Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T13:53:28.629Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consonant clusters in child phonology and the directionality of syllable structure assignment*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Conxita Lleó  and
Michael Prinz
Conxita Lleó*
Affiliation:
University of Hamburg
Michael Prinz*
Affiliation:
University of Hamburg
*
Ibero-Amerikanisches Forschungsinstitut, Universität Hamburg, Von-Melle-Park 6, VI, 20146 Hamburg, Germany. E-mail: [email protected].
Ibero-Amerikanisches Forschungsinstitut, Universität Hamburg, Von-Melle-Park 6, VI, 20146 Hamburg, Germany. E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The production of target consonant clusters at early stages of acquisition is analysed from a phonological representational perspective. The data stem from five normal monolingual German and four normal monolingual Spanish children at ages from 0;9 to 2;1, observed in naturalistic settings. At the beginning stages, target clusters are reduced to a single consonantal position, due to lack of branching of the syllabic constituents. This finding coincides with other results in the literature, which have in general been explained by means of universal principles. Nevertheless, there is an essential difference between the German and the Spanish data: German children tend to prefer the first consonant and Spanish children the second one. This difference can only be explained in terms of parameterization of syllabification, which in German takes place from left to right and in Spanish from right to left. At later stages, when clusters begin to be produced with two consonantal positions, they offer evidence for the beginning of branching of syllabic constituents, due to parameterization, and for the chronological order of the setting of the subsyllabic parameters. Our data offer evidence in favour of the following acquisitional hierarchy: CV > CVC > CVCC > CCVCC.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , February 1996 , pp. 31 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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.)

Footnotes

[*]

The investigation reported here was carried out within the German project PAIDUS (Parameter Fixing in German and Spanish) supported by a grant of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (LI 3/2–3) to the first author. We appreciate the co-operation of all people involved in the project: the children and their parents, the research assistant, Christliebe El Mogharbel, who conducted the recording sessions and supervised the transcriptions, the students, who collaborated in the recordings and transcriptions, as well as the Spanish research team of the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, led by Antonio Maldonado.

References

REFERENCES

Bailey, C. J. N. (1977). Converging criteria for establishing consonantal marking values in different positions in the syllable. Akten der 2. Salzburger Frühlingstagung für Linguistik. Tübingen: Gunther Narr.Google Scholar
Beers, M. (1993). Development of consonant clusters in Dutch. Paper presented at the Sixth International Congress for the Study of Child Language, Trieste, Italy.Google Scholar
Berg, T. (1992). Phonological harmony as a processing problem. Journal of Child Language 19, 225–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernhardt, B. (1992). The application of nonlinear phonological theory to intervention with one phonologically disordered child. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 6, 283–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boomer, D. S. & Laver, J. D. M. (1968). Slips of the tongue. British Journal of Disorders of Communication 3, 2–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Branigan, G. (1976). Syllabic structure and the acquisition of consonants: the great conspiracy in word formation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 5, 117–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, C. & Matthews, J. (1993). Acquisition of segmental representations. In J. Matthews & L. White (eds), McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 9.Google Scholar
Carreira, M. (1991). The acquisition of Spanish syllable structure. In Wanner, D. & Kibbee, D. A. (eds), New analyses in Romance linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chin, S. B. & Dinnsen, D. A. (1992). Consonant clusters in disordered speech: constraints and correspondence patterns. Journal of Child Language 19, 259–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clements, G. N. & Keyser, S. J. (1983). CV-Phonology. A generative theory of the syllable. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Crowhurst, M. J. (1992). Diminutives and augmentatives in Mexican Spanish: a prosodic analysis. Phonology 9, 221–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fikkert, P. (1994). On the acquisition of prosodic structure. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Giegerich, H. J. (1992). Onset maximization in German: the case against resyllabification rules. In Eisenberg, P., Ramers, K. H. & Vater, H. (eds), Silbenphonologie des Deutschen. Tübingen: Gunther Narr.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. A. (1990). Autosegmental & metrical phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Greenlee, M. (1974). Interacting processes in the child's acquisition of stop—liquid clusters. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 7, 85–100.Google Scholar
Harris, J. W. (1983). Syllable structure and stress in Spanish. A nonlinear analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, J. W. (1986). Epenthesis processes in Spanish. In Neidle, C. & Nuñez Cedeño, R. A. (eds), Studies in Romance languages. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Hualde, J. I. (1992). On Spanish syllabification. In Campos, H. & Martinez Gil, F. (eds), Current studies in Spanish linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Itô, J. (1989). A prosodic theory of epenthesis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7, 217–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, G. K. & Salmons, J. C. (1992). The phonology of Proto-Indoeuropean root structure constraints. Lingua 87, 293–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, G. K. & Wheeler, D. (1987). Hierarchical structures in child phonology. Lingua 73, 243–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaye, J. (1989). Phonology: a cognitive view. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1979). Metrical structure assignment is cyclic. Linguistic Inquiry 10, 421–42.Google Scholar
Levin, J. (1985). A metrical theory of syllabicity. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Lieó, C. (1986). The evolution of syllabic structure as an example of the interaction between universal restrictions and individual strategies in first language acquisition. In Brame, M., Contreras, H. & Newmeyer, F. J. (eds), A Festschrift for Sol Saporta. Seattle: Amrofer.Google Scholar
Locke, J. L. (1983). Phonological acquisition and change. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lombardi, L. (1990). The nonlinear organization of the affricate. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8, 375–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menn, L. (1978). Phonological units in beginning speech. In Bell, A. & Hooper, J. B. (eds), Syllables and segments. North Holland.Google Scholar
Noske, R. (1993). A theory of syllabification and segmental alternation. Amsterdam: Noske.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallier, Ch., Sebastian-Gallés, N., Felguera, T., Mehler, A. & Mehler, J. (1993). Attentional allocation within the syllabic structure of spoken words. Journal of Memory and Language 32, 373–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prinz, M. & Wiese, R. (1991). Die Affrikaten des Deutschen und ihre Verschriftung. Linguistische Berichte 133, 165–89.Google Scholar
Rubach, J. (1994). Affricates as strident stops in Polish. Linguistic Inquiry 25, 119–43.Google Scholar
Sagey, E. (1986). The representation of features and relations in non-linear phonology. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Smith, N. V. (1973). The acquisition of phonology: a case study. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. (1986). Towards a theory of phonological development. Lingua 68, 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoel-Gammon, C. & Dunn, C. (1985). Normal and disordered phonology in children. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Vihman, M. M. (1992). Early syllables and the construction of phonology. In Ferguson, C. A., Menn, L. & Stoel-Gammon, C. (eds). Phonological development: models, research, implications. Timonium, Maryland: York Press.Google Scholar
Wiese, R. (1988). Silbische und Lexikalische Phonologie. Studien zum Chinesischen und Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, R. (1991). Was ist extrasilbisch und warum? Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 10, 112–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, S. T. (1992). Silbeninitiale Kluster und Silbifizierung im Deutschen. In Eisenberg, P., Ramers, K. H. & Vater, H. (eds), Silbenphonologie des Deutschen. Tübingen: Gunther Narr.Google Scholar