The purpose of this article is to describe and analyze the reduction of unstressed vowels in Coratino, a language spoken in the Apulia region of Italy. Its vowel inventory includes seven vowels: /i, e, ε, a, ɔ, o, u/. All but /a/ are reduced to a schwa when they surface in unstressed positions. Furthermore, back and front vowels are not reduced in unstressed positions when they are adjacent to a labial consonant, or adjacent to a velar followed by a palatal. These vowels also remain non-reduced in word-initial position. Therefore, there are three contexts in which these vowels are not reduced (in stressed positions, adjacent to a consonant, and in word-initial positions). This article aims to reduce this disjunction.

This study investigates how learners with distinct native dialects, Cuban (CS) and Peninsular Spanish (PS), produce the English vowels æ, Λ, a/. Experiment 1 compares the native vowels along several acoustic parameters to determine the extent of the cross-dialectal differences, and Experiment 2 assesses the differences in L2 production of the same speakers who are also advanced learners of English. More fronted and shorter vowels are predicted for PS versus CS. As such, L2 /æ, A, a/ are expected to be more fronted in the interlanguage of PS learners as compared to CS learners. Dialect-specific patterns of assimilation are highlighted. PS learners produce æ, Λ, a/ with good spectral differences but with no duration differences whereas for CS learners /Λ, a/ overlap spectrally but are realized with different durations. Differences found in L2 production are caused by the conjoint effect of the native dialect, the input, and the learning experience.

This article explores a defining property of implicit null object constructions, and how this property emerges during the L1 acquisition process. Implicit objects are non-referential and characterized by a strong semantic association between a null N in object position and the contents of the verb root. By means of an elicited production study, we examine children’s sensitivity to this association in terms of the typicality of implicit direct objects and of their use in a potentially contrastive context. Participants were 73 English-speaking children (between the ages of 2;09 and 5;08) and 20 adult controls. Our results show that children make a distinction between implicit objects with typical and atypical objects—even in scenarios where a previous use introduces a potential contrast—but at rates that differ from those of adults. This suggests an incomplete knowledge of the target properties of null objects and indicates that children use a referential null N until later in development, when the selectional link between V and the null object becomes entrenched and hyponymy with the verb root becomes the sole source of recoverability. We draw implications about the co-development of verb meaning and the null object construction.

The acquisition of subject properties in adult instructed L2 English by Spanish speakers still constitutes an area of difficulty, especially in situations of minimal exposure where explicit teaching of the syntax of subjects rarely occurs. By exploring the L2 learners’ intuitions and corrections of grammatical and ungrammatical sentences containing subject properties, this article contributes new cross-sectional data from adult learners at three stages of L2 development: beginners, intermediate, and advanced groups. The data show initial L1 transfer and subsequent developmental progress. Yet results are clearly not target-like even among advanced learners, which suggests that adult learners do not resort to parameter-resetting in instructed L2A and necessarily apply general learning mechanisms to adopt L2 structures with feature specifications different from those of their L1.

Freezing is the cover term for the restriction on extraction from constituents in a derived position. The traditional Freezing cases are illustrated here with topicalization in (1a), heavy-NP shift in (1b), and extraposition in (1c).

Merchant (2004) proposes that a fragmentary response like the one in (1b) to the question in (1a) is derived from its full-fledged sentential counterpart in (1c).

1. (1) a. Who did she see?

2. b. [DP John]

3. c. [TPShe saw John] (Merchant 2004:673)