Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:20:23.697Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Truncation to Subminimal Words in Early French

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Katherine Demuth  and
Mark Johnson
Katherine Demuth
Affiliation:
Brown University
Mark Johnson
Affiliation:
Brown University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has commonly been proposed that there is a stage in development where children’s early productions are binary feet, or minimal words. However, the present study of a French-speaking child (1;1–1;8) finds an extended period where both CVC and disyllabic target words are truncated to CV after initially being produced as reduplicated CiVCiV forms. That is, the child appears to regress, failing to produce disyllabic forms that could be produced earlier. This article proposes an explanation for this apparent regression in terms of segmental-prosodic constraint interaction, where the child’s limited segmental inventory, in conjunction with the high frequency of CV lexical items in everyday French, conspire to yield subminimal truncations as “optimal” at this stage in development. These findings provide support for a growing body of literature showing the importance of both constraint interaction and frequency effects in early production, arguing for a more probabilistic approach to theories of language learning.

Résumé

Résumé

Plusieurs chercheurs ont proposé l’existence d’un stade d’acquisition pendant lequel les productions chez les enfants ont la forme non marquée d’un pied binaire (mots minimaux). Cependant, la présente étude d’un enfant de langue maternelle française (1; 1-1;8) révèle une période prolongée où les mots cibles CVC et disyllabiques sont réduits (en formes CV) après avoir été produits comme des formes rédupliquées (CiVCiV). Des analyses plus précises suggèrent que ces troncations résultant en des formes sous-minimales peuvent être expliquées : les interactions de contraintes segmentales et prosodiques, l’inventaire de phonèmes limité de l’enfant et la haute fréquence des mots lexicaux CV en français font en sorte que ces troncations sous-minimales soient optimales à ce stade de développement. Ces résultats sont en accord avec la documentation grandissante montrant l’importance des effets de fréquence dans les stades précoces de la production chez l’enfant et soutiennent une approche probabilistique des théories d’acquisition du langage.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 48 , Issue 3-4 , December 2003 , pp. 211 - 241
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

Adam, Galit. 2002. From variable to optimal grammar: Evidence from language acquisition and language change. Doctoral dissertation, Tel-Aviv University.Google Scholar
Allen, George, and Hawkins, Sarah. 1978. The development of phonological rhythm. In Syllables and Segments, ed. Bell, Alan and Hooper, Joan B., 173–185. North Holland: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Allen, George, and Hawkins, Sarah. 1980. Phonological rhythm: Definition and development. In Child Phonology 1, ed. Yeni-Komshian, Grace H., Kavanagh, James F., and Ferguson, Charles A., 227–256. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Jennifer, Morgan, James L., and White, Katherine S.. 2003. A statistical basis for speech sound discrimination. Language and Speech 46:155–182.Google Scholar
Archibald, John. 1996. The acquisition of Yucatecan Maya prosody. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Phonological Acquisition, ed. Bernhardt, Barbara, Gilbert, John, and Ingram, David, 85–98. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Archibald, John, and Carson, Jana. 2000. The acquisition of Québec French stress. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, University of Alberta.Google Scholar
Bassano, Dominique, Maillochon, Isabelle, and Eme, Elsa. 1998. Developmental changes and variability in the early lexicon: A study of French children’s naturalistic productions. Journal of Child Language 25:493–531.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and Hayes, Bruce. 2001. Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32:45–86.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and Levelt, Clara. 1999. Gradual Constraint-Ranking Learning algorithm predicts acquisition order. In Proceedings of the 30th Child Language Research Forum, ed. Clark, Eve, 229–237. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Boysson-Bardies, Bénédicte de. 1996. Comment la parole vient aux enfants. Paris: Éditions Odile Jacob.Google Scholar
Charette, Monik. 1991. Conditions on phonological government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Content, Alain, Mousty, Philippe, and Radeau, Monique. 1990. Brulex: Une base de données lexicales informatiséee pour le français écrit et parlé. L’Année Psychologique 90:551–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, Anne, and Carter, David M.. 1987. The predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary. Computer Speech and Language 2:133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell, François. 1973. Les règles et les sons. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Dell, François. 1995. Consonant clusters and phonological syllables in French. Lingua 95:5–26.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine. 1994. On the ‘underspecification’ of functional categories in early grammars. In Syntactic Theory and First Language Acquisition: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives, ed. Lust, Barbara, Suer, Margarita, and Whitman, John, 119–134. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine. 1995. Markedness and the development of prosodic structure. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 25, ed. Jill Beckman, 13–25. Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine. 1996a. Alignment, stress and parsing in early phonological words. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Phonological Acquisition, ed. Bernhardt, Barbara, Gilbert, John, and Ingram, David, 113–124. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine. 1996b. The prosodic structure of early words. In Signal to Syntax: Bootstrapping from Speech to Grammar in Early Acquisition, ed. Morgan, James and Demuth, Katherine, 171–184. Mahwah: Laurence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine. 1997. Multiple optimal outputs in acquisition. In University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 5, ed. Miglio, Viola and Moren, Bruce, 53–71.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine. 2001a. Prosodic constraints on morphological development. In Approaches to Bootstrapping: Phonological, Syntactic and Neurophysiological Aspects of Early Language Acquisition, ed. Weissenborn, Jiirgen and Hohle, Barbara, 3–21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine. 2001b. A prosodic approach to filler syllables. Journal of Child Language 28:246–249.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine, and Fee, E. Jane. 1995. Minimal prosodic words in early phonological development. Ms, Brown University and Dalhousie University.Google Scholar
Deville, Gérard. 1891. Notes sur le développement du langage II. Revue de linguistique et de philologie comparée 24:10–42, 128–143, 242–257, 300–320.Google Scholar
Di Cristo, Albert. 1998. Intonation in French. In Intonation systems: A survey of twenty languages, ed. Hirst, Daniel J. and Cristo, Albert Di, 195–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Di Cristo, Albert. 1999. Vers une modélisation de l’accentuation du français: première partie. Journal of French Language Studies 9:143–173.Google Scholar
Doke, C.M., and Mofokeng, S.M.. 1957. Textbook of Southern Sotho grammar. Cape Town: Longman.Google Scholar
Echols, Catharine. 1993. A perceptually based model of children’s earliest productions. Cognition 46:245–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Echols, Catharine, and Newport, Elissa. 1992. The role of stress and position in determining first words. Language Acquisition 2:189–220.Google Scholar
Fee, E. Jane. 1996. Syllable structure and minimal words. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Phonological Acquisition, ed. Bernhardt, Barbara, Gilbert, John, and Ingram, David, 85–98. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Fikkert, Paula. 1994. On the acquisition of prosodic structure. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Fónagy, Ivan. 1979. L’accent français: accent probabilitaire. In L’accent en français contemporain, ed. Fónagy, Ivan and Léon, Pierre, 123–233. Montréal: Didier.Google Scholar
Gnanadesikan, Amalia. In press. Markedness and faithfulness constraints in child phonology. In Fixing priorities: Constraints in phonological acquisition, ed. Kager, René, Pater, Joe, and Zonneveld, Wim. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gennari, Silvia, and Demuth, Katherine. 1997. Syllable omission in Spanish. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Vol. 1, ed. Hughes, Elizabeth, Hughes, Mary, and Green, Annabel, 182–193. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Gerken, Lou Ann. 1994. A metrical template account of children’s weak syllable omissions from multisyllabic words. Journal of Child Language 21:565–584.Google Scholar
Gerken, Lou Ann. 1996. Prosodic structure in young children’s language production. Language 72:683–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goad, Heather, and Brannen, Kathleen. 2003. Phonetic evidence for phonological structure in syllabification. In The phonological spectrum, Vol. 2, ed. van de Weijer, Jeroen, van Heuven, Vincent J., and van der Hulst, Harry, 3–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldwater, Sharon, and Johnson, Mark. 2003. Learning OT constraint rankings using a maximum entropy model. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Variation within Optimality Theory, ed. Spenader, Jennifer, Eriksson, Anders, and Dahl, Östen, 111–120. Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Harris, John. 1994. English sound structure. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Harris, John. 1997. Licensing inheritance: An integrated theory of neutralisation. Phonology 14:315–370.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1989. Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 20:253–306.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hilaire, Géraldine, Régol, Valerie, and Jisa, Harriet. 2002. Développement morphophonologique de deux enfants en train d’acquérir le franc ais après un implant cochléaire. XXIVèmes Journées d’Étude sur la Parole, Nancy.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko. 1990. Prosodic minimality in Japanese. In Papers from the 26th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. Ziolkowski, Mike, Noske, Manuela, and Deaton, Karen, 213–239. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, Peter, Culter, Anne, and Rendanz, Nancy J.. 1993. Infant’s preferences for the predominant stress patters of English words. Child Development 64:675–687.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan. 1990. ‘Coda’ licensing. Phonology 7:301–330.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan, Lowenstamm, Jean, and Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1990. Constitutent structure and government phonology. Phonology 7:193–231.Google Scholar
Kehoe, Margaret. 2000. Truncation without shape constraints: The late stages of prosodic acquisition. Language Acquisition 8:23–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehoe, Margaret, and Lleó, Conxita. 2003a. The acquisition of syllable types in monolingual and bilingual German and Spanish children. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. Beachley, Barbara, Brown, Amanda, and Conlin, Frances, 402–413. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Kehoe, Margaret, and Lleó, Conxita. 2003b. The acquisition of nuclei: A longitudinal analysis of phonological vowel length in three German-speaking children. Journal of Child Language 30:527–556.Google Scholar
Kehoe, Margaret, and Stoel-Gammon, Carol. 1997. The acquisition of prosodic structure: An investigation of current accounts of children’s prosodic development. Language 73:113–144.Google Scholar
Kilani-Schoch, Marianne. 1996. Syllable and foot in French clipping. In Natural Phonology: The State of the Art, ed. Hurch, Bernhard and Rhodes, Richard A., 135–152. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kirk, Cecilia, and Demuth, Katherine. 2003a. Onset/coda asymmetries in the acquisition of clusters. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. Beachley, Barbara, Brown, Amanda, and Conlin, Frances, 437–448. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Kirk, Cecilia, and Demuth, Katherine. 2003b. The acquisition of coda consonants: Effects of word length, position within the word, prosodic environment, and sonority. Ms., Brown University.Google Scholar
Levelt, Clara C., Schiller, Niels O., and Levelt, Willem J.. 2000. The acquisition of syllable types. Language Acquisition 8:237–264.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. M. 1951. Infant speech: The study of the beginnings of language. New York: The Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Lleó, Conxita. 1997. Filler syllables, Proto-articles and early prosodic constraints in Spanish and German. In Proceedings of the GALA ’97 Conference on Language Acquisition, ed. Sorace, Antonella, Heycock, Caroline, and Shillcock, Richard, 251–256. University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Lleó, Conxita. 1998. Proto-articles in the acquisition of Spanish: Interface between phonology and morphology. In Modelle der Flexion 18, ed. Fabri, Ray, Ortmann, Albert, and Parodi, Teresa, 175–195. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft. Tubingen: Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Lleó, Conxita. 2001. The interface of phonology and morphology: The emergence of the article in the early acquisition of Spanish and German. In Approaches to bootstrapping: Phonological, syntactic and neurophysiological aspects of early language acquisition, ed. Weissenborn, Jürgen and Höhle, Barbara, 23–14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lleó, Conxita. 2003. Prosodic licensing of codas. Probus 15:257–281.Google Scholar
Lleó, Conxita, and Demuth, Katherine. 1999. Prosodic constraints on the emergence of grammatical morphemes: Crosslinguistic evidence from Germanic and Romance languages. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. Greenhill, Annabel, Littlefield, Heather, and Tano, Cheryl, 407–418. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
MacNeilage, Peter. 1980. The control of speech production. In Child phonology 1, ed. Yeni-Komshian, Grace H., Kavanagh, James F., and Ferguson, Charles A., 9–21. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Menn, Lise. 1983. Development of articulatory, phonetic, and phonological capabilities. In Language production, Vol. 2, ed. Butterworth, Brian, 3–50. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John, and Prince, Alan. 1994. The emergence of the unmarked optimality in prosodic morphology. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 24, ed. Gonzalez, Mercè, 333–379. Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar
Morgan, James L. 1996. A rhythmic bias in preverbal speech segmentation. Journal of Memory and Language 35:666–688.Google Scholar
Myers, Scott. 1987. Tone and the structure of words in Shona. Doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Nagy, Naomi, and Reynolds, Bill. 1997. Optimality Theory and variable word-final deletion in Faetar. Language Variation and Change 9:37–55.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina, and Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Ola, Olanike. 1995. Optimality in Benue-Congo prosodic phonology and morphology. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Colombia.Google Scholar
Ota, Mistuhiko. 1999. Phonological theory and the acquisition of prosodic structure: Evidence from child Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgetown.Google Scholar
Ota, Mistuhiko. 2001. Phonological theory and the development of prosodic structure. Annual Review of Language Acquisition 1:65–118.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole, and Deshaies, Denise. 1990. Rules of stress assignment in Québec French. Language Variation and Change 2:135–154.Google Scholar
Paradis, Johanne, Petitclerc, Sophie, and Genesee, Fred. 1997. Word truncation in French-speaking two-year-olds. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. Hughes, Elizabeth, Hughes, Mary, and Greenhill, Annabel, 441–452. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe 1997. Minimal violation and phonological development. Language Acquisition 6:201–253.Google Scholar
Peters, Ann, and Lise Menn. 1993. False starts and filler syllables: Ways to learn grammatical morphemes. Language 69:742–777.Google Scholar
Pepinsky, Thomas, Demuth, Katherine, and Roark, Brian. 2001. The status of ‘filler syllables’ in children’s early speech. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. Do, Anna H.-J., Domnguez, Laura, and Johansen, Aimee, 575–586. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Piggott, Glyne L. 1999. At the right edge of words. The Linguistic Review 16:143–185.Google Scholar
Plénat, Marc. 1993. Observations sur le mot minimal français. L’oralisation des sigles. In De natura sonorum: Essais de phonologie, ed. Laks, Bernard and Plénat, Marc, 143–172. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.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
Pye, Clifton. 1983. Mayan telegraphese: Intonational determinants of inflectional development in Quiche Mayan. Language 59:583–604.Google Scholar
Roark, Brian, and Demuth, Katherine. 2000. Prosodic constraints and the learner’s environment: A corpus study. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. Howell, S. Catherine, Fish, Sarah A., and Keith-Lucas, Thea, 597–608. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Rose, Yvan. 2000. Headedness and Prosodic Licensing in the LI Acquisition of Phonology. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Saffran, Jenny R., Newport, Elissa L., and Aslin, Richard N.. 1996. Word segmentation: The role of distributional cues. Journal of Memory and Language 35:606–621.Google Scholar
Scullen, Mary Ellen. 1997. The prosodic morphology of French. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University. [Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.]Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1972. The phrase phonology of English and French. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [Published in 1980 by Garland Publishing, New York.]Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1978. The French foot: On the status of ‘mute’ e. Studies in French Linguistics 1:563–605.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stemberger, Joe. 1992. A performance constraint on compensatory lengthening in child phonology. Language and Speech 35:207–218.Google Scholar
Stites, Jessica, Demuth, Katherine, and Kirk, Cecilia. In press. Markedness versus frequency effects in coda acquisition. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. Burgos, Alejna, Micciulla, Linnea, and Smith, Christine. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Tai, Melissa. 1999. The structure of French early words. Honor’s thesis, Brown University.Google Scholar
Tesar, Bruce, and Smolensky, Paul. 1998. Learnability in Optimality Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 29:229–268.Google Scholar
Tranel, Bernard. 1984. Closed syllable adjustment and the representation of schwa in French. In Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 10, ed. Brugman, Claudia and Macaulay, Monica, 65–75. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Tranel, Bernard. 1985. On closed syllable adjustment in French. In Selected Papers for the XIHth Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, ed. King, Larry D. and Maley, Catherine A., 378–405. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tranel, Bernard. 1995. French final consonants and non-linear phonology. In French phonology: Morae, syllables, words, ed. Durand, Jacques and Hintze, Marie-Anne. Lingua 95:131–167.Google Scholar
Tryon, Darrell J. 1970. An introduction to Maranungkual cues. Pacific Linguistic Series B, no. 15. Australian National University, Canberra Google Scholar
Veneziano, Edy, and Sinclair, Hermine. 2000. The changing status of “filler syllables” on the way to grammatical morphemes. Journal of Child Language 27:461–500.Google Scholar
Vihman, Marilyn, DePaolis, Rory, and Davis, Barbara. 1998. Is there a ‘trochaic bias’ in early word learning? Evidence from infant production in English and French. Child Development 69:935–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Douglas. 1984. The pronunciation of Canadian French. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
Weeda, Don. 1992. Word truncation in prosodic morphology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Wijnen, Frank, Krikhaar, Evelien, and den Os, Els. 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
Wright, Richard. 2001. Perceptual cues in contrast maintenance. In The role of speech perception in phonology, ed. Hume, Elisabeth and Johnson, Keith, 251–278. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar