Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:27:09.959Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rule-ordering in child phonology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Mary W. Salus  and
Peter H. Salus
Mary W. Salus
Affiliation:
Stothers Child Care Centre
Peter H. Salus
Affiliation:
Scarborough College, University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his recent dissertation, David Stampe (1972) discusses the notions of natural processes in child phonology. Earlier, Ingram (1971) discussed the concepts and formulations of phonological rules in child language. What we propose to demonstrate here is that the rules inherent in acquisitional phonology are ordered and, moreover, that these rules are ordered implicationally (in the sense of “unilateral implication” enunciated by Jakobson in discussing the stratified structure of the phoneme inventory). Our contention is that there are rules in child phonology, that these rules are ordered, and that while the entire inventory of rules does not appear in any child’s phonology, the presence of any one necessitates the presence of others - in a specific order.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , Spring 1974 , pp. 29 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1974

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

Bach, Emmon 1968 Two proposals concerning the simplicity metric in phonology. Glossa 2.128–49.Google Scholar
Chao, Yuen-Ren 1951 The Cantian Idiolect. Univ. of Calif. Publ. in Semitic Philology 2.27–44.Google Scholar
Deville Cited in INGRAM 1971.Google Scholar
Edwards, M. L. 1970 The Acquisition of Liquids. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Edwards, M. L. 1971 One Child’s Acquisition of English Liquids. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 3.101–109.Google Scholar
Farwell, C. 1972 A Note on the Production of Fricatives in Linguistically Deviant Children. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 4.93–101.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. 1971 Phonological Rules in Young Children. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 3.31–49.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman 1962 Les lois phoniques du langage enfantin et leur place dans la phonologie générale. Selected Writings 1.317–27. ‘s-Gravenhage: Mouton [1939].Google Scholar
Kornfeld, J. R. 1971 Theoretical Issues in Child Phonology. Papers from the seventh regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 454–68.Google Scholar
Leopold, Werner F. 1939 Speech Development of a Bilingual Child, 1 and 2. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, P. D. 1972 Some Context-Free Processes Affecting Vowels. Working Papers in Linguistics 11.136–67.Google Scholar
Moskowitz, Arlene 1970 The Two-year-old Stage in the Acquisition of English Phonology. Language 46.426–41.Google Scholar
Ohnesorg, Karel 1948 Fonetická studie o dětskéřeči. Prague: Filosofické fakulty University Karlovy.Google Scholar
Roussey, c. 1899 Notes sur l’apprentissage de la parole chez un enfant. La Parole.Google Scholar
Smith, N. V. 1970 The Acquisition of Phonology. Duplicated MS, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London (Cambridge: University Press, 1973).Google Scholar
Stampe, David 1969 The Acquisition of Phonetic Representation. Papers from the fifth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 443–54.Google Scholar
Stampe, David 1972 A Dissertation on Natural Phonology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Velten, H. 1943 The Growth of Phonemic and Lexical Patterns in Infant Language. Language 19.281–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vihman, M. M. 1971 On the Acqusition of Estonian. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 3.51–87.Google Scholar