Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:31:32.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Direction of Assimilation in Child Consonant Harmony

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Joe Pater  and
Adam Werle
Joe Pater
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Adam Werle
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In child language, consonants often assimilate in primary place of articulation across intervening vowels. In adult language, primary place assimilation occurs only between adjacent consonants. In both cases, the first consonant usually assimilates to the second. The standard analysis of directionality of local assimilation in Optimality Theory uses positional faithfulness to protect the second consonant. In this article, it is argued that directionality in child language assimilation is due not to positional faithfulness, but to a markedness constraint that specifies that a consonant preceding a dorsal must agree in place of articulation with it. Along with directionality, this constraint accounts for cases in which dorsals, but not labials, trigger assimilation, which occurs in Korean as well as in child language. Differences between the attested types of assimilation in adult and child language can be explained by differences in the activity of positional faithfulness in the two domains.

Résumé

Résumé

Dans le parler de l’enfant, l’assimilation consonantique du lieu principal d’articulation se produit souvent indépendamment de la présence d’une voyelle entre les consonnes. Chez les adultes, cette assimilation ne se produit qu’entre consonnes adjacentes. Dans les deux cas, la première s’assimile généralement à la deuxième. L’analyse standard de la directionnalité de l’assimilation locale dans la théorie de l’optimalité veut que la seconde consonne soit protégée par la « préservation positionnelle ». Dans cet article, il est proposé que la directionnalité dans l’assimilation chez les enfants ne relève pas de la préservation positionnelle, mais bien d’une contrainte de marque spécifiant qu’une consonne précédant une dorsale doit prendre son point d’articulation. De plus, cette contrainte rend compte des cas où les dorsales, mais non les labiales, causent l’assimilation, un phénomène observable tant en coréen que dans le langage des enfants. Certaines différences entre les types d’assimilation attestés chez les adultes et chez les enfants peuvent être expliquées par des différences dans l’effet de la préservation positionnelle dans chacune des populations.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 48 , Issue 3-4 , December 2003 , pp. 385 - 408
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

Anttila, Arto. 1997. Deriving variation from grammar. In Variation, change, and phonological theory, ed. Hinskens, Frans, van Hout, Roeland, and Leo Wetzels, W., 35–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Avery, Peter, and Rice, Keren. 1989. Segment structure and coronal underspecification. Phonology 6:179–200.Google Scholar
Bakovic, Eric. 2000. Harmony, dominance, and control. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers 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 nonlinear phonology. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and Levelt, Clara C.. 2000. Gradual constraint-ranking learning algorithm predicts acquisition order. In The proceedings of the thirtieth annual child language research forum, ed. Clark, Eve V., 229–237. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and Hayes, Bruce. 2001. Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32:45–86.Google Scholar
Cho, Young-mee. 1999. Parameters of consonantal assimilation. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Compton, A.J., and Streeter, Mary. 1977. Child phonology: Data collection and preliminary analyses. In Papers and reports on child language development 13, 99–109. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan. 1978. Assimilation in child language and elsewhere. Journal of Child Language 5:373–378.Google Scholar
Curtin, Suzanne, and Zuraw, Kie. 2002. Explaining constraint demotion in a developing system. In Proceedings of the Boston University conference on language development 26, ed. Skarabela, Barbara, Fish, Sarah, and Do, Anna H.-J., 118–129. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul. 2002. The formal expression of markedness. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Fikkert, Paula, and Levelt, Clara. 2002. The phenomenon previously known as consonant harmony. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Contrast in Phonology, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Gafos, Adamantios. 1998. Eliminating long-distance consonantal spreading. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 223-278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goad, Heather. 1997. Consonant harmony in child language: An Optimality-Theoretic account. In Focus on phonological acquisition, ed. Hannahs, S.-J. and Young-Scholten, Martha, 113–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goad, Heather. 2001. Assimilation phenomena and initial constraint ranking in early grammars. In Proceedings of the 25th annual Boston University conference on language development, ed. Do, Anne H.-J., Domínguez, Laura, and Johansen, Aimee, 307–318. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Goad, Heather. 2003. Licensing and directional asymmetries in consonant harmony. Poster presented at the Child Phonology Conference, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Goad, Heather, and Brannen, Kathleen. 2003. Phonetic evidence for phonological structure in syllabification. In The phonological spectrum 2, ed. van de Weijer, Jeroen, van Heuven, Vincent, and van der Hulst, Harry, 3–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Olafur. 2001. Theoretical and typological issues in consonant harmony. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth, and Tserdanelis, Georgios. 1999. Nasal place assimilation in Sri Lanka Portuguese Creole: Implications for markedness. Ms., The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko. 1986. Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko. 1989. A prosodic theory of epenthesis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7:217–259.Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory, and Kim, Ho Kee. 1987. Underspecification and hierarchical feature representation in Korean consonantal phonology. In CLS 23: Parasession on autosegmental and metrical phonology, ed. Bosch, Anna, Need, Barbara, and Schiller, Eric, 182–198. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Jun, Jongho. 1995. Perceptual and articulatory factors in place assimilation: An Optimality Theoretic approach. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Kim, C-W. 1973. Gravity in Korean phonology. Language Research 9:274–281.Google Scholar
Kim-Renaud, Young-Key. 1974. Korean consonantal phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.Google Scholar
Kim-Renaud, Young-Key. 1986. Studies in Korean linguistics. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1994. Remarks on markedness. Handout from the Second Annual Trilateral Phonology Weekend, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Levelt, Clara. 1994. On the acquisition of place. Doctoral dissertation, Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 1999. Positional faithfulness and voicing assimilation in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17:267–302.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1997. Process-specific constraints in Optimality Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 28:231–251.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J., and Prince, Alan S.. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative Identity. In Papers in Optimality Theory. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18. ed. Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura Walsh, and Urbanczyk, Suzanne, 249–384. Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J., and Prince, Alan S.. 1999. Faithfulness and identity in prosodic morphology. In The prosody-morphology interface, ed. Kager, René, van der Hulst, Harry, and Zonneveld, Wim, 218–309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Menn, Lise. 1971. Phonotactic rules in beginning speech. Lingua 26:225–251.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K.P. 1993. Fields of attraction in phonology. In The last phonological rule: Reflections on constraints and derivations, ed. Goldsmith, John, 61–116. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, Nicole. 2003. Asymmetric anchoring. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Ohala, John. 1990. The phonetics and phonology of aspects of assimilation. In Papers in laboratory phonology, ed. Kingston, John and Beckman, Mary, 258–275. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe. 1997. Minimal violation and phonological development. Language Acquisition 6:201–253.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe. 2002. Form and substance in phonological development. In Proceedings of the list West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Mikkelson, Line and Potts, Chris, 348–372. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe, and Barlow, Jessica. 2003. Constraint conflict in cluster reduction. Journal of Child Language 30: 487–526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pater, Joe, and Werle, Adam. 2001. Typology and variation in child consonant harmony. In Proceedings of the Holland Institute of Linguistics–Phonology 5, ed. Féry, Caroline, Green, Anthony Dubach, and van de Vijver, Ruben, 119–139. Potsdam: University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Rose, Sharon, and Walker, Rachel. 2001. A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Ms., University of California, San Diego, and University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Rose, Y van. 2000. Headedness and prosodic licensing in the LI acquisition of phonology1. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Sapir, J. David. 1965. A grammar of Diola-Fogny. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Richard, and Leonard, Laurence. 1982. Do children pick and choose? An examination of phonological selection and avoidance in early lexical acquisition. Journal of Child Language 7:413–427.Google Scholar
Shaw, Patricia. 1991. Consonant harmony systems: The special status of coronal harmony. In The special status of coronals, ed. Paradis, Carole and Prunet, Jean-François, 125–157. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Neilson V. 1973. The acquisition of phonology: A case study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul. 1995. On the internal structure of the constraint component Con of UG. Handout of a talk presented at the University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 2001. Directional asymmetries in place assimilation: A perceptual account. In The role of perception in phonology, ed. Hume, Elizabeth and Johnson, Keith, 219–250. New York: Academic Press.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 Stemberger, Joseph. 1994. Consonant harmony and phonological underspecification in child speech. In First and second language phonology, ed. Yavas, Mehmet, 63–80. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Vihman, Marilyn M. 1978. Consonant harmony: Its scope and function in child language. In Universals of human language, ed. Greenberg, Joseph et al., 403–442. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel. 2000. Nasalization, neutral segments, and opacity effects. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Webb, Charlotte. 1982. A constraint on progressive consonantal assimilation. Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences 20:309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar