Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T14:32:38.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the anatomy of a chain shift1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2010

DANIEL A. DINNSEN ,
CHRISTOPHER R. GREEN ,
JUDITH A. GIERUT  and
MICHELE L. MORRISETTE
DANIEL A. DINNSEN*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
CHRISTOPHER R. GREEN*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
JUDITH A. GIERUT*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
MICHELE L. MORRISETTE*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
*
Authors' addresses: Department of Linguistics, Indiana University, Memorial Hall East 334, 1021 East Third Street, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA[email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected]
Authors' addresses: Department of Linguistics, Indiana University, Memorial Hall East 334, 1021 East Third Street, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA[email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected]
Authors' addresses: Department of Linguistics, Indiana University, Memorial Hall East 334, 1021 East Third Street, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA[email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected]
Authors' addresses: Department of Linguistics, Indiana University, Memorial Hall East 334, 1021 East Third Street, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA[email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Phonological chain shifts have been the focus of many theoretical, developmental, and clinical concerns. This paper considers an overlooked property of the problem by focusing on the typological properties of the widely attested ‘s>θ>f’ chain shift involving the processes of Labialization and Dentalization in early phonological development. Findings are reported from a cross-sectional study of 234 children (ages 3 years; 0 months–7;9) with functional (nonorganic) phonological delays. The results reveal some unexpected gaps in the predicted interactions of these processes and are brought to bear on the evaluation of recent optimality theoretic proposals for the characterization of phonological interactions. A developmental modification to the theory is proposed that has the desired effect of precluding certain early-stage grammars. The proposal is further evaluated against the facts of another widely cited developmental chain shift known as the ‘puzzle>puddle>pickle’ problem (Smith 1973).

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , July 2011 , pp. 275 - 299
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

[1]

We are especially grateful to Ashley Farris-Trimble and the members of the Indiana University Learnability Project for their assistance with and comments on various aspects of this work. We would also like to thank the two anonymous JL referees for their thoughtful and constructive comments. This research was supported in part by grants to Indiana University from the National Institutes of Health (DC001694 & DC00012).

References

REFERENCES

Albright, Adam, Magri, Giorgio & Michaels, Jennifer. 2008. Modeling doubly marked lags with a Split Additive Model. In Chan, Harvey, Jacob, Heather & Kapia, Enkeleida (eds.), 32nd Boston University Conference on Language Development, 36–47. Boston, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Bernhardt, Barbara Handford & Stemberger, Joseph P.. 1998. Handbook of phonological development from the perspective of constraint-based non-linear phonology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bird, Helen, Franklin, Sue & Howard, David. 2001. Age of acquisition and imageability ratings for a large set of words, including verb and function words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 33, 73–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, Daniel A. 2002. A reconsideration of children's phonological representations. In Skarabela, Barbara, Fish, Sarah & Do, Anna H.-J. (eds.), 26th Boston University Conference on Language Development, 1–23. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, Daniel A. 2008a. Recalcitrant error patterns. In Dinnsen, & Gierut, (eds.), 247–276.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, Daniel A. 2008b. A typology of opacity effects in acquisition. In Dinnsen, & Gierut, (eds.), 121–176.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, Daniel A. & Barlow, Jessica A.. 1998. On the characterization of a chain shift in normal and delayed phonological acquisition. Journal of Child Language 25, 61–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dinnsen, Daniel A. & Gierut, Judith A.. 2008. Optimality Theory, phonological acquisition and disorders. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, Daniel A., O'Connor, Kathleen M. & Gierut, Judith A.. 2001. The puzzle–puddle–pickle problem and the Duke-of-York gambit in acquisition. Journal of Linguistics 37, 503–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donegan, Patricia J. & Stampe, David. 1979. The study of natural phonology. In Dinnsen, Daniel A. (ed.), Current approaches to phonological theory, 126–173. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Ettlinger, Marc. 2009. Phonological chain shifts during acquisition: Evidence for lexical optimization. In Abdurrahman, Muhammad, Schardl, Anisa & Walkow, Martin (eds.), 38th Annual Meeting of the Northeast Linguistics Society (NELS 38), 259–269. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Farris-Trimble, Ashley W. 2008. Cumulative faithfulness effects in phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University. [ROA-991]Google Scholar
Ferguson, Charles A. & Farwell, Carol B.. 1975. Words and sounds in early language acquisition: English initial consonants in the first fifty words. Language 51, 419–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fikkert, Paula. 2006. Developing representations and the emergence of phonology: Evidence from perception and production. Presented at the meeting of LabPhon 10, Paris.Google Scholar
Gierut, Judith A. 2008. Phonological disorders and the developmental phonology archive. In , Dinnsen & , Gierut (eds.), 37–92.Google Scholar
Gierut, Judith A. & Champion, Annette H.. 1999. Interacting error patterns and their resistance to treatment. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 13, 421–431.Google Scholar
Gilhooly, Kenneth J. & Logie, Robert H.. 1980a. Age-of-acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1,944 words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 12, 395–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilhooly, Kenneth J. & Logie, Robert H.. 1980b. Meaning-dependent ratings of imagery, age of acquisition, familiarity, and concreteness for 387 ambiguous words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 12, 428–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Ronald & Fristoe, Macalyne. 1986. Goldman–Fristoe Test of Articulation. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Jesney, Karen C. 2005. Chain shift in phonological acquisition. Masters thesis, University of Calgary.Google Scholar
Jesney, Karen C. 2007. Child chain shifts as faithfulness to input prominence. In Belikova, Alyona, Meroni, Luisa & Umeda, Mari (eds.), 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition, North America, 188–199. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1965. Phonological change. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 1–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles W. 1970. On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1, 291–306.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter & Maddieson, Ian. 1996. The sounds of the world's languages. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Łubowicz, Ania. 2002. Derived environment effects in Optimality Theory. Lingua 112, 243–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macken, Marlys A. 1980. The child's lexical representation: The ‘puzzle–puddle–pickle’ evidence. Journal of Linguistics 16, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, Edith M. & Weismer, Gary. 1982. The contribution of phonological, acoustic and perceptual techniques to the characterization of a misarticulating child's voice contrast for stops. Applied Psycholinguistics 3, 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2002. Comparative markedness. Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-489.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2007. Hidden generalizations: Phonological opacity in Optimality Theory. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
McReynolds, Leija V. & Elbert, Mary. 1981. Criteria for phonological process analysis. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 46, 197–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moreton, Elliott & Smolensky, Paul. 2002. Typological consequences of local constraint conjunction. In Mikkelsen, Line & Potts, Christopher (eds.), The West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 21, 306–319. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Morrisette, Michele L. & Gierut, Judith A.. 2008. Innovations in the treatment of chain shifts. In Dinnsen, & Gierut, (eds.), 205–220.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. 1993/2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Shriberg, Lawrence D. & Lof, Gregory L.. 1991. Reliability studies in broad and narrow transcription. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 5, 225–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Neilson V. 1973. The acquisition of phonology: A case study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul. 1995. On the structure of the constraint component CON of UG. Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-86.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul. 1996. The initial state and ‘richness of the base’ in Optimality Theory. Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-154.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul & Legendre, Geraldine. 2006. The harmonic mind: From neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tesar, Bruce & Smolensky, Paul. 1998. Learnability in Optimality Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 29, 229–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tihonova, Olga. 2009. Acquisition and opacity. Masters thesis, University of Tromsø. [ROA-1043]Google Scholar
Vanderweide, Teresa. 2006. Cues, opacity and the puzzle–puddle–pickle problem. In Gurski, Claire & Radisic, Milica (eds.), The 2006 Canadian Linguistics Association Annual Conference, 115–130. Ottawa: Cahiers Linguistiques d'Ottawa.Google Scholar