Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T08:53:51.735Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Markedness in Right-edge Syllabification: Parallels across Populations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Heather Goad
Heather Goad*
Affiliation:
McGill University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The position that languages require both coda and onset options for the syllabification of word-final consonants is adopted. The latter option is further divided into languages where final consonants are onsets of empty-headed syllables and those where final consonants are syllabified through onset-nuclear (ON) sharing. ON sharing is reserved for languages where final consonants display fortition (overt release): the nucleus hosts the release of the consonant. Empirical evidence from across populations demonstrates that ON sharing is unmarked. It is favoured among the outputs of first and second language learners and individuals with Specific Language Impairment. It is further argued that final onsets are optimal for parsing in end-state grammars, as they demarcate the right word-edge more effectively than codas. Among the two types of onsets, ON sharing is preferred: through the nuclear release, it is better able to host the range of contrasts that right-edge onsets display. The parsing argument serves to illustrate how ON sharing provides an advantage to end-state grammars, beyond being an emergent property from acquisition.

Résumé

Résumé

La position selon laquelle les langues comportent deux options générales, coda ou attaque, pour syllaber les consonnes en position finale de mot est adoptée. Pour la deuxième option, deux subdivisions sont aussi nécessaires: les langues où les consonnes finales sont des attaques de syllabes à noyaux vides et les langues où ces consonnes sont syllabées avec un partage de tous leurs traits entre l’attaque et le noyau (partage AN). Le partage AN est réservé aux langues où les consonnes finales manifestent un renforcement (relâchement consonantique fort): le noyau contient la portion relâchée de la consonne. Des indices empiriques provenant de différentes populations de locuteurs supportent la position que le partage AN est non marqué. Ce partage est favorisé chez les apprenants de langues premières et secondes, ainsi que chez les individus atteints de dysphasie. Il est de plus démontré que les attaques finales sont optimales dans la syllabation des consonnes finales dans les grammaires cibles, parce qu’elles démarquent la frontière finale des mots plus efficacement que les codas. Le partage AN est privilégié dans les attaques finales, parce que le relâchement du noyau permet de réaliser l’ensemble des contrastes présents en attaque finale. L’argument illustre donc comment l’hypothèse du partage AN est avantageuse pour les grammaires adultes, en plus d’être une propriété émergente du processus d’acquisition.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 47 , Issue 3-4 , December 2002 , pp. 151 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Avery, J. Peter. 1996. The representation of voicing contrasts. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Broselow, Ellen, Chen, Su-I, and Wang, Chilin. 1998. The emergence of the unmarked in second language phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20:261–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broselow, Ellen, and Park, Hye-Bae. 1995. Mora conservation in second language prosody. In Phonological acquisition and phonological theory, ed. Archibald, John, 151–168. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Catford, John C. 1977. Fundamental problems in phonetics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Charette, Monik. 1991. Conditions on phonological government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, Harald. 1992. Linguistic perspectives on Specific Language Impairment. In Theorie des Lexikons: Arbeiten des Sonderforschungsbereichs 282, Nr. 37. Seminar für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
Coustenoble, Hélène N. 1929. Quelques observations sur la prononciation de la langue Wolof. Le maître phonétique, 3rd series, Jan-Mar, 1–3.Google Scholar
Dell, François. 1995. Consonant clusters and phonological syllables in French. Lingua 95:5–26.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine. 1995. Markedness and the development of prosodic structure. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 25, ed. Beekman, Jill N., 13–25. Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine, and Fee, E. Jane. 1995. Minimal words in early phonological development. Ms., Brown University and Dalhousie University.Google Scholar
Eckman, Fred. 1977. Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning 27:315–330.Google Scholar
Elsen, Hilke. 1991. Erstspracherwerb: Der Erwerb des deutschen Lautsystems. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag.Google Scholar
Fey, Marc E., and Gandour, Jack. 1982. Rule discovery in phonological acquisition. Journal of Child Language 9:71–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fikkert, Paula. 1994. On the acquisition of prosodic structure. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Flege, James Emil, Bohn, Ocke-Schwen, and Jang, Sunyoung. 1997. The production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics 25:437–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flegg, Jill Heather. 2001. Word-final consonants in English: Onsets or codas? Ms.,McGill University.Google Scholar
Gnanadesikan, Amalia. In press. Markedness and faithfulness constraints in child phonology. In Fixing priorities: Constraints in phonological acquisition, ed. Kager, René, Pater, Joe, and Zonneveld, Wim. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goad, Heather. 1998. Plurals in SLI: Prosodic deficit or morphological deficit? Language Acquisition 7:247–284.Google Scholar
Goad, Heather, and Brannen, Kathleen. 2000. Syllabification at the right edge of words: Parallels between child and adult grammars. In McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 15, ed. Steele, Jeffrey and Yoo, Myunghyun, 1–26. Department of Linguistics, McGill University.Google Scholar
Goad, Heather, and Brannen, Kathleen. In press. Phonetic evidence for phonological structure in syllabification. In The phonological spectrum, Vol. 2, ed. van de Weijer, Jeroen, van Heuven, Vincent, and van der Hulst, Harry, 3–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goad, Heather, and Kang, Hyun-Sook. In press. Word-final syllabification in L2 acquisition with emphasis on Korean learners of English. In L2 Links: Proceedings of the 2002 Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (GASLA-6) Conference, ed. Liceras, Juana M., Zobl, Helmut, and Goodluck, Helen. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Goad, Heather, White, Lydia, and Steele, Jeffrey. To appear. Missing surface inflection in SLA: A prosodie account. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. Beachley, Barbara, Brown, Amanda, and Conlin, Frances. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Harris, John. 1997. Licensing inheritance: An integrated theory of neutralisation. Phonology 14:315–370.Google Scholar
Heyer, Sarah C. 1986. English final consonants and the Chinese learner. Master’s thesis, Southern Illinois University.Google Scholar
Hoard, James E. 1978. Syllabification in Northwest Indian languages. In Syllables and segments, ed. Bell, Alan and Hooper, Joan B., 59–72. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Hodne, Barbara. 1985. Yet another look at interlanguage phonology: The modification of English syllable structure by native speakers of Polish. Language Learning 34:405–422.Google Scholar
Holmes, Urban T. 1927. The phonology of an English-speaking child. American Speech 2:219–225.Google Scholar
Ingram, David. 1978. The role of the syllable in phonological development. In Syllables and segments, ed. Bell, Alan and Hooper, Joan B., 143–155. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Ingram, John C.L., and Park, See-Gyoon. 1997. Cross-language vowel perception and production by Japanese and Korean learners of English. Journal of Phonetics 25:343–370.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko. 1986. Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1968. Child language, aphasia, and phonological universals. The Hague: Mouton. [1941.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jassem, Wiktor. 1992. Podrecznik wymowy angielskiej. Warszawa: PWN.Google Scholar
Jensen, John T. 1977. Yapese reference grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan. 1989. Phonology: A cognitive view. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan. 1990. ‘Coda’ licensing. Phonology 7:301–330.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan, Lowenstamm, Jean, and Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1990. Constituent structure and government in phonology. Phonology 7:193–231.Google Scholar
Kim-Renaud, Young-Key. 1986. Studies in Korean linguistics. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.Google Scholar
Laver, John. 1994. Principles of phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leopold, Werner F. 1970. Speech development of a bilingual child: A linguist’s record. New York: AMS Press, [c. 1939-49.]Google Scholar
Leopold, Werner F. 1978. A child’s learning of two languages. In Second language acquisition: A book of readings, ed. Hatch, Evelyn M., 23–32. Rowley: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Magen, Harriet S., and Blumstein, Sheila E.. 1993. Effects of speaking rate on the vowel length distinction in Korean. Journal of Phonetics 21:387–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Samuel E. 1992. A reference grammar of Korean. Tokyo: Charles E. Turtle.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John, and Prince, Alan. 1994. The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in prosodic morphology. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 24, ed. Gonzàlez, Mercè, 333–379. Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar
Menn, Lise. 1978. Pattern, control, and contrast in beginning speech: A case study in the development of word form and word function. Aphasia Research Center, Boston University Medical School.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne, and Basri, Hasan. 1986. The phonology of Selayarese. Oceanic Linguistics 25:210–254.Google Scholar
Paradis, Johanne. 1995. Phonological differentiation in a bilingual child: Hildegard revisited. Ms., McGill University.Google Scholar
Piggott, Glyne L. 1999. At the right edge of words. The Linguistic Review 16:143–185.Google Scholar
Prator, Clifford H., and Robinett, Betty Wallace. 1972. Manual of American English pronunciation. 3rd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms., Rutgers University and University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 1993. A reexamination of the feature [sonorant]. Language 69:308–344.Google Scholar
Rose, Yvan. 2000. Headedness and prosodic licensing in the L1 acquisition of phonology. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Ross, Steven. 1994. The ins and outs of paragoge and apocope in Japanese-English interphonology. Second Language Research 10:1–24.Google Scholar
Sapir, J. David. 1965. A grammar of Diola-Fogny. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1997. The prosodic structure of function words. In Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition, ed. Morgan, James and Demuth, Katherine, 187–213. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul. 1996. The comprehension/production dilemma in child language. Linguistic Inquiry 27:720–731.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min. 1999. The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Steele, Jeffrey. 2002a. L2 learners’ modification of target language syllable structure: Prosodic licensing effects in interlanguage phonology. In New sounds 2000: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second-language Speech, ed. James, Allan and Leather, Jonathan, 315–324. University of Klagenfurt, Austria.Google Scholar
Steele, Jeffrey. 2002b. Representation and phonological licensing in the L2 acquisition of prosodic structure. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Sternberger, Joseph. 1996. Syllable structure in English, with emphasis on codas. In Proceedings of the UBC International Conference on Phonological Acquisition, ed. Bernhardt, Barbara, Gilbert, John, and Ingram, David, 62–75. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1999. Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization. In UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics: Papers in Phonology 3, ed. Gordon, Matthew K., 25–246. Department of Linguistics, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Tranel, Bernard. 1987. The sounds of French: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westbury, John R., and Keating, Patricia A.. 1986. On the naturalness of stop consonant voicing. Journal of Linguistics 22:145–166.Google Scholar
White, Lydia. 2002. Variability in L2 morphology: Evidence from word monitoring. Paper read at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, Toronto.Google Scholar
Zee, Draga. 1995. Sonority constraints on syllable structure. Phonology 12:85–129.Google Scholar