Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T19:54:01.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Liaison acquisition, word segmentation and construction in French: a usage-based account

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

JEAN-PIERRE CHEVROT ,
CELINE DUGUA  and
MICHEL FAYOL
JEAN-PIERRE CHEVROT*
Affiliation:
LIDILEM, Université Stendhal, Grenoble, France
CELINE DUGUA
Affiliation:
LLL/CORAL, Université d'Orléans, France
MICHEL FAYOL
Affiliation:
LAPSCO, Université Blaise Pascal & CNRS, Clermont-Ferrand, France
*
*Address for correspondence: Jean-Pierre Chevrot, Université Stendhal, BP 25, 38040, Grenoble cedex, France. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the linguistics field, liaison in French is interpreted as an indicator of interactions between the various levels of language organization. The current study examines the same issue while adopting a developmental perspective. Five experiments involving children aged two to six years provide evidence for a developmental scenario which interrelates a number of different issues: the acquisition of phonological alternations, the segmentation of new words, the long-term stabilization of the word form in the lexicon and the formation of item-based constructions. According to this scenario, children favour the presence of initial CV syllables when segmenting stored chunks of speech of the type word1-liaison-word2 (les arbres ‘the trees’ is segmented as /le/+/zarbr/). They cope with the variation of the liaison in the input by memorizing multiple exemplars of the same word2 (/zarbr/, /narbr/). They learn the correct relations between the word1s and the word2 exemplars through exposure to the well-formed sequence (un+/narbr/, deux+/zarbr/). They generalize the relation between a word1 and a class of word2 exemplars beginning with a specific liaison consonant by integrating this information into an item-based schema (e.g. un+/nX/, deux+/zX/). This model is based on the idea that the segmentation of new words and the development of syntactic schemas are two aspects of the same process.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , June 2009 , pp. 557 - 596
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

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 should like to thank Ann Peters for the initial impetus she gave to this work as well as Marie-Hélène Côté, Bernard Laks, Yves Charles Morin and Sophie Wauquier-Gravelines for the interest they have shown in it. We would also like to thank the referees and the associate editor for their revealing and constructive comments.

References

REFERENCES

Bates, E. & Goodman, J. C. (1997). On the inseparability of grammar and the lexicon: Evidence from acquisition. Language and Cognitive Processes 12, 507–84.Google Scholar
Bernhardt, B. H. & Stemberger, J. P. (1998). Handbook of phonological development. From the perspective of constraint-based non linear phonology. San Diego, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Boë, L.-J. & Tubach, J.-P. (1992). De A à Zut: dictionnaire phonétique du français parlé. Grenoble: Ellug.Google Scholar
Brooks, P. J. & MacWhinney, B. (2000). Phonological priming in children's picture naming. Journal of Child Language 27, 335–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bybee, J. (2001). Frequency effects on French liaison. In Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (eds) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 337–59. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chevrot, J.-P., Chabanal, D. & Dugua, C. (2007). Pour un modèle de l'acquisition des liaisons basé sur l'usage: trois études de cas. Journal of French Language Studies 17, 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chevrot, J.-P. & Fayol, M. (2001). Acquisition of French liaison and related child errors. In Almgren, M., Barrena, A., Ezeizabarrena, M. J., Idiazabal, I. & MacWhinney, B. (eds) Research on Child Language Acquisition: Proceedings of the 8th Conference of the International Association for the Study of Child Language, 760–74.Google Scholar
Chevrot, J.-P., Fayol, M. & Laks, B. (2005). La liaison: de la phonologie à la cognition. Langages 158, 3–7.Google Scholar
Chevrot, J.-P., Nardy, A., Barbu, S. & Fayol, M. (2007). Production et jugement des liaisons obligatoires chez des enfants tout-venant et des enfants atteints de troubles du langage: décalages développementaux et différences interindividuelles. Rééducation orthophonique – Parole(s): aspects perceptifs et moteurs 229, 199–220.Google Scholar
Côté, M.-H. (2005). Le statut lexical des consonnes de liaison. Langages 158, 66–78.Google Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jong, D. (1994). La sociophonologie de la liaison orléanaise. In Lyche, C. (ed.) French Generative Phonology: Retrospective and Perspectives, 95–130. Salford: ESRI.Google Scholar
Desrochers, R. (1994). Les liaisons dangereuses: le statut équivoque des erreurs de liaison. Linguisticae Investicationes XVIII:2, 243–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dugua, C. (2002). Liaison et segmentation du lexique en français: vers un scénario développemental. Mémoire de DEA. Grenoble: Université Stendhal.Google Scholar
Dugua, C. (2006). Liaison, segmentation lexicale et schémas syntaxiques entre 2 et 6 ans. Un modèle développemental basé sur l'usage. Thèse de doctorat. Grenoble: Université Stendhal Grenoble3.Google Scholar
Dugua, C., Chevrot, J.-P. & Côte, M.-H. (2003). Liaison et formation des mots: scénario développemental et conséquences pour le traitement phonologique. Montpellier: Université Paul-Valéry.Google Scholar
Encrevé, P. (1988). La liaison avec et sans enchaînement, phonologie tridimensionnelle et usage du français. Paris: Edition du Seuil.Google Scholar
Fougeron, C., Goldman, J.-P. & Frauenfelder, U. (2001). Liaison and schwa deletion in French: an effect of lexical frequency and competition? Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, Eurospeech 2001, 639–42.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7, 219–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grégoire, A. (1947). L'apprentissage du langage II – La troisième année et les années suivantes. Genève: E. Droz.Google Scholar
Judd, C. M., McLelland, G. & Culhane, S. E. (1995). Data analysis: continuing issues. The everyday analysis of psychological data. Annual review of psychology 46, 433–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kemmer, S. & Barlow, M. (2000). Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S. (eds) Usage-based models of language use, VII–XXVIII. Stanford California: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Malécot, A. (1975). French liaison as a function of grammatical, phonetic and paralinguistic variables. Phonetica 32, 161–79.Google Scholar
Mattys, S. L. & Jusczyk, P. W. (2001). Do infants segment words or recurring continuous patterns? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 27, 644–55.Google Scholar
Moisset, C. (2000). Variable liaison in parisian French. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Morel, E. (1994). Le traitement de la liaison chez l'enfant: études expérimentales. TRANEL 21, 85–95.Google Scholar
Morin, Y.-C. (2003 [1998]). Remarks on prenominal liaison consonant in French. In Ploch, S. (ed.) Living on the Edge – 28 Papers in Honour of Jonathan Kaye, 385–400. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nardy, A. (2003). Production et jugement d'acceptabilité entre 2 et 6 ans: Aspects psycholinguistiques et sociolinguistiques de l'acquisition des liaisons. Mémoire de DEA. Grenoble: Université Stendhal.Google Scholar
New, B., Pallier, C., Ferrand, L. & Matos, R. (2001) Une base de données lexicales du français contemporain sur internet: LEXIQUE, L'Année Psychologique 101, 447–62 (www.lexique.org).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, A. M. (1985). Language segmentation: operating principles for the perception and analysis of language. In Slobin, D. (ed.) The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, 1029–67. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pine, J. & Lieven, E. (1993). Reanalysing rote-learned phrases: Individual differences in the transition to multi word speech. Journal of Child Language 20, 551–71.Google Scholar
Pine, J. & Lieven, E. (1997). Slot and frame patterns in the development of the determiner category. Applied psycholinguistics 18, 123–38.Google Scholar
Schane, S. A. (1968). French phonology and morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Spinelli, E., McQueen, J. M. & Cutler, A. (2003). Processing resyllabified words in French. Journal of Memory and Language 48, 233–54.Google Scholar
Spinelli, E. & Meunier, F. (2005). Le traitement cognitif de la liaison dans la reconnaissance de la parole enchaînée. Langages 158, 79–88.Google Scholar
Stemberger, J. P. (1990). Wordshape errors in language production. Cognition 35, 123–57.Google Scholar
Stemberger, J. P. (2004). Phonological priming and irregular past. Journal of Memory and Language 50, 82–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ternes, E. (1977). Konsonantische Anlautveränderungen in den keltischen und romanischen Sprachen. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 28, 19–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tranel, B. (2000). Aspects de la phonologie du français et la théorie de l'optimalité. Langue française 126, 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinter, S. (2001). Les habiletés phonologiques chez l'enfant de deux ans. GLOSSA 77, 4–19.Google Scholar
Wauquier-Gravelines, S. (2003). Du réalisme des formalisations phonologiques contemporaines: que nous apprennent les données d'acquisition? In Angoujard, J. P. & Wauquier-Gravelines, S. (eds) Phonologie: champs et perspectives, 9–34. Paris: Presses de l'Ecole Normale Supérieure de Fontenay-St Cloud.Google Scholar
Wauquier-Gravelines, S. & Braud, V. (2005). Proto-déterminant et acquisition de la liaison obligatoire en français. Langages 158, 53–65.Google Scholar
Yersin-Besson, C. & Grosjean, F. (1996). L'effet de l'enchaînement sur la reconnaissance des mots dans la parole continue. L'Année psychologique 96, 9–30.Google Scholar