In Cantonese and several other Chinese languages, /n/ is merging with /l/. The Cantonese merger appears categorical, with /n/ becoming /l/ word-initially. This project aims to describe the status of /n/ and /l/ in bilingual Cantonese and English speech to better understand individual differences at the interface of crosslinguistic influence and sound change. We examine bilingual speech using the SpiCE corpus, composed of speech from 34 early Cantonese-English bilinguals. Acoustic measures were collected on pre-vocalic nasal and lateral onsets in both languages. If bilinguals maintain separate representations for corresponding segments across languages, smaller differences between /n/ and /l/ are predicted in Cantonese compared to English. Measures of mid-frequency spectral tilt suggest that the /n/ and /l/ contrast is robustly maintained in English, but not Cantonese. The spacing of F2-F1 suggests small differences between Cantonese /n/ and /l/, and robust differences in English. While cross-language categories appear independent, substantial individual differences exist in the data. These data contribute to the understanding of the /n/ and /l/ merger in Cantonese and other Chinese languages, in addition to providing empirical and theoretical insights into crosslinguistic influence in early bilinguals.

Late second language (L2) learners show translation priming from the first language to the second (L1-L2), while L2-L1 effects are inconsistent. Typically, late L2 learners are both less dominant in the L2 and acquire the L2 after the L1, making the relative contribution of language dominance and order of acquisition in these results unclear. Here, Cantonese heritage and native speakers are tested in an auditory translation priming paradigm. As heritage speakers first learn Cantonese (L1) but later become more dominant in English (L2), this profile allows for the potential dissociation of dominance and order of acquisition in translation priming. If order of acquisition is the primary factor, stronger priming is expected to occur in the L1-L2 (Cantonese-English) direction; however, if dominance plays a stronger role, priming is expected to occur in the L2-L1 (English-Cantonese) direction. Native speakers showed stronger L1-L2 priming, consistent with previous findings, while heritage speakers showed priming in both directions, but stronger L2-L1 priming. The current results suggest that language dominance is a primary factor in explaining auditory translation priming results and that order of acquisition also plays a role in bilingual lexical processing.

Heritage speakers contend with at least two languages: the less dominant L1 (heritage language), and the more dominant L2. Maintaining the heritage language allows heritage speakers to communicate with members of their community. In some cases, their L1 and L2 bear striking phonological differences. In the current study, we investigate this in the context of Toronto-born Cantonese heritage speakers and their maintenance of Cantonese lexical tone, a linguistic feature that is absent from English, the more dominant L2. Across two experiments, Cantonese heritage speakers were tested on their phonetic/phonological and lexical encoding of tone in Cantonese. Experiment 1 was an AX discrimination task with varying inter-stimulus intervals (ISIs), which revealed that heritage speakers discriminated tone pairs with distinct pitch contours better than those with shared contours. Experiment 2 was a medium-term repetition priming experiment, designed to extend the findings of Experiment 1 by examining tone representations at the lexical level. We observed a positive correlation between tone minimal pair priming and English dominance. Thus, while increased English dominance does not affect heritage speakers' phonological-level representations, tasks that require lexical access suggest that heritage Cantonese speakers may not robustly and fully distinctively encode Cantonese tone in lexical memory.

Heritage speakers contend with at least two languages: the less dominant first language (L1), that is, the heritage language, and the more dominant second language (L2). In some cases, their L1 and L2 bear striking phonological differences. In the current study, we investigate Toronto-born Cantonese heritage speakers and their maintenance of Cantonese lexical tone, a linguistic feature that is absent from English, the more dominant L2. Across two experiments, Cantonese heritage speakers were tested on their phonetic/phonological and lexical encoding of tone in Cantonese. Experiment 1 was an AX discrimination task with varying inter-stimulus intervals (ISIs), which revealed that heritage speakers discriminated tone pairs with disparate pitch contours better than those with shared pitch contours. Experiment 2 was a medium-term repetition priming experiment, designed to extend the findings of Experiment 1 by examining tone representations at the lexical level. We observed a positive correlation between English dominance and priming in tone minimal pairs that shared contours. Thus, while increased English dominance does not affect heritage speakers’ phonological-level representations, tasks that require lexical access suggest that heritage Cantonese speakers may not robustly and fully distinctively encode Cantonese tone in lexical memory.

Late second language (L2) learners show translation priming from the first language (L1) to the second language (L1-L2), while L2-L1 effects are inconsistent. Late L2 learners also acquire the L2 after the L1 and are typically less dominant in the L2. As such, the relative contribution of language dominance and order of acquisition is confounded in these results. Here, Cantonese heritage and native speakers are tested in an auditory translation priming paradigm. As heritage speakers first learn Cantonese (L1) but later become dominant in English (L2), this profile allows for the potential dissociation of dominance and order of acquisition in translation priming. If order of acquisition is the primary factor, stronger priming is expected in the L1-L2 (Cantonese-English) direction; however, if dominance plays a stronger role, priming is expected in the L2-L1 (English-Cantonese) direction. Native speakers showed stronger L1-L2 priming, consistent with previous findings, while heritage speakers showed priming in both directions, and marginally larger L2-L1 priming. Treating language dominance as a continuous variable revealed that L1-L2 priming correlated with increased Cantonese dominance, while L2-L1 priming marginally correlated with increased English dominance. Collectively, these results suggest that both language dominance and order of acquisition help explain translation priming findings and bilingual lexical processing, generally. Overall, they invite a rethinking of the role of both variables in bilingual lexical access for speakers with different language dominance profiles.