Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-zklqj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T22:19:48.029Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is epenthesis a means to optimize feet? A reanalysis of the CLPF database

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2008

HELENA TAELMAN  and
STEVEN GILLIS
HELENA TAELMAN*
Affiliation:
CNTS, University of Antwerp
STEVEN GILLIS
Affiliation:
CNTS, University of Antwerp
*
*Address for correspondence: Helena Taelman, University of Antwerp, Department of Linguistics, CNTS, Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610 Wilrijk, Belgium. Email: Helena.Taelman@ua.ac.be.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fikkert (1994) analyzed a large corpus of Dutch children's early language production, and found that they often add targetless syllables to their words in order to create bisyllabic feet. In this note we point out a methodological problem with that analysis: in an important number of cases, epenthetic vowels occur at places where grammatical morphemes (e.g. plural and diminutive suffixes) may be expected. Hence, the seemingly targetless syllables may represent grammatical morphemes. A reanalysis of Fikkert's original data reveals that her rhythmic explanation cannot be maintained if those cases are excluded from the analysis.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , May 2008 , pp. 439 - 452
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Beers, M. (1995). The phonology of normally developing and language-impaired children. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Bernhardt, B. & Stemberger, J. (1998). Handbook of phonological development. From the perspective of constraint-based nonlinear phonology. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (1995). The phonology of Dutch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
De Houwer, A. (1990). The acquisition of two languages from birth: a case study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Demuth, K. (1995). Markedness and the development of prosodic structure. In Beckman, J. (ed.) Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 25, 13–25. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. & Kaye, J. (1990). A computational learning model for metrical phonology. Cognition 34, 137–95.Google Scholar
Fee, E. J. (1996). Syllable structure and minimal words. In Bernhardt, B., Gilbert, J. & Ingram, D. (eds) Proceedings of the UBC International Conference on Phonological Acquisition, 85–98. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Fikkert, P. (1994). On the acquisition of prosodic structure. Leiden: Rijksuniversiteit Leiden.Google Scholar
Gerken, L. A. (1996). Prosodic structure in young children's language production. Language 72, 683–712.Google Scholar
Gillis, S. (1997). The acquisition of diminutives in Dutch. In Dressler, W. U. (ed.) Studies in pre- and protomorphology. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. E. (2000). What you see is what you get: the importance of transcription for interpreting children's morphosyntactic development. In Menn, L. & Ratner, N. Bernstein (eds) Methods for studying language production, 181–204. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kehoe, M. (1995). An investigation of rhythmic processes in English-speaking children's word production. Washington: University of Washington.Google Scholar
Kilani-Schoch, M. & Dressler, W. U. (2001). Filler+infinitive and pre- and protomorphology demarcation in a French acquisition corpus. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30, 653–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, C. C. (1994). On the acquisition of place. The Hague: Rijksuniversiteit Leiden.Google Scholar
Lewis, L. B., Antone, C. & Johnson, J. S. (1999). Effects of prosodic stress and serial position on syllable omission in first words. Developmental Psychology 35, 45–59.Google Scholar
Lohuis-Weber, H. & Zonneveld, W. (1996). Phonological acquisition and Dutch word prosody. Language Acquisition 5, 245–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McGregor, K. & Johnson, A. (1997). Trochaic template use in early words and phrases. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 40, 1220–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peters, A. M. (2001). Filler syllables: what is their status in emerging grammar? Journal of Child Language 28, 229–42.Google Scholar
Taelman, H. & Gillis, S. (2003). Hebben Nederlandse kinderen een voorkeur voor trochaïsche productievormen? Een onderzoek naar truncaties in kindertaal. Nederlandse Taalkunde 8, 130–57.Google Scholar
Taelman, H., Martens, E. & Gillis, S. (2005). De fonologische deletiehypothese: sommige kinderen snoeien hun infinitieven graag tot stammen. Nederlandse Taalkunde 10, 30–58.Google Scholar
Veneziano, E. & Sinclair, H. (2000). The changing status of ‘filler syllables’ on the way to grammatical morphemes. Journal of Child Language 27, 461–500.Google Scholar
Wijnen, F., Krikhaar, E. & den Os, E. (1994). The (non)realization of unstressed elements in children's utterances: evidence for a rhythmic constraint. Journal of Child Language 21, 59–83.Google Scholar