The traditional phonetic classification of language rhythm as stress-timed or syllable-timed is attributed to Pike. Recently, two different proposals have been offered for describing the rhythmic structure of languages from acoustic-phonetic measurements. Ramus has suggested a metric based on the proportion of vocalic intervals and the variability (SD) of consonantal intervals. Grabe has proposed Pairwise Variability Indices (nPVI, rPVI) calculated from the differences in vocalic and consonantal durations between successive syllables. We have calculated both the Ramus and Grabe metrics for Latvian, traditionally considered a syllable rhythm language, and for Latvian as spoken by Russian learners. Native speakers and proficient learners were very similar whereas low-proficiency learners showed high variability on some properties. The metrics did not provide an unambiguous classification of Latvian.

For fifty years after World War II, Latvia was incorporated into the former Soviet Union. Although in theory the use of regional languages was not discouraged, in practice knowledge of Russian was obligatory. Since 1991, Latvian has again become the official language, and knowledge of Russian is widespread but optional. These political events have created a natural experiment in the effects of almost universal bilingualism on a language. To assess the impact on pronunciation, native speakers of Latvian, ranging from retirement age to teens, were recorded reading a word list and a short narrative. Vowel pronunciation differed across the generations both in quantity relationships and in formant structure. In his groundbreaking book, Language Contact, Weinreich (1968:11) observed, "In speech, interference is like sand carried by a stream; in language, it is the sedimented sand deposited on the bottom of a lake. The two phases of interference should be distinguished. In speech, it occurs anew in the utterances of the bilingual speaker as a result of his personal knowledge of the other tongue." The perspective that Weinreich suggested is ultimately psychological. Contact between languages takes place in the mind of an individual. The languages that a bilingual individual speaks are interconnected and are able to influence each other. Undoubtedly the nature and strength of the interconnection between languages varies, and some properties of languages influence each other more than others. Nevertheless, all aspects of a bilingual's languages are ultimately capable of making contact (Cook, 2003). If they do, then language contact may lead to language change. The past fifty years of the linguistic situation in Latvia has created a natural experiment for examining the effects of bilingualism, specifically the effect of Russian on Latvian. After World War II, Latvia was incorporated into the USSR.

The article discusses the methodology and the preliminary results of the research project entitled “Latvian language in Monolingual and Bilingual Acquisition: tools, theories and applications” (LAMBA). The project involves 25 researchers – linguists, educators, psychologists – from five institutions in Latvia and Norway, and focuses on phonological, lexical and morphosyntactic acquisition of Latvian as a native language in monolingual and bilingual settings. One of the main goals of the project is to develop a set of norm-referenced language assessment tools that would allow for accurate and time-efficient evaluation of language development in pre-school children.The article will focus specifically on the Latvian adaptation of MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories – a parental report tool that assesses the development of receptive and productive vocabulary, and certain aspects of grammar. Two CDI forms were adapted in the project: CDI Words and Gestures designed for use with children between 8 and 16 months of age, and CDI Words and Sentences designed for 16- to 36-month old children. Each CDI form contains extensive and language-specific checklists of lexical items, communicative gestures and grammatical constructions.

No abstract

Talkers in a second language can readily be identified as speaking with a foreign accent, characterized by both specific and more general deviations from the phonology of a target language. In this study, we examined the identifications of native and non-native talkers by listeners with various amounts of knowledge of the target language. Native and non-native speakers of Latvian provided materials. All the non-native talkers spoke Russian as their first language and were long-term residents of Latvia. We used Latvian as the target second language and speech samples produced either by native speakers or by ethnic Russians for whom Latvian is a second language. The text for reading was identical, talkers could not be distinguished by lexical selection or morphological and syntactic errors. A listening test, consisting of identical sentences excerpted from a short recorded passage, was presented to three groups of listeners: native speakers of Latvian, Russians for whom Latvian was a second language, and Americans with no knowledge of either language. The listeners were asked to judge whether each utterance was produced by a native or non-native talker and then evaluate the talker’s proficiency. The Latvians identified the non-native talkers accurately (88%) while the Russians were somewhat less accurate (79%). The American listeners were least accurate but still identified the non-native talkers at above chance levels, 63%. Sentence durations correlated with the judgments provided by the American listeners but not with the judgments provided by the native or L2 listeners. Interesting that there were no significant correlations between utterance duration and correct identification for Russian and Latvian listeners. Because these listeners knew the target language, they had many sources of information available to them rather than a relatively obvious characteristic such as fluency or speech rate. Research for portions of this project was provided by a grant from the International Research & Exchanges Board, with funds provided by the US Department of State (Title VII program) and the National Endowment for the Humanities. The final conclusions of the study, organisation and publication of the article were supported by the National Research Programme “Latvian language” Nr. VPP-IZM-2018/2-0002.