on 14 June 2021). Rao, Rajiv. 2014. On the status of the phoneme /b/ in heritage speakers of Spanish. Sintagma 26: 37–54. Rao, Rajiv. 2015. Manifestations of /bdg/ in Heritage Speakers of Spanish. Heritage Language Journal (1550–7076) 12: 48. [CrossRef] Ronquest, Rebecca, and Rajiv Rao. 2018. Heritage Spanish Phonetics and Phonology. In The Routledge Handbook of Spanish as a Heritage Language. Edited by Kim Potowski. London: Routledge, pp. 164–77. Ronquest, Rebecca, Jim Michnowicz, Eric Wilbanks, and Claudia Cortes. 2020. Examining the (mini-) Variable Swarm in the Spanish of the Southeast. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. [CrossRef] RStudio Team. 2020. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA. Available online: http://www.rstudio.com/ (accessed on 14 June 2021). Silva-Corvalán, Carmen. 2014. Bilingual Language Acquisition: Spanish and English in the First Six Years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Simonet, Miquel, José I. Hualde, and Marianna Nadeu. 2012. Lenition of/d/in spontaneous Spanish and Catalan. In Thirteenth Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association. Portland: Interspeech. Thomas, Erik. 2011. Sociophonetics: An Introduction. New York: Macmillan International Higher Education. Valdés, Guadalupe. 2001. Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In Heritage Languages in America: Preserving a National Resource. Edited by Joy Kreeft Peyton, Donald A. Ranard and Scott McGinnis. Washington: CAL, ERIC, McHenry: DeltaSystems, pp. 37–80. Waltermire, Mark. 2017. At the Dialectal Crosswords: The Spanish of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Dialectología 19: 177–97. Zampini, Mary. 1998. L2 Spanish spirantization: A prosodic analysis and pedagogical implications. Hispanic Linguistics 10: 154–88.