Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T15:14:24.874Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consonant clusters in disordered speech: constraints and correspondence patterns*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Steven B. Chin  and
Daniel A. Dinnsen
Steven B. Chin*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Daniel A. Dinnsen*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
*
Department of Linguistics, Indiana University, Memorial Hall 322, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA.
Department of Linguistics, Indiana University, Memorial Hall 322, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Comparison of patterns of cluster realization from 47 children ranging in age from 3;4 to 6;8 with functional (non-organic) speech disorders with those reported in the literature for normal acquisition reveals that these patterns are essentially the same for both groups. Using a two-level generative phonology for children's independent systems, further analysis of cluster realizations by means of feature geometry and under-specification theory reveals that there are systematic and principled relationships between adult representations of clusters and children's underlying representations and between children's underlying representations and their phonetic representations. With special emphasis on coalescence phenomena, it is suggested that the apparent diversity in children's cluster realizations can be reduced to four constraints on the form of underlying and phonetic representations.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , June 1992 , pp. 259 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

*

We are grateful to Phil Connell, Stuart Davis, Mary Elbert, Judith A. Gierut and two anonymous reviewers for their assistance in the preparation of this paper and for their helpful comments during its development. A version of this paper was presented at the Fifteenth Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. This work was supported in part by grants to Indiana University from the National Institutes of Health, Nos. NS20976 and DC00260.

References

REFERENCES

Archangeli, D. (1988). Aspects of underspecification theory. Phonology 5, 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, D., Miller, R. & Macken, M. (1980). Do children treat clusters as one unit or two? Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 18, 105–37.Google Scholar
Chin, S. B. & Dinnsen, D. A. (1991). Feature geometry in disordered phonologies. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 5, 329–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1985). The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2, 225–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A. (1991). Variation in developing and fully developed phonetic inventories. In Ferguson, C. A., Menn, L. & Stoel-Gammon, C. (eds), Phonological development. Parkton, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A., Chin, S. B., Elbert, M. & Powell, T. W. (1990). Some constraints on functionally disordered phonologies: phonetic inventories and phonotactics. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 33, 28–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, M. L. & Shriberg, L. D. (1983). Phonology: applications in communicative disorders. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.Google Scholar
Elbert, M., Dinnsen, D. A. & Weismer, G. (eds) (1984). Phonological theory and the misarticulating child (ASHA Monographs 22). Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.Google Scholar
Elbert, M. & McReynolds, L. V. (1979). Aspects of phonological acquisition during articulation training. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 44, 459–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gierut, J. A. (1985). On the relationship between phonological knowledge and generalization learning in misarticulating children. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Goldman, R. & Fristoe, M. (1986). Goldman-Fristoe test of articulation. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. A. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. A. (1990). Autosegmental and 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
Ingram, D. (1989). Phonological disability in children. (2nd edn) London: Cole & Whurr.Google Scholar
Lorentz, J. P. (1976). An analysis of some deviant phonological rules of English. In Morehead, D. & Morehead, A. (eds), Normal and deficient child language. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. (1988). Feature geometry and dependency: a review. Phonetica 45, 84–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McReynolds, L. V. & Elbert, M. (1981). Generalization of correct articulation in clusters. Applied Psycholinguistics 2, 119–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menn, L. (1989). Phonological development: learning sounds and learning sound patterns. In Berko Gleason, J. (ed.), The development of language. Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
Menyuk, P. (1972). Clusters as single underlying consonants: evidence from children's productions. In Rigault, A. & Charbonneau, R. (eds), Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Menyuk, P. & Klatt, D. H. (1968). Child's production of initial consonant clusters. Quarterly Progress Report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Research Laboratory of Electronics 91, 205–13.Google Scholar
Menyuk, P. & Klatt, M. (1975). Voice onset time in consonant cluster production by children and adults. Journal of Child Language 2, 223–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mester, R. & Itô, J. (1989). Feature predictability and underspecification: palatal prosody in Japanese mimetics. Language 65, 258–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, C. & Prunet, J.-F. (1991). Introduction: asymmetry and visibility in consonant articulations. In Paradis, C. & Prunet, J.-F. (eds), The special status of coronals: internal and external evidence. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Paradis, C. & Prunet, J. -F. (eds) (1991). The special status of coronals: internal and external evidence. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Powell, T. W. & Elbert, M. (1984). Generalization following the remediation of early- and late-developing consonant clusters. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 49, 211–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagey, E. (1986). The representation of features and relations in non-linear phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Smit, A. B., Hand, L., Freilinger, J. J., Bernthal, J. E. & Bird, A. (1990). The Iowa Articulation Norms Project and its Nebraska replication. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 55, 779–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, N. V. (1973). The acquisition of phonology: a case study. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Stoel-Gammon, C. & Dunn, C. (1985). Normal and disordered phonology in children. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Templin, M. C. (1957). Certain language skills in children – their development and interrelations. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellman, B. L., Case, I. M., Mengert, I. G. & Bradbury, D. E. (1931). Speech sounds of young children. University of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare 5.Google Scholar