Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:59:10.466Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Learning to stress: a case study*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Harriet B. Klein
Harriet B. Klein
Affiliation:
New York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A repertoire of polysyllabic words, produced by an approximately 2-year-old child, was analysed for primary stress application. A general rule for stress application did not emerge from the data. Instead, much variability existed among tokens of individual lexical items (which were imitative and/or spontaneous) and among different lexical items with the same stress contour, regarding the placement of primary stress. Intraword and interword variation suggested the existence of four groups of words treated differently with respect to primary stress placement. The word groups were separated by their characteristic stress contours, which were (1) conventional primary stress, (2) misplaced stress, (3) level stress, and (4) undetermined stress. In general, consistent application of conventional stress was related, significantly, with lexical items represented by primarily spontaneous tokens. Results support a view of lexical primacy during early stages of learning word stress.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , June 1984 , pp. 375 - 390
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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

[*]

I would like to thank Lois Bloom, Lois Hood and Patsy Lightbown for making available Peter's tape recorded samples. Thanks are also extended to Lois Bloom, A. Damien Martin and Naomi Schiff-Myers for critical reading of an earlier draft of this manuscript, and to Jay Gottleib for advice about statistical analysis. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Annual Convention of the New York State Speech-Language-Hearing Association (1979) and the Applied Linguistics Winter Conference, New York City (1982). Address for correspondence: Department of Communication Arts and Sciences, New York University, 829 Shimkin Hall, Washington Square, New York 10003.

References

REFERENCES

Allen, G. D. & Hawkins, S. (1978). The development of phonological rhythm. In Bell, A. & Hooper, J. B. (eds), Syllables and segments. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Allen, G. D. (1980). Phonological rhythm: definition and development. In Yeni-Komshian, G. H., Kavanagh, J. F. & Ferguson, C. A. (eds), Child phonology. Vol. 1. Production. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Atkinson-King, K. (1973). Children's acquisition of phonological stress contrasts. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 25.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. (1970). Language development: form and function in emerging grammars. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Bloom, L., Hood, L. & Lightbown, P. (1974). Imitation in language development: if, when and why. CogPsychol 6. 380–420.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. & Farwell, C. (1975). Words and sounds in early language acquisition. Lg 51. 419–39.Google Scholar
Fry, D. B. (1958). Experiments in the perception of stress. Lg & Sp 1. 126–51.Google Scholar
Fudge, E. C. (1969). Syllables, JL 5. 253–86.Google Scholar
Garnica, O. & Edwards, M. (1977). Phonological variation in children's speech: the trade-off phenomenon. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 22. 81–7.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. M. (1975). Phonology theory and analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. (1976). Phonological disability in children. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Keynon, J. S. & Knott, T. A. (1953). A pronouncing dictionary of American English. Springfield, Mass.: Merriam.Google Scholar
Klein, H. B. (1980). Imitative or spontaneous word productions: what's the difference? In Burns, M. S. & Andrews, J. R. (eds), New approaches to evaluation and treatment of phonological disorders. Evanston, Ill.: Institute for Continuing Education.Google Scholar
Klein, H. B. (1981). Perceptual strategies for the replication of consonants from polysyllabic lexical items. JSHR 24. 535–51.Google Scholar
Klein, H. B. (1981). Hippopotamus is hard to say: the integration of lexical and phonological information. Seminars in Language Speech and Hearing 3. 127–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehiste, I. (1970). Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. B., Rowan, L. E., Morris, B. & Fey, M. E. (1982). Intra-word phonological variability in young children. JChLang 9. 55–69.Google Scholar
Leopold, W. F. (1947). Speech development of a bilingual child. Vol. 2. Sound-learning in the first two years. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Menn, L. (1976). Evidence for an interactionist discovery theory of child phonology. PRCLD 12. 169–77.Google Scholar
Ohsiek, D. (1978). Heavy syllables and stress. In Bell, A. & Hooper, J. B. (eds), Syllables and segments. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Shibamoto, J. & Olmsted, D. (1978). Lexical and syllabic patterns in phonological acquisition. JChLang 5. 417–56.Google Scholar
Shriberg, L. D. & Kwiatkowski, J. (1980). Natural process analysis (NPA). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Smith, N. V. (1973). The acquisition of phonology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Waterson, N. (1971). Child phonology: a prosodic view. JL 7. 179–211.Google Scholar