Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:23:30.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Phonological Analysis of Schwa in German First Language Acquisition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Margaret Kehoe  and
Conxita Lleó
Margaret Kehoe
Affiliation:
University of Hamburg
Conxita Lleó
Affiliation:
University of Hamburg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, two approaches to schwa representation are evaluated using data from four German children (aged 1;3 to 3;1). The first, the No Mora account, claims that schwa is segmentally but not prosodically specified, whereas the second, the Projection account, proposes that schwa is prosodically but only minimally segmentally specified, as [-cons]. The data reveal several stages in acquisition: an early phase characterised by vowel reduplication or deletion; a middle phase characterised by production of a full vowel (and consonant); and a final phase characterised by production of a central vowel, schwa, or syllabic consonant. In addition, the data show that children produce syllabic consonants earlier than schwa, and that they often produce filler schwas even when they substitute target schwas with full vowels. It is argued that these findings, in particular the different timeline observed for schwa versus syllabic consonants and the presence of filler schwas, can be best accounted for by the Projection account.

Résumé

Résumé

Dans cet article, deux approches pour la représentation du schwa sont évaluées à l’aide de données provenant d’enfants germanophones (1;3 à 3;1). La première approche, dite «sans more», stipule pour le schwa une spécification segmentale, mais non prosodique; la seconde, dite «de la projection», avance que le schwa est spécifié au plan prosodique, mais qu’il ne l’est que minimalement pour le trait [-cons] au niveau segmental. Les données révèlent plusieurs stades d’acquisition : une première phase caractérisée par le redoublement ou l’effacement de la voyelle; une phase intermédiaire où l’on constate la production d’une voyelle pleine (et une consonne); enfin, une dernière phase où la voyelle centrale, le schwa, et les consonnes syllabiques sont produites. De plus, les données montrent que les consonnes syllabiques sont acquises avant le schwa, et que les enfants produisent souvent des schwas épenthétiques même lorsqu’ils produisent des voyelles pleines en lieu et place du schwa. Il est proposé que ces constatations, notamment la différence dans le moment d’émergence du schwa et des consonnes syllabiques de même que la présence de schwas épenthétiques, soutiennent l’approche de la projection.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 48 , Issue 3-4 , December 2003 , pp. 289 - 327
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

Allen, George, and Hawkins, Sarah. 1978. The development of phonological rhythm. In Syllables and segments, ed. Bell, Alan and Hooper, Joan B., 173–185. Amsterdam York: North Holland.Google Scholar
Becker, Thomas. 1998. Das Vokalsystem der deutschen Standardsprache. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Gmbh.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine, and Goldstein, Louis. 1992. “Targetless” schwa: an articulatory analysis. In Papers in Laboratory Phonology II: Gesture, Segment, Prosody, ed. Doherty, Gerald, Ladd, Robert, Beckman, Mary, and Kingston, John, 26–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Barbara, and MacNeilage, Peter. 1990. Acquisition of correct vowel production: A quantitative case study. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 33:16–27.Google Scholar
Delattre, Pierre. 1965. Comparing the phonetic features of English, German, Spanish and French: An interim report. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine. 1996. Alignment, stress and parsing in early phonological words. In Proceedings of the UBC International Conference on Phonological Acquisition, ed. Bernhardt, Barbara, Gilbert, John, and Ingram, David, 113–124. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine, and Jane Fee, E.. 1995. Minimal words in early phonological development. Ms., Brown University and Dalhousie University.Google Scholar
Fee, E. Jane. 1995. Segments and syllables in early acquisition. In Phonological acquisition and phonological theory, ed. Archibald, John, 43–61. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 1995. Alignment, syllable, and metrical structure in German. Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft. SFS-Report-02-95.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 2000. Phonologische und graphematische Silbenanstze. Paper presented at the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft (DGfS), Marburg.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 2002. Nonmoraic syllables in German. In The syllable in Optimality Theory, ed. Féry, Caroline and van de Vijver, Ruben, 213T237. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fikkert, Paula. 1994. On the acquisition of prosodic structure. Dordrecht: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.Google Scholar
Fikkert, Paula, and Penner, Zvi. 1998. Stagnation in prosodic development of language-disordered children. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. Greenhill, Annabel, Hughes, Mary, Littlefield, Heather, and Walsh, Hugh, 201–212. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Fischer-J0rgensen, Eli. 1969. Untersuchungen zum sogenannten losen und festen Anschluss. In Kopenhagener Germanistische Studien 1. Peter Jørgensen zu seinern 70 Geburtstag am 12.9.1969 gewidmet, ed. Hyldgaard-Jensen, Karl and Steffensen, Steffen, 138–164. Kopenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Goad, Heather. 2002. Markedness in right-edge syllabification: parallels across populations. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 47:151–186.Google Scholar
Hall, Tracy Alan. 1992. Syllable final clusters and schwa epenthesis in German. In Silbenphonologie des Deutschen, ed. Eisenberg, Peter, Ramers, Karl Heinz, and Vater, Heinz 208–245. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Hall, Tracy Alan. 2002a. Against extrasyllabic consonants in German and English. Phonology 19:33–75.Google Scholar
Hall, Tracy Alan. 2002b. The distribution of superheavy syllables in standard German. The Linguistic Review 19:377–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, Michael. 1997. Vowel quantity and syllabification in English. Language 73:1–17.Google Scholar
Jensen, John. 2000. Against ambisyllabicity. Phonology 17:187–235.Google Scholar
Kager, René. 1989. A metrical theory of stress and destressing in English and Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris Publication.Google Scholar
Kager, René, and Zonneveld, Wim. 1986. Schwa, syllables, and extrametricality in Dutch. The Linguistic Review 5:197–221.Google Scholar
Kehoe, Margaret. 2002. The acquisition of unstressed syllables in monolingual and bilingual children with a particular focus on reduced syllables. Paper presented at the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft (DGfS), Mannheim.Google Scholar
Kehoe, Margaret, and Lieo, Conxita. 2003. The acquisition of nuclei: A longitudinal analysis of phonological vowel length in three German-speaking children. Journal of Child Language 30:527–556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kehoe, Margaret, and Stoel-Gammon, Carol. 2001. Development of syllable structure in English-speaking children with particular reference to rhymes. Journal of Child Language 28:393–432.Google Scholar
Kloeke, Wus van Lessen. 1982. Deutsche Phonologie und Morphologie: Merkmale und Markiertheit. Tubingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopmans-van Beinum, Florien. 1994. What’s in a schwa? Durational and spectroanalysis of natural continuous speech and diphones in Dutch. Phonetica 51:68–79.Google Scholar
Levelt, Clara. 2000. Schwa-schma: The development of /ə/ in Dutch child language. Paper presented to the 16th IATL conference, Tel Aviv.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Bjorn. 1963. Spectrographic study of vowel reduction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 35:1773–1781.Google Scholar
Lleó, Conxita. 1996. To spread or not to spread: different styles in the acquisition of Spanish phonology. In Proceedings of the UBC International Conference on Phonological Acquisition, ed. Bernhardt, Barbara, Gilbert, John, and Ingram, David, 215–228. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Lleó, Conxita. 2001a. The transition from prenominal fillers to articles in Spanish and German. In Proceedings of the 8th Conference of the International Association for the Study of Child Language: Research on child language acquisition, ed. Almgren, Margareta, Barrena, Andoni, Ezeizabarrena, María-José, Idiazabal, Itziar, and MacWhinney, Brian. Somerville: Cascadilla Press, CD-ROM edition.Google Scholar
Lleó, Conxita. 2001b. Determining the acquisition of determiners: On the innateness of functional categories. In Features and interfaces in Romance: Essays in honor of Heles Contreras, ed. Herschensohn, Julia, Mallén, Enrique and Zagona, Karen, 189–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lleó, Conxita. 2002. The role of markedness in the acquisition of complex prosodic structures by German-Spanish bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism 6:291–313.Google Scholar
Löhken, Sylvia. 1997. Deutsche Wortprosodie. Abschwdchungs und Tilgungsvorgänge. Tubingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Lohuis-Weber, Heleen, and Zonneveld, Wim. 1996. Phonological acquisition and Dutch word prosody. Language Acquisition 5:245–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Low, Ee Ling, Grabe, Esther, and Nolan, Francis. 2001. Quantitative characteristics of speech rhythm: Syllable timing in Singapore English. Language and Speech 43:377–401.Google Scholar
Maas, Utz. 1999. Phonologie. Opladen, Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Moulton, William G. 1956. Syllabic nuclei and final consonant clusters in German. In For Roman Jakobson, ed. Halle, Morris, Lunt, Horace G., McLean, Hugh, and van Schooneveld, Cornelis, 372–381. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Nittrouer, Susan. 1993. The emergence of mature gestural patterns is not uniform: Evidence from an acoustic study. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 36:959–972.Google Scholar
Neef, Martin, and Neugebauer, Moritz. 2002. Beschrankte Korrespondenz: Zur Alternation von Schwa und silbischen Sonoranten im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 21:234–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Carole, and Prunet, Jean-François, eds. 1991. The special status of coronals: Internal and external evidence. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Peters, Ann. 2001. Filler syllables: What is their status in emerging grammar? Journal of Child Language 28:229–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peters, Ann, and Menn, Lise. 1993. False starts and filler syllables: Ways to learn grammatical morphemes. Language 69:742–777.Google Scholar
Piggott, Glyne. 1999. At the right edge of words. The Linguistic Review 16:143–185.Google Scholar
Ramers, Karl-Heinz. 1992. Ambisilbische Konsonanten im Deutschen. In Silbenphonologie des Deutschen, ed. Eisenberg, Peter, Ramers, Karl-Heinz, and Vater, Heinz, 246–283. Tubingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Rose, Yvan. 2000. Headedness and prosodic licensing in the LI acquisition of phonology. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Stoel-Gammon, Carol, and Herrington, Paula. 1990. Vowel systems of normally developing and phonologically disordered children. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 4:145–160.Google Scholar
Taelman, Helena, and Gillis, Steven. 2001. Variation in children’s early production of multisyllabic words: The case of truncations. In Proceedings of ELA 2001, ed. Kern, Sophie. Université Lumière, Lyon 2. CD-ROM.Google Scholar
Van Oostendorp, Marc. 1995. Vowel quality and phonological projection. Doctoral dissertation, Tilburg University. [ROA-84-000.]Google Scholar
Van Oostendorp, Marc. 1998. Schwa in phonological theory. GLOT International 3:3–8.Google Scholar
Van Oostendorp, Marc. 2000. Phonological projection: A theory of feature content and prosodic structure. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.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
Vennemann, Theo. 1991. Syllable structure and syllable cut prosodies in Modern Standard German. In Certamen Phonologicum II: Papers from the Cortona Phonology Meeting, ed. Bertinetto, Piermarco M., Kenstowicz, Michael, and Loporcaro, Michele, 211–243. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 1988. Silbische und lexikalische Phonologie: Studien zum Chinesischen und Deutschen. Tubingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 1996. The phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang. 1970. Studien zur Deutschen Lautstruktur. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar