Buenos Aires Spanish (BAS) is well known for the sound change that led the palatal obstruent to become a post-alveolar fricative. However, that obstruent is not the only palatal phoneme undergoing sound change in BAS. The present study investigates the production of /ɲ/ and /nj/ in BAS, which have been reported as merging (Malmberg 1950). Previous research suggests that some speakers produce a ‘traditional’ (alveolo)palatal nasal, while other speakers realize /ɲ/ with two distinct non-simultaneous constrictions: alveolar/postalveolar and palatal (Kochetov & Colantoni 2011). An acoustic analysis is based on the speech of 33 speakers (15 males, 17 females; from four age groups: 15–19 years old, 20–29 years, 30–45 years and 45+ years) and was obtained by measuring duration and formant contours in the tautosyllabic vocalic portion. Results reveal that /ɲ/ and /nj/ are not fully merged, as some speakers produce differences. Specifically, the results indicate that production differences between men and women disappear as age decreases, with female speakers being more innovative. Findings provide evidence that the sound change is still progressing and probably nearing completion, and show that the palatal system in BAS is losing the (alveolo)palatal nasal.

This study investigates the acoustic and articulatory properties of phonation contrast in Shanghainese, the most thoroughly studied Chinese Wu dialect. Although previous studies generally suggest that the non-modal phonation associated with the lower register in Shanghainese is relatively breathier, it is unclear whether it is ‘breathy voice’, ‘slack voice’ or ‘whispery voice’. This study aims to provide a better understanding of the phonetic realization of the non-modal phonation in Shanghainese. Simultaneous audio and electroglottographic recordings were made from 52 speakers born before 1980. Both acoustic and articulatory data confirmed that the non-modal phonation in Shanghainese is produced with relatively less glottal constriction and more aperiodic noise than the modal phonation. The novel finding of this study is that aperiodic noise plays a much more important role than spectral measures (i.e. indicators of glottal constriction) in the phonetic realization of the non-modal phonation. This property is distinct from the breathier voices in Gujarati, White Hmong and Southern Yi. These results suggest that the non-modal phonation in Shanghainese should be characterized as ‘whispery voice’, which is phonetically distinct from both ‘breathy voice’ and ‘slack voice’.

Glottalisation functions as a cue to coda stop voicelessness in many varieties of English, occurring most commonly for alveolar stops, although varieties differ according to the context and frequency with which glottalisation is used. In Australian English, younger speakers glottalise voiceless coda stops at much higher rates than older speakers suggesting a recent change to the variety, yet this change has only been examined in stressed syllables for stops with alveolar place of articulation. In addition, research has found that glottalisation occurs in a trading relationship with preceding vowel duration to cue coda stop voicing: younger speakers make less use of vowel duration and more use of glottalisation. This study investigates glottalisation as a cue to coda voicing in unstressed syllables, an environment in which coda voicing-related vowel durational differences are already reduced. We examine this phenomenon in two separate datasets of Australian English with reference to stops at three places of articulation to explore dialect-specific distributional patterns and to track the potential progression of change. The results suggest that glottalisation occurs in conjunction with voiceless stops at all places of articulation in the unstressed Australian English contexts examined here. The results also confirm that younger speakers employ glottalisation more than older speakers, and show that females glottalise more than males, both results supporting previous suggestions of a recent change to the variety.

Scottish Gaelic is a minority language of Scotland spoken by approximately 58,000 people, or 1% of the Scottish population (speaker numbers from the 2011 Census available in National Records of Scotland 2015). Here, we refer to the language as ‘Gaelic’, pronounced in British English as /ɡalɪk/, as is customary within the Gaelic-speaking community. In Gaelic, the language is referred to as Gàidhlig /kaːlɪc/. Gaelic is a Celtic language, closely related to Irish (MacAulay 1992, Ní Chasaide 1999, Gillies 2009). Although Gaelic was widely spoken across much of Scotland in medieval times (Withers 1984, Clancy 2009), the language has recently declined in traditional areas such as the western seaboard and western islands of Scotland and is now considered ‘definitely endangered’ by UNESCO classification (Moseley 2010). Analysis of the location of Gaelic speakers in Scotland and maps from the most recent Census in 2011 can be found in National Records of Scotland (2015). Figure 1 shows the location of Gaelic speakers in Scotland as a percentage of the inhabitants aged over three in each Civil Parish who reported being able to speak Gaelic in the 2011 Census.

Kazakh (ISO 639-3, kaz) is a Kipchak (Northwestern) Turkic language with approximately ten million speakers (Muhamedowa 2015). While the majority of Kazakh speakers live in the Republic of Kazakhstan, significant Kazakh-speaking populations exist throughout Central Asia. See Figure 1 for a map of the region. Kazakh spoken in Kazakhstan is described as having three or four dialects, but many researchers agree that differences between dialects are small and largely lexical (Kara 2002, Grenoble 2003, Muhamedowa 2015; see Amanzholov 1959 for more on Kazakh dialects).

Khuzestani Arabic (ISO 639-3) is a minority language spoken in the southern west of Iran, in Khuzestan province (see Figure 1). The majority of its speakers live in Ahwaz, Howeyzeh, Bostan, Susangerd, Shush, Abadan, Khorramshahr, Shadegan, Hamidiyeh (Balawi & Khezri 2014: 107), Karun, and Bawi. According to Blanc (1964: 6), this variety of Arabic is closely related to the Gelet subgroup of Mesopotamian dialects.1 This dialect is in contact with Bakhtiyari Lori and Persian (Iranian languages of the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European language family), as well as Iraqi Arabic. The lexis of the dialect predominantly contains Arabic words, but it also has several Persian, English, French, and Turkish loanwords.

Bajau is spoken as the primary language from the Philippines to Borneo to eastern Indonesia, by both nomadic and settled communities. It is also known as Badjaw, Badjo, Bajao, Bajo, Bayo, Gaj, Indonesian Bajaw, Orang Laut, Sama, and Terijene; see Simons & Fennig 2017. Glottolog.org lists ‘Indonesian Bajau’ as a language spoken on the south-eastern coast of Sulawesi, glottocode indo1317 and ISO 639-3 bdl. Clifton (2010) claims the population of Bajau speakers is 700,000–900,000, with around 150,000–230,000 in eastern Indonesia (Sather 1997) and 92,000 in Sulawesi (Mead & Lee 2007). There are also Bajau-speaking populations in the Philippines and Borneo (Jun 2005); see Figure 1. Bajau is classified as a threatened Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian language (Simons & Fennig 2017). It has been proposed that the language originated in the Zamboanga-Basilan area in southern Philippines (Jun 2005 citing Pallesen 1985).

Kejom [k̀ɘd͡ʒɔ́m], the preferred autonym for the language more commonly known as Babanki, is a Central Ring Grassfields Bantu language (ISO 693-3: [bbk]) spoken in the Northwest Region of Cameroon (Hyman 1980, Hammarström et al. 2017, Simons & Fennig 2017). The language is spoken mainly in two settlements shown in Figure 1, Kejom Ketinguh [k̀ɘd͡ʒɔ́m ↓kɘ́tÍⁿɡ̀uʔ] and Kejom Keku [k̀ɘd͡ʒɔ́m ↓kɘ́k̀u], also known as Babanki Tungoh and Big Babanki, respectively, but also to some extent in diaspora communities outside of Cameroon. Simons & Fennig (2017) state that the number of speakers is increasing; however, the figure of 39,000 speakers they provide likely overestimates the number of fluent speakers in diaspora communities. The two main settlements’ dialects exhibit slight phonetic, phonological, and lexical differences but are mutually intelligible. The variety of Kejom described here is the Kejom Ketinguh variant spoken by the second author; all data and examples which we take into account are based on his speech.