The aim of this chapter is to provide the state-of-the-art of the research on the development of suprasegmental phonology in bilingual children from infancy through childhood. First, we discuss word-level prosodic phenomena, with a special focus on the bilingual acquisition of word stress and syllable structure, which has been a lively area of research. We also present recent data on the acquisition of tone, which remains a less investigated topic. Second, we consider the acquisition of phrase-level prosody, namely, rhythm and intonation. For each domain of prosodic development, we briefly review monolingual patterns and discuss how learning two (or more) phonological systems can affect developmental trajectories, showing that there can be different cross-linguistic interactions such as transfer, delay, acceleration, or fusion. We also consider potential influencing factors that can trigger different tracks in the development of prosody, for example age of onset, amount of exposure, language dominance, and simultaneous or sequential language acquisition. The chapter concludes with a discussion of avenues for future research.

This chapter reviews the last twenty-five years of L2 prosody research in three sections, word stress, sentence intonation, and rhythm, and presents findings in relation to two underlying themes, form-meaning mapping and additive versus subtractive bilingual contexts. Concerning L2 stress, pioneering research framed perception difficulties either as an L1-to-L2 cue-transfer problem or as a processing deficit linked to learners’ inability to represent contrastive stress in their lexicons. Recent research established the extent and limits of those initial frames. L2 sentence intonation has multiple factors modeling its variation. One of them, social meaning, and in particular accommodation literature revealed the effect of affective factors which in multilingual communities became stronger than that of linguistic and social factors. As regards L2 rhythm, most research uses duration-based measures. Indeed, recent L1 studies started examining pitch-based rhythm measures which are still to be explored in L2. Ending with suggestions for future research that address those biases, this chapter aims at promoting a more inclusive and comprehensive understanding of L2 prosody.

This chapter reviews available information on the phonetics and phonology of indigenous language bilinguals published in the last few decades, focusing on both of the bilinguals’ languages, the interplay between their phonological systems, and the phonetic realizations of the sounds present in their languages. We understand indigenous languages as predominantly minority languages spoken by linguistically distinct and often socially marginalized and vulnerable ethnic groups, autochthonous to a specific region of the world, and found in diglossias with majority international languages resulting from colonization. Indigenous language bilingualism is usually small-scale and involves speaking at least one minority indigenous language and at least one majority international language, thus being a step toward a seemingly inevitable language shift and in some cases an eventual indigenous language disappearance. The dynamic and asymmetrical character of indigenous bilingualism, along with the vast number of language combinations and the speaker community size differences between the members of these language pairs, sets it apart from other types of bilingualism considered in this book.

Children learn to distinguish registers for different roles: talk as child versus as adult, as girl versus boy, as parent versus child, as teacher, as doctor, marking each “voice” with intonation, vocabulary, and speech acts. They learn to mark gender and status with each role; what counts as polite, how to address different people, how to mark membership in a speech community (e.g., family, school, tennis players, chess players), and how to convey specific goals in conversation. They reply on experts for new word meanings and identify some adults as reliable sources of such information. They mark information as reliable or as second-hand, through use of evidentials. They adapt their speech to each addressee and take into account the common ground relevant to each from as young as 1;6 on. They keep track of what is given and what new, making use of articles (a versus the), and moving from definite noun phrases (new) to pronouns (given). They learn to be persuasive, and persistent, bargaining in their negotiations. They give stage directions in pretend play. And they start to use figurative language. They learn how questions work at school. And they learn how to tell stories.

Based on quasi-spontaneous speech data taken from a map task study designed to test Icelandic intonation, this chapter compares the intonation of declaratives and polar questions (PQs) in moribund North American (heritage) Icelandic (NAmIce), spoken by elderly speakers in Manitoba, Canada, to that of Modern Icelandic (ModIce), spoken by two age groups in Iceland. We find similarities between ModIce and NAmIce that we interpret as maintenance of Icelandic characteristics in NAmIce (e.g., L*+H L% nuclear contour in NAmIce PQs), as well as differences that we interpret as transfer from North American English to NAmIce (e.g., L* H% nuclear contour in NAmIce PQs, L*+H nuclear accent in NAmIce declaratives). These results are in line with previous research on intonation in heritage languages. We do not find pervasive differences between the two ModIce age groups.

We shed light on the question of how narrow information (F) and contrastive focus (CF) are intonationally and syntactically realized by heritage speakers (HSs) of Peninsular Spanish (PS) who have German as their second L1, and compare their data to those of monolingual speakers (MSs) of PS. Results from a production experiment show clear differences between the groups with respect to preferred syntactic strategies and, consequently, the intonational realization of focal pitch accents. The preferred strategy of HSs is stress shift, followed by p-movement and simple clefts, for both focus types. Conversely, MSs mostly use different strategies for each focus type; that is, pseudo-clefts and p-movement for F, and simple clefts and focus fronting for CF. Interestingly, stress shift is not a relevant option. The attested differences support the view that the interface between discourse on one hand, and syntax and phonology on the other, is challenging for bilingual speakers (Sorace, 2011).

We present an analysis of phrasal prosody, with an emphasis on focus-marking, for heritage speakers of Samoan in Aotearoa New Zealand. The analysis is based on recordings of four speakers doing a picture-description task designed to elicit different focus positions and types, from an earlier study of home country Samoan (Calhoun, 2015). All speakers showed features of phrasal prosody similar to those found for home country Samoan; however, there was considerable variation between speakers. We relate this to the language background of the speakers, and their attitudes and beliefs toward their heritage language. In particular, there were differences between generation 1.5 and 2 speakers, relating to their engagement with and beliefs about their university Samoan language classes. This shows the importance of these factors in the acquisition and maintenance of prosodic features, similar to other more-studied language features.

The relationship between context and prosody is undoubtedly one of the most intuitive ones in language. At the same time, it is one of the most difficult to describe because it is based on acoustic cues that only need milliseconds to create an image in our brain. However, speakers of a language can generally understand their interlocutors’ emotional and cognitive status through their prosodic realization. Prosodic pragmatics is the branch of pragmatics that attempts to identify the intentionality of the speaker’s meaning in a real context based on the analysis of the suprasegmental aspects of speech production. If prosody studies how an utterance is pronounced in unison with the perceptual features of pitch, length, and loudness, then prosodic pragmatics studies the acoustic and cognitive contextual parameters in conversation. The chapter will show the relationship between prosody, information, and context in communication. Starting from the essential acoustic parameters of speech, it will revise the most influential theories of intonation through the prosodic pragmatics lens to understand the cognitive adaptation of a message in a specific context.

This chapter introduces simple sentences in terms of their components and structures. The functions of a simple sentence are explained. Special simple sentences without a subject or a predicate are introduced by their grammatical features and functions.

Suprasegmentals are phonetic elements that are not restricted to individual segments, but whose influence extends across a number of segments. What is phonetically the same type of suprasegmental may play a role at a very different place in the grammatical structure of a given language. One type is prominence, involving extra loudness and duration of the segments that are affected. In English, prominence is primarily grammatical stress playing a role in word pronunciation, but also emphasis, playing a role in the structure of a phrase or sentence. In English, an unstressed syllable contains a reduced vowel, normally realized as schwa. Another type of suprasegment involves variation in fundamental frequency. If this occurs at the level of the word (especially where words are restricted to a single syllable), the phenomenon is tone. Where F0 variation plays a role in the grammatical structure of the phrase or sentence, the phenomenon is intonation. Articulatory set (setting) is considered as a suprasegmental.

The primary goal of this chapter is to present the state of the art on Chinese intonation research, with a focus on how tone and intonation interact. To this end, the general functions and forms of intonation observed in (Mandarin) Chinese are first introduced. This is followed by a detailed discussion of the multiplexing of the f0 channel for tone and intonation in varieties of Chinese as well as the different proposals posited for intonation modeling. The secondary goal of this chapter is to highlight open issues and suggest potential points for future research on intonation in Chinese.