The study of second language phonetics is concerned with three broad and overlapping research areas: the characteristics of second language speech production and perception, the consequences of perceiving and producing nonnative speech sounds with a foreign accent, and the causes and factors that shape second language phonetics. Second language learners and bilinguals typically produce and perceive the sounds of a nonnative language in ways that are different from native speakers. These deviations from native norms can be attributed largely, but not exclusively, to the phonetic system of the native language. Non-nativelike speech perception and production may have both social consequences (e.g., stereotyping) and linguistic–communicative consequences (e.g., reduced intelligibility). Research on second language phonetics over the past ca. 30 years has resulted in a fairly good understanding of causes of nonnative speech production and perception, and these insights have to a large extent been driven by tests of the predictions of models of second language speech learning and of cross-language speech perception. It is generally accepted that the characteristics of second language speech are predominantly due to how second language learners map the sounds of the nonnative to the native language. This mapping cannot be entirely predicted from theoretical or acoustic comparisons of the sound systems of the languages involved, but has to be determined empirically through tests of perceptual assimilation. The most influential learner factors which shape how a second language is perceived and produced are the age of learning and the amount and quality of exposure to the second language. A very important and far-reaching finding from research on second language phonetics is that age effects are not due to neurological maturation which could result in the attrition of phonetic learning ability, but to the way phonetic categories develop as a function of experience with surrounding sound systems.
This is an advance summary of a forthcoming article in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Please check back later for the full article. From a typological perspective, the phoneme inventories of Romance languages are of medium size: For instance, most consonant systems contain between 20 and 23 phonemes. An innovation with respect to Latin is the appearance of palatal and palato-alveolar consonants such as /ɲ ʎ/ (Italian, Spanish, Portuguese), /ʃ ʒ/ (French, Portuguese), and /tʃ dʒ/ (Italian, Romanian); a few varieties (e.g., Romansh and a number of Italian dialects) also show the palatal stops /c ɟ/. Besides palatalization, a number of lenition processes (both sonorization and spirantization) have characterized the diachronic development of plosives in Western Romance languages (cf. the French word chèvre “goat” < lat. CĀPRA(M)). Diachronically, both sonorization and spirantization occurred in postvocalic position, where the latter can still be observed as an allophonic rule in present-day Spanish and Sardinian. Sonorization, on the other hand, occurs synchronically after nasals in many southern Italian dialects. The most fundamental change in the diachrony of the Romance vowel systems derives from the demise of contrastive Latin vowel quantity. However, some Raeto-Romance and northern Italo-Romance varieties have developed new quantity contrasts. Moreover, standard Italian displays allophonic vowel lengthening in open stressed syllables (e.g., /ˈka.ne/ “dog” → [ˈkaːne]. The stressed vowel systems of most Romance varieties contain either five phonemes (Spanish, Sardinian, Sicilian) or seven phonemes (Portuguese, Catalan, Italian, Romanian). Larger vowel inventories are typical of “northern Romance” and appear in dialects of Northern Italy as well as in Raeto- and Gallo-Romance languages. The most complex vowel system is found in standard French with its 16 vowel qualities, comprising the 3 rounded front vowels /y ø œ/ and the 4 nasal vowel phonemes /ɑ̃ ɔ̃ ɛ̃ œ̃/. Romance languages differ in their treatment of unstressed vowels. Whereas Spanish displays the same five vowels /i e a o u/ in both stressed and unstressed syllables (except for unstressed /u/ in word-final position), many southern Italian dialects have a considerably smaller inventory of unstressed vowels as opposed to their stressed vowels. The phonotactics of most Romance languages is strongly determined by their typological character as “syllable languages.” Indeed, the phonological word only plays a minor role as very few phonological rules or phonotactic constraints refer, for example, to the word-initial position (such as Italian consonant doubling or the distribution of rhotics in Ibero-Romance), or to the word-final position (such as obstruent devoicing in Raeto-Romance). Instead, a wide range of assimilation and lenition processes apply across word boundaries in French, Italian, and Spanish. In line with their fundamental typological nature, Romance languages tend to allow syllable structures of only moderate complexity. Inventories of syllable types are smaller than, for example, those of Germanic languages, and the segmental makeup of syllable constituents mostly follows universal preferences of sonority sequencing. Moreover, many Romance languages display a strong preference for open syllables as reflected in the token frequency of syllable types. Nevertheless, antagonistic forces aiming at profiling the prominence of stressed syllables are visible in several Romance languages as well. Within the Ibero- Romance domain, more complex syllable structures and vowel reduction processes are found in the periphery, that is, in Catalan and Portuguese. Similarly, northern Italian and Raeto-Romance dialects have experienced apocope and/or syncope of unstressed vowels, yielding marked syllable structures in terms of both constituent complexity and sonority sequencing.
Subtraction consists in shortening the shape of the word. It operates on morphological bases such as roots, stems, and words in word-formation and inflection. Cognitively, subtraction is the opposite of affixation, since the latter adds meaning and form (an overt affix) to roots, stems, or words, while the former adds meaning through subtraction of form. As subtraction and affixation work at the same level of grammar (morphology), they sometimes compete for the expression of the same semantics in the same language, for example, the pattern ‘science—scientist’ in German has derivations such as Physik ‘physics’—Physik-er ‘physicist’ and Astronom-ie ‘astronomy’—Astronom ‘astronomer’. Subtraction can delete phonemes and morphemes. In case of phoneme deletion, it is usually the final phoneme of a morphological base that is deleted and sometimes that phoneme can coincide with a morpheme. Some analyses of subtraction(-like shortenings) rely not on morphological units (roots, stems, morphological words, affixes) but on the phonological word, which sometimes results in alternative definitions of subtraction. Additionally, syntax-based theories of morphology that do not recognize a morphological component of grammar and operate only with additive syntactic rules claim that subtraction actually consists in addition of defective phonological material that causes adjustments in phonology and leads to deletion of form on the surface. Other scholars postulate subtraction only if the deleted material does not coincide with an existing morpheme elsewhere in the language and if it does, they call the change backformation. There is also some controversy regarding what is a proper word-formation process and whether what is derived by subtraction is true word-formation or just marginal or extragrammatical morphology; that is, the question is whether shortenings such as hypocoristics and clippings should be treated on par with derivations such as, for example, the pattern of science-scientist. Finally, research in subtraction also faces terminology issues in the sense that in the literature different labels have been used to refer to subtraction(-like) formations: minus feature, minus formation, disfixation, subtractive morph, (subtractive) truncation, backformation, or just shortening.
Erich R. Round
The non–Pama-Nyugan, Tangkic languages were spoken until recently in the southern Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. The most extensively documented are Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta. Their phonology is notable for its opaque, word-final deletion rules and extensive word-internal sandhi processes. The morphology contains complex relationships between sets of forms and sets of functions, due in part to major historical refunctionalizations, which have converted case markers into markers of tense and complementization and verbal suffixes into case markers. Syntactic constituency is often marked by inflectional concord, resulting frequently in affix stacking. Yukulta in particular possesses a rich set of inflection-marking possibilities for core arguments, including detransitivized configurations and an inverse system. These relate in interesting ways historically to argument marking in Lardil and Kayardild. Subordinate clauses are marked for tense across most constituents other than the subject, and such tense marking is also found in main clauses in Lardil and Kayardild, which have lost the agreement and tense-marking second-position clitic of Yukulta. Under specific conditions of co-reference between matrix and subordinate arguments, and under certain discourse conditions, clauses may be marked, on all or almost all words, by complementization markers, in addition to inflection for case and tense.
The Romance languages, despite their overall similarity, display interesting internal diversity which can be captured only very partially by looking at the six major standard languages, as typological databases often do. This diversity spans over all the levels of linguistic analysis, from phonology to morphology and syntax. Rather than making a long list of features, with no space to go much beyond their mere mention, the article focusses on just four main areas in a little more detail, trying to develop, if minimally, a discussion on their theoretical and methodological import. The comparison with the full-world typological background given by the WALS Online shows that the differences within Romance may reach the level of general typological relevance. While this is probably not the case in their rather mainstream segmental phonology, it surely holds regarding nominal pluralization and the syntax of negation, which are both areas where the Romance languages have often distanced themselves quite significantly from their common ancestor, Latin. The morphological marking of nominal plural displays four values out of the seven recorded in WALS, adding a further one unattested there, namely subtraction; the negation strategies, although uniformly particle-like, cover all the five values found in WALS concerning linear order. Finally, Romance languages suggest several intriguing issues related with head-marking and dependent-marking constructions, again innovating against the substantially dependent-marking uniformity characteristic of Latin.