Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:50:18.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An experimental test of phonemic cyclicity*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Judith A. Gierut
Judith A. Gierut*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
*
Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA, Internet: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Laryngeal-supralaryngeal cyclicity has been put forth as an acquisition principle that describes expansion of the phonemic inventory as a bivalent cycle with alternations between the elaboration of laryngeal and supralaryngeal properties of the system (Gierut, 1994). This study evaluated experimentally the claims of the principle by manipulating the domain of the cycle and the phase relationship of the cycle as independent variables, and by monitoring longitudinally the order of emergent phonemic distinctions in the sound systems of seven children with phonological delays (aged 3;4 to 5;8) as the dependent variable. Three general findings emerged: (1) the course of acquisition for all children was consistent with cyclicity; (2) there were no differences in phonemic acquisition between children taught a laryngeal as opposed to a supralaryngeal distinction; and (3) children taught out-of-phase with the cycle evidenced greater phonemic expansion than those taught inphase with the cycle.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , February 1996 , pp. 81 - 102
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

[*]

This research was supported in part by grants (DC 00076, DC 01694) from the National Institutes of Health to Indiana University. Daniel Dinnsen provided helpful commentary throughout this project. Jessica Barlow, Jennifer Huljak and Michele Morrisette assisted in data transcription, management and analyses; Holly Storkel provided clinical treatment to the children. Portions of this paper were presented at the 1994 Boston University Conference on Language Development.

References

REFERENCES

Archangeli, D. (1988). Aspects of underspecification theory. Phonology 5, 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1985). The geometry of phonological features. Phonology 2, 225–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1987). Phonological feature representation and the description of intrusive stops. Chicago Linguistic Society 23, 29–50.Google Scholar
Davis, S. (1989). The location of the feature [continuant] in feature geometry. Lingua 78, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Villiers, J. G. & de Villiers, P. A. (1978). Language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A. (1992). Variation in developing and fully developed phonologies. In Ferguson, C. A., Menn, L. & Stoel-Gammon, C. (eds), Phonological development: models, research, implications. Timonium, MD: York.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A. (1995). Context-sensitive underspecification and the acquisition of phonemic contrasts. Journal of Child Language 23, 57–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gierut, J. A. (1992). The conditions and course of clinically-induced phonological change. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 35, 1049–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gierut, J. A. (1994). Cyclicity in the acquisition of phonemic distinctions. Lingua 94, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gierut, J. A., Elbert, M. & Dinnsen, D. A. (1987). A functional analysis of phonological knowledge and generalization learning in misarticulating children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 30, 462–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gierut, J. A. & Morrisette, M. L. (1995). Triggering a principle of phonemic acquisition. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 9.Google Scholar
Gierut, J. A., Simmerman, C. L. & Neumann, H. J. (1994). Phonemic structures of delayed phonological systems. Journal of Child Language 21, 291–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ingram, D. (1988 a). The acquisition of word-initial [v]. Language and Speech 31, 77–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ingram, D. (1988 b). Jakobson revisited: some evidence from the acquisition of Polish. Lingua 75, 55–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingram, D. (1990). The acquisition of the feature [voice] in normal and phonologically delayed English children. Paper presented at the American Speech-Language—Hearing Association Convention, Seattle.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. (1992). The categories of phonological delay. Paper presented at Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Iverson, G. K. (1989). On the category Supralaryngeal. Phonology 6, 285–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1982). Lexical morphology and phonology. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Lahiri, A. & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1991). The mental representation of lexical form: a phonological approach to the recognition lexicon. Cognition 38, 245–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, J. (1983). Phonological acquisition and change. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Macken, M. A. (1980). The child's lexical representation: the ‘puzzle-puddle-pickle’ evidence. Journal of Linguistics 16, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddieson, I. (1984). Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: C.U.P.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. (1988). Feature geometry and dependency: a review. Phonetica 43, 1–25.Google Scholar
McReynolds, L. V. & Kearns, K. P. (1983). Single-subject experimental designs in communicative disorders. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Paradis, C. & Prunet, J. F. (eds) (1991). Phonetics and phonology: Vol. 2: The special status of coronals: internal and external evidence. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pye, C., Ingram, D. & List, H. (1987). A comparison of initial consonant acquisition in English and Quiche. In Nelson, K. E. & Van Kleeck, A. (eds), Children's language Vol. 6. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rice, K. & Avery, P. (1991). Segmental complexity and the structure of inventories. Paper presented at the GLOW workshop on the acquisition of phonology, Leiden.Google Scholar
Rice, K. & Avery, P. (1995). Variability in a deterministic model of language acquisition: a theory of segmental elaboration. In Archibald, J. (ed.), Phonological acquisition and phonological theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Smith, N. V. (1973). The acquisition of phonology: a case study. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. (1982). A principle theory for language acquisition. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar