Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T12:01:53.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Markedness and Context Effects in the Acquisition of Place Features

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Michele L. Morrisette ,
Daniel A. Dinnsen  and
Judith A. Gierut
Michele L. Morrisette
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Daniel A. Dinnsen
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Judith A. Gierut
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Empirical and theoretical claims about the markedness of place features and associated context effects are evaluated against the facts of acquisition. The primary focus is on the segmental inventories and substitution patterns of young children with phonological delays (ages 3;0-8;6). Results are reported from a large scale cross-sectional archival study of 211 children. Additionally, two especially challenging case studies are singled out for consideration. A typological account of the cross-sectional variation is formulated in optimality theoretic terms and requires permutable rankings of place-referring constraints. Consideration is also given to the different statistical trends along with a comparison of developing and fully developed languages.

Résumé

Résumé

Des affirmations empiriques et théoriques sur la marque des traits de lieu d’articulation et sur les effets de contexte qui leur sont attribués sont confrontées à des données d’acquisition. L’étude focalise principalement sur les inventaires segmentaux et les patrons de substitution d’enfants (3;0 à 8;6) présentant des délais phonologiques. Les résultats sont tirés d’échantillons recueillis lors d’une étude antérieure effectuée à large échelle, sur 211 enfants. En outre, deux cas particulièrement intéressants et surprenants ont été considérés spécifiquement. Une explication typologique de la variation observée dans l’échantillon est formulée dans le cadre de la théorie de l’optimalité et requiert un ordonnancement permutable des contraintes qui réfèrent au lieu d’articulation. L’étude s’attarde également aux diverses tendances statistiques de même qu’à une comparaison des données d’acquisition et des langues adultes.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 48 , Issue 3-4 , December 2003 , pp. 329 - 355
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2003

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.)

References

Archangeli, Diana, and Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1994. Grounded phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baertsch, Karen. 2002. An optimality theoretic approach to syllable structure: The split margin hierarchy. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Beckman, Jill N. 1998. Positional faithfulness. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Bernhardt, Barbara H., and Stemberger, Joseph P.. 1998. Handbook of phonological development from the perspective of constraint-based non-linear phonology. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bernhardt, Barbara H., and Stoel-Gammon, Carol. 1996. Underspecification and markedness in normal and disordered phonological development. In Children’s language, ed. Johnson, Carolyn E. and Gilbert, John H.V., 33–53. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brooks, Patricia J., and MacWhinney, Brian. 2000. Phonological priming in children’s picture naming. Journal of Child Language 27:335–366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Camarata, Steve M., and Gandour, Jack. 1984. On describing idiosyncratic phonologic systems. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 49:262–266.Google Scholar
Chiat, Shulamuth. 1983. Why Mikey’s right and my key’s wrong: The significance of stress and word boundaries in a child’s output system. Cognition 14:275–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. 2002. Between-language frequency effects in phonological theory. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, Daniel A. 1996. Context-sensitive underspecification and the acquisition of phonemic contrasts. Journal of Child Language 23:57–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dinnsen, Daniel A. 1999. Some empirical and theoretical issues in disordered child phonology. In Handbook of child language acquisition, ed. Ritchie, William C. and Bhatia, Tej K., 647–674. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, Daniel A. 2002. On the composition and treatment of children’s phonological error patterns. Paper presented at Generative Linguistics in the Old World, Workshop on Phonological Language Acquisition, Utrecht.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, Daniel A., Chin, Steven B., Elbert, Mary, and Powell, Thomas W.. 1990. Some constraints on functionally disordered phonologies: Phonetic inventories and phonotactics. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 33:28–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dinnsen, Daniel A., and Farris, Ashley W.. 2003a. Grammar continuity and the prominence paradox. Ms., Indiana University.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, Daniel A., and Farris, Ashley W.. 2003b. Constraint conflict: the source of an unusual error pattern. Ms., Indiana University.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, Daniel A., and O’Connor, Kathleen M.. 2001. Implicationally-related error patterns and the selection of treatment targets. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools 32:257–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dinnsen, Daniel A., O’Connor, Kathleen M., and Gierut, Judith A.. 2001. The puzzle-puddle-pickle problem and the Duke-of-York gambit in acquisition. Journal of Linguistics 37:503–525.Google Scholar
Goldman, Ronald, and Fristoe, Macalyne. 1986. Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation. Circles Pines: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Haas, Mary R. 1968. Notes on a Chipewyan dialect. International Journal of American Linguistics 34:165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth, and Tserdanelis, Georgios. 2002. Labial unmarkedness in Sri Lankan Portuguese Creole. Phonology 19:441–458.Google Scholar
Ingram, David. 1989. Phonological disability in children. London: Cole and Whurr.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon, and van Rose, Y. 2003. Velar Fronting Revisited. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. Beachley, Barbara, Brown, Amanda, and Conlin, Frances, 334–345. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko, Armin Mester, R., and Padgett, Jaye. 1995. Licensing and underspecification in Optimality Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 26:571–613.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1968. Child language, aphasia, and phonological universals. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1994. Remarks on markedness. Paper presented at the Tri-Lateral Phonology Weekend 2, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Klein, Harriet B., and Altman, Elaine K.. 2002. The acquisition of medial /t, d/ allophones in bisyllabic contexts. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 16:215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Lacy, Paul V. 2002. The formal expression of markedness. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Leonard, Laurence B., and Brown, Barbara L.. 1984. Nature and boundaries of phonologic categories: A case study of an unusual phonologic pattern in a language-impaired child. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 49:419–428.Google Scholar
Lleó, Conxita, and Prinz, Michael. 1996. Consonant clusters in child phonology and the directionality of syllable structure assignment. Journal of Child Language 23:31–56.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 2001. Why place and voice are different: Constraint-specific alternations in Optimality Theory. In Segmental phonology in Optimality Theory: Constraints and representations, ed. Lombardi, Linda, 13–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2002. A thematic guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J., and Taub, Alison. 1992. Review of Paradis, Carole and Prunet, Jean-Francois, ed. (1991), The special status of coronals. Phonology 9:363–370.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J., and Prince, Alan. 1994. The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in prosodic morphology. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 24, ed. Gonzalez, Mercé, 333–379. Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole, and Prunet, Jean-François, ed. 1991. Phonetics and phonology: Thespecial status of coronals. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Parker, Steve. 2001. Non-optimal onsets in Chamicuro: an inventory maximized in coda position. Phonology 18:361–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pater, Joe. To appear. Bridging the gap between receptive and productive development with minimally violable constraints. In Constraints in phonological acquisition, ed. Kager, René, Pater, Joe, and Zonneveld, Wim. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms., Rutgers University and University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
Pukui, Mary Kawena, and Elbert, Samuel H.. 1979. Hawaiian grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 1996. Default variability: The coronal-velar relationship. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14:493–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, Keren, and Causley, Trisha. 1998. Asymmetries in featural markedness: Place of articulation. Paper presented at Generative Linguistics in the Old World, Tilburg.Google Scholar
Robbins, JoAnne, and Klee, Thomas. 1987. Clinical assessment of oropharyngeal motor development in young children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 52:271–277.Google Scholar
Slobin, Daniel I. 1973. Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In Studies of child language development, ed. Ferguson, Charles A. and Slobin, Daniel I., 175–208. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Smit, Ann B. 1993. Phonologic error distributions in the Iowa-Nebraska Articulation Norms Project: Consonant singletons. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 36:533–547.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer. 2002. Phonological augmentation in prominent positions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Smith, Neilson V. 1973. The acquisition of phonology: A case study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul. 1996. On the comprehension/production dilemma in child language. Linguistic Inquiry 27:720–731.Google Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph P. 1996. Syllable structure in English, with emphasis on codas. In Proceedings of the UBC International Conference on Phonological Acquisition, ed. Bernhardt, Barbara, Gilbert, John, and Ingram, David, 62–75. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph P., and Stoel-Gammon, Carol. 1991. The underspecification of coronals: Evidence from language acquisition and performance errors. In Phonetics and Phonology 2: The special status of coronals, ed. Paradis, Carole and Prunet, Jean-François, 181–199. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1995. Underspecification and markedness. In Handbook of phonological theory, ed. Goldsmith, John, 114–174. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stoel-Gammon, Carol. 1996. On the acquisition of velars in English. In Proceedings of the UBC International Conference on Phonological Acquisition, ed. Bernhardt, Barbara, Gilbert, John, and Ingram, David, 201–214. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Stoel-Gammon, Carol, and Cooper, Judith A.. 1984. Patterns of early lexical and phonological development. Journal of Child Language 11:247–271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Treiman, Rebecca, and Zukowski, Andrea. 1991. Levels of phonological awareness. In Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman, ed. Brady, Susan A. and Shankweiler, Donald P., 67–83. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Trigo, R. Loren. 1988. On the phonological deviation and behavior of nasal glides. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Walley, Amanda C., Metsala, Jamie L., and Garlock, Victoria M.. 2003. Spoken vocabulary growth: Its role in the development of phoneme awareness and early reading ability. Reading and Writing 16:5–20.Google Scholar
Zoll, Cheryl. 1998. Positional asymmetries and licensing. Ms., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [Rutgers Optimality Archive 282.]Google Scholar