Murcian Spanish (MuSp) is a regional variety of Spanish spoken in the Comunidad Autónoma de Murcia in south-eastern Spain. It is commonly heard in the capital city, Murcia, with 450,000 inhabitants, situated in the Segura River plain (Central Zone), and in a number of towns like Cartagena (Coastal Zone), Yecla and Jumilla (Altiplano or High Plateau Zone), Lorca and Águilas (Guadalentín River Zone), and Caravaca and Calasparra (North-western Zone). The overall population of the region amounts to well over 1,100,000 inhabitants (Hernández-Campoy 2003: 621).

Friulian is spoken by over 700,000 people in the far northeastern Italian region Friuli-Venezia Giulia, a noticeably conservative area which borders Austria in the north, Slovenia in the east, the Adriatic sea in the south and the Veneto region in the west. The Friulian varieties are sufficiently well-differentiated from adjacent dialects of the Romance group, especially from the Venetian ones. Some varieties of the Venetian type are also spoken within the boundaries of the administrative region Friuli Venezia-Giulia, in the east (including Trieste), in the west and in several areas in the extreme south. A Friulian-Venetian diglossia is widespread in the main towns of the region, being a result of both historical (prestige of Venetian institutions during the centuries of the Serenissima's supremacy) and social circumstances (recent immigration from the neighbouring Veneto). On the other hand, Friulian is also spoken outside Friuli, in the district of Portogruaro (today part of the Veneto region), along the Friulian border (coinciding with the Tagliamento river), as well as outside Italy (especially in Australia, the Americas and South Africa), as a result of emigration. Some groups of Friulian speakers are still found in Rumania (Iliescu 1972).

About 35 million people around the world speak Ukrainian (Lewis, Simons & Fenning 2016). The largest populations of Ukrainian speakers outside Ukraine (more than 32 million speakers) are in Russia (c. 4.5 million), followed by Moldova (c. 0.6 million), Canada (c. 0.5 million) and the USA (c. 0.5 million). Smaller Ukrainian communities have also settled in some other countries including Kazakhstan, Belarus, Poland, Romania, Argentina, Brazil and Slovakia (Mokienko 2002). Ukrainian, alongside Russian and Belarusian, belongs to the East Slavonic languages within the Indo-European language family.

Yiddish is, since Max Weinreich's fundamental work (Weinreich 1973, 1980), referred to as a fusion language in which components of different languages form a comprehensive synthesis. As Yiddish arose in early Ashkenazic communities in German speaking territories from the 10th century onwards, German contributes the most to its component multiplicity. From the start, some Hebrew-Aramaic and Romance elements inherited from the pre-German period were incorporated in the Yiddish language and remained along with the Hebrew script – though Yiddish to this day clearly bears the marks of its genetic origin as a West-Germanic language. The migration of a large number of Jews to Eastern Europe after the pogroms of the 13th and 14th centuries gave way to an enormous influence of the Slavic speaking environment on the rising Eastern Yiddish (as opposed to Western Yiddish, being the variety of the language that was retained on German speaking territory) and hence added a fourth component. In response to the emancipation, Yiddish lost ground in the Western sphere and substantially disappeared in Germany at the end of the 18th century, whereas in Eastern Europe, the number of Yiddish speakers increased rapidly, and gradually the language became regionally differentiated. The pre-war Eastern Yiddish speaking territory may be divided as follows: Northeastern Yiddish (Lithuania, Latvia and Belorussia), Southeastern Yiddish (Ukraine, Rumania and Eastern Galicia) and Central Yiddish (Poland and Western Galicia). The great migratory movements at the turn of the century spread the Yiddish language to the far corners of the earth, with several vernaculars being the source of a fifth component. The persecutions and the genocide through the Nazi-regime led to the annihilation of a vast number of Yiddish speakers, all but completely destroying the language in its historical territory and giving proportionally more importance to the rapidly evolving varieties of the new emigration countries.

Variation in voicing is common among sounds of the world’s languages: sounds that are analyzed as voiceless can undergo voicing, and those analyzed as voiced can devoice. Among voiceless glottal sounds in particular, voicing is widespread: linguists often expect the voiceless glottal stop [ʔ] and fricative [h] to be fully voiced, especially between vowels. In this study, we use audio recordings from Illustrations of the International Phonetic Alphabet published in the Journal of the International Phonetic Association to explore the extent to which glottal consonants and non-modal (breathy and creaky) vowels differ in terms of percentage voicing and voicing intensity in three phrasal positions. We find that voiceless [h] is only slightly less voiced than voiced [ɦ] in initial position. Between two vowels, both [h] and [ɦ] are as voiced as breathy vowels. Glottal stops and creaky vowels are both characterized by high percentages of voicing, but they differ in voicing intensity: in all phrasal positions, glottal stops generally have periods of strong and weak voicing, whereas creaky vowels are strongly voiced. In contrast, vowels described as ‘rearticulated’, ‘checked’, or ‘glottalized’ show similar drops in voicing intensity to glottal stops. We interpret these results through an articulatory lens: glottal consonants and non-modal vowels are both modulations in phonation resulting from laryngeal constriction and vocal fold spreading. We argue further that, because voicing during [ʔ] and [h] is largely predictable from respiratory and prosodic constraints, many cases of [ʔ] and [h] can be considered phonetically underspecified for voicing.

Preaspirated voiceless stops, a well-documented feature of Scottish Gaelic (Ní Chasaide 1985, Clayton 2010, Nance & Stuart-Smith 2013), have also been reported in the English spoken in the Hebrides island chain (Borgstrøm 1940, Wells 1982, Shuken 1984). However, a detailed description of preaspiration in Hebrides English has previously been unavailable. This paper presents the results of a phonetic study of preaspirated voiceless stops in Hebrides English, based on the speech of 24 English–Scottish Gaelic bilinguals from nine regions within the Hebrides island chain. The paper describes the effect of linguistic features on the duration and frequency of preaspiration, including place of articulation, word position, and vowel context. The paper also considers the role of social factors, including speakers’ geographic origin, age, and gender, finding that preaspiration is more frequent among women and among older speakers, especially older female speakers from Lewis. The paper concludes that preaspiration is likely to be an obsolescent feature in Hebrides English, rather than an innovative feature as in other varieties of English such as Tyneside or Aberystwyth (Docherty & Foulkes 1999, Foulkes, Docherty & Watt 2001, Hejná 2015).

This paper reports on an acoustic analysis of the intonational patterns of declarative questions and wh-questions produced by a group of young adults residing in a rural town of south-central Spain. Question intonation has been reported as highly variable across and within Spanish dialects; recent sociophonetic research on multiple languages suggests that intonational variation may be accounted for by speaking condition (i.e. speech style) in addition to other linguistic and social factors. This study is an initial attempt to examine the potential interactions between speaking condition (read speech vs. task-based dialogue) and social characteristics (speaker sex) on intonational variation. First, it is shown that 12 of the 16 speakers undergo at least one style-shift between speaking conditions; these data are captured in variationist terms, providing empirical assessments about formal and vernacular variants for the two sentence types in question. Second, it is shown that speaker sex differences play a role in style-shifting, and this leads to the hypothesis that variation in declarative questions may have developed as a marker of local identity for Manchego men. All in all, this study offers empirical support that the findings on sociophonetic variation warrant consideration in current models of speech production.

Formant measurements show sex and age differences in the formant patterns of a single vowel category. Comparisons of the formant frequency values of men, women and children indicate low, middle and high values, respectively (Chiba & Kajiyama 1941, Potter & Steinberg 1950, Peterson & Barney 1952). The differences are found for all vowel categories, and they have generally been interpreted as a consequence of different vocal tract size.

Chickasaw is a Muskogean language spoken in south-central Oklahoma. Published descriptions of Chickasaw phonetics include Munro & Willmond (1994), Munro (to appear), and Gordon et al. (2000). The following description is a summary of the principal phonetic aspects of Chickasaw drawn primarily from these works.

We believe that the importance of the epiglottis in speech has been generally underestimated in the phonetic literature. Our evidence leads us to conclude that the epiglottis is an active and independent articulator in the production of pharyngeal consonants and that it is involved in the production of the vowel [a] and in whisper. In earlier phonetic works that we have examined, to the extent that the epiglottis is mentioned at all, it is generally said to have no speech function. An exception to this is the work of Russell (1931), Appelman (1967) and Wilson (1976), where they suggest that the epiglottis is crucial to the production of [a], but because they rely on lateral x-rays, they are unable to complete a convincing case.

This study explores the glottalization of Taiwan Min checked tones 3 and 5 with a CV [ptk ʔ] syllable structure. Electroglottography (EGG) supplements acoustic data on disyllabic words with checked tones collected from 40 speakers from five dialect regions. The results indicated that a final coda can be realized as a full oral/glottal stop closure, an energy dip at vowel's end, an aperiodic voicing at vowel's end, or a coda deletion. Over 80% of /ʔ/ codas and less than 20% of /ptk/ codas were deleted. The undeleted /ptk/ codas were more likely to be produced with a full stop closure among tone 3 and sandhi tones. Glottal contact quotient (CQ_H) distinguished tones 3 and 5 from unchecked tones 31 and 51, respectively. In sandhi positions, the vowels of tone [5] /3/ were produced with a longer CQ_H, lower H1*-A3* and a higher Cepstral Peak Prominence (CPP), suggesting a longer close phase, a more abrupt glottal closure and more periodic voicing than tone [3] /5/. In juncture position, coda deletion and the merging of H1*-A1*, H1*-A3* and A1*-A2* of tones [3] /3/ and [5] /5/ suggest a sound change among checked tones.

This paper examines potential prosodic cues for level of formality in Japanese conversational speech using speech data gathered via one-on-one interviews. Based on previous work on the phonetic properties of formality in Japanese (Ofuka et al. 2000, Ito 2002), further studies of Korean (Winter & Grawunder 2012) and Catalan Spanish (Hübscher, Borràs-Comes & Prieto 2017), and on a lab-based pilot study, the study examined properties of f0, intensity, pause frequency, and articulation rate via mixed effects regression models and a functional data analysis (Grabe, Kochanski & Coleman 2007, Ramsay 2006). Analysis of the speech data shows significant relationships between a number of prosodic variables and level of formality, and suggests that some of these relationships may apply cross-linguistically.

The Sandawe language is spoken in the Kondoa district of central Tanzania by approximately 40,000 people. Sandawe has been widely assumed to be a member of the Khoisan language family, but recent research has cast doubt on the position that such a family exists (Güldemann & Vossen 2000). The Sandawe language can be divided into an eastern variety and a western variety. The differences between these two varieties are slight and gradual. The orthography used in the following description was decided upon in 2002 by a group of Sandawe speakers representing different parts of the language area. Early research on Sandawe phonetics and phonology was undertaken by Dempwolff (1916) and Copland (1938). More recent studies are found in Tucker & Bryan (1977), Elderkin (1989, 1992), Wright, Maddieson, Ladefoged & Sands (1995), Maddieson, Ladefoged & Sands (1999) and Hunziker, Hunziker & Eaton (2005).

Mono is a Banda language spoken in the northwestern corner of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). It is part of the larger Adamawa-Ubangi language family. The following description is based on the variety of the language spoken in Bili, Bosobolo Zone, DRC. Mono speakers consider this to be the most prestigious variety of the language. The sound inventory is relatively homogenous in Bili and the surrounding area. The orthography given here was approved by the Mono volunteer language development committee in 1994. Previous studies of Mono include Olson & Schrag (2000), Olson (2001) and Kamanda-Kola (2003).

Kéo is an Austronesian language spoken by approximately 40,000 speakers in central Flores in eastern Indonesia. Hitherto, Kéo has been linguistically undescribed. The data for this article comes from linguistic fieldwork undertaken by the author with native Kéo speakers on the islands of Flores and Bali in Indonesia, and in Canberra, Australia. Other, written sources include (Baird 2001) and (Baird 2002). Kéo has been said to belong to the Ende-Lio languages of the Bima-Sumba subgroup of the Central Malayo-Polynesian branch of the Austronesian family (B. Grimes 1988, C. Grimes et al. 1997). The Central/Eastern Malayo-Polynesian grouping has been proposed by Blust, but this is not strongly supported by the comparative method. Likewise, there is very little evidence to support the notion of a Bima-Sumba subgroup at this stage. Much more linguistic work needs to be undertaken in the region before precise genetic relationships can be established.

Kalabari-Ijo (hereafter, Kalabari) is one of the four lects of the KOIN group of East Ijo of the Ijo language cluster in the Niger-Congo phylum (Williamson & Blench 2000: 22). The other lects in this group are Kirike (Okrika), Ibani and Nkoroo. Kirike and Ibani are mutually intelligible with Kalabari, and Nkoroo is partially so. All the lects in this group are spoken in Rivers State, Nigeria. In addition, there are three other groups of Ijo: Nembe-Akaha (Akassa) in East Ijo, Inland Ijo (Oruma, Akita (Okordia), Biseni) and Izon, which together make up West Ijo. These groups are all spoken in Bayelsa State, Nigeria, with Izon spreading further to the west (Williamson, p.c.).

Mambay is spoken by about 15,000 people in Cameroon and Chad. The majority of the population lives in the North Province of Cameroon, while the remaining group of 3,000 speakers is found immediately across the border in the Mayo-Kebbi Prefecture of southwestern Chad (Grimes 2000: 43, 68). There is little variation among dialects of the language.

Hamont is a small town located on the north-eastern edge of the Belgian province of Limburg, on the national border with the Netherlands. It is situated about 30 km south of Eindhoven and 15 km west of Weert in the Netherlands. The town has about 13,500 inhabitants. According to Belemans, Kruijsen & Van Keymeulen (1998), the dialect of Hamont belongs to the West Limburg dialects (subclassification: Dommellands). Limburg dialects occupy a unique position among the Belgian and Dutch dialects in that their prosodic system has a lexical tone distinction, which is traditionally referred to as SLEEPTOON ‘dragging tone’ and STOOTTOON ‘push tone’. In line with recent conventions, stoottoon is referred to as Accent 1 and transcribed as superscript 1; sleeptoon is referred to as Accent 2 and is transcribed as superscript 2 (cf. Schmidt 1986).

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.

Linking /r/ concerns words having as final phoneme in isolate pronunciation either /ɑ/ or /ɔ/ or one of the five phonemes involving a (final) central vowel /ə, ɜ, ɪə, eə, ʊə/. When any of these is followed closely by a word beginning with one of the English vowel sounds an /r/ may be heard. The Gimson 1970 treatment of this topic contains detailed comments on the limitation of the operation of this pattern in situations where many or most speakers are inhibited from applying the rule to link owing to the influence of popular conceptions of incorrectitude in regard to the uttering of /r/ where no r is represented in the traditional orthography. However, it contains no explicit reference to the dependence of the r-link on either the segmental or the prosodic environments which the words involved in the r-link provide. On the other hand, Ward 1939 and various works of Jones (1918, 1956a, 1956b, 1956c) described at some length ‘special circumstances in which a final r has no consonantal value even when the following word begins with a vowel’ (Jones 1956b : § 757). Gimson 1970 makes no reference to such cases nor to Jones's mention of them. The enquirer must therefore wonder whether there is no reference to such exceptional cases because they are no longer current or merely from pressures of space or possibly from uncertainty. Gimson's revision of the Jones 1956a text of Jones's Explanations in Jones-Gimson 1967, which makes several minor amendments, leaves the fairly lengthy treatment of linking /r/ unaltered.