Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T07:05:32.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variable and Stable Clusters: Variation in the Realisation of Consonant Clusters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Wenckje Jongstra
Wenckje Jongstra*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article reports on between-individual and within-individual variation in consonant cluster reduction strategies (where C1C2 is realised as C( or C2) among young children. The empirical base of the study is a Dutch database with over 9,000 instances of C1 and C2 realisations of 23 word-initial consonant clusters from 45 children aged between two and three years old. The study finds that within-child variation is very limited, whereas between-child variation occurs. It is also shown that there are typological implications; that is, realising C2 in cluster y, implies realising C2 in cluster y, but not vice versa. The data provide support for the position that variation can be accounted for by a finer grained notion of sonority where the sonority distance between the two consonants in a cluster plays a crucial role in establishing prosodic constituency.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article traite de la variation individuelle et entre les enfants en ce qui concerne les stratégies de réduction des groupes consonantiques (où C1C2 est réduit à C1 ou C2). L’assise empirique de cette étude consiste en une base de données en néerlandais comportant plus de 9 000 occurrences de C1 et C2, apparaissant dans 23 groupes consonantiques initiaux produits par 45 enfants âgés entre deux et trois ans. L’étude révèle une variation individuelle minime, mais une variation entre enfants notable. En outre, des implications typologiques s’en dégagent: la réalisation de C2 dans le groupe x, l’implique également dans le groupe y, mais non l’inverse. Les données appuient l’hypothèse que la variation pourrait être expliquée par un raffinement de la notion de sonorité où l’écart de sonorité entre deux consonnes d’un groupe jouerait un rôle prépondérant dans l’établissement de la prosodic et de ses constituants.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 48 , Issue 3-4 , December 2003 , pp. 265 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2003

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

Barlow, Jessica. 1997. A constraint-based account of syllable-onsets: Evidence from developing systems. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1995. The phonology of Dutch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Chin, Steven B., and Dinnsen, Daniel A.. 1992. Consonant clusters in disordered speech: Constraints and correspondence patterns. Journal of Child Language 19:259–285.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. 1990. The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the grammar and physics of speech, ed. Kingston, John C. and Beckmanm, Mary E., 283–333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Côté, Marie Hélène. 2000. Consonant cluster phonotactics: A perceptual approach. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Fikkert, Paula. 1994. On the acquisition of prosodic structure. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Gnanadesikan, Amalia E. In press. Markedness and faithfulness constraints in child phonology. In Constraints in phonological acquisition, ed. Kager, René, Pater, Joe, and Zonneveld, Wim. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goad, Heather, and Rose, Yvan. In press. Input elaboration, head faithfulness and evidence for representation in the acquisition of left-edge clusters in West Germanic. In Constraints in phonological acquisition, ed. Kager, René, Pater, Joe, and Zonneveld, Wim. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hulst, Harry van der. 1984. Syllable structure and stress in Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jongstra, Wenckje. 2001a. Between-individual and within-individual variation in the acquisition of Dutch word-initial consonant clusters. In Proceedings of the GALA 2001 conference on language acquisition, ed. Costa, João and João Freitas, Maria, 142–148. Lisboa: Associação Portuguesa de Linguística.Google Scholar
Jongstra, Wenckje. 2003. Variation in reduction strategies of Dutch word-initial consonant clusters. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan, Lowenstamm, Jean, and Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1990. Constituent structure and government in phonology. Phonology 7:193–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lleó, Conxita, and Prinz, Michael. 1996. Consonant clusters in child phonology and the directionality of syllable structure assignment. Journal of Child Language 23:31–56.Google Scholar
Locke, John L. 1983. Phonological acquisition and change. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
McLeod, Sharynne, van Doom, Jan, and Reed, Vicki A.. 2001a. Normal acquisition of Consonant Clusters. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 10:99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeod, Sharynne, van Doom, Jan, and Reed, Vicki A.. 2001b. Consonant cluster development in two-years-olds: General trends and individual difference. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 44:1144–1172.Google Scholar
McLeod, Sharynne, L., Rosenthal, Hand, J., and Hayes, B.. 1994. The effect of sampling condition on children’s productions of consonant clusters. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 37:868–882.Google Scholar
Ohala, Diana. 1996. Cluster reduction and constraints in acquisition. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Ohala, Diana. 1999. The influence of sonority on children’s cluster reductions. Journal of Communication Disorders 32:397–422.Google Scholar
Pater, Joseph, and Barlow, Jessica. 2002. A typology of cluster reduction: Conflicts with sonority. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. Skarabela, Barbara, Fish, Sarah, and Do, Anna H.-J., 533–544. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.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
Selkirk, Elizabeth O. 1984. On the major class features and syllable theory. In Language sound structure: Studies in phonology, presented to Morris Halle by his teacher and students, ed. Aronoff, Mark and Oehrle, Richard T., 107–136. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smit, Ann Bosma. 1993. Phonologic error distributions in the Iowa-Nebraska articulation norms project: Word-initial consonant clusters. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 36:931–947.Google Scholar
Smith, Neilson V. 1973. The acquisition of phonology: A case study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1982. Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Torre, Erik Jan van der. 2003. Dutch sonorants: The role of place of articulation in phonotactics. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht: LOT;Google Scholar
Trommelen, Mieke. 1984. The syllable in Dutch: With special reference to diminutive formation. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 1988. The phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar