Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:37:06.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the interaction of deaffrication and consonant harmony*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2010

DANIEL A. DINNSEN ,
JUDITH A. GIERUT ,
MICHELE L. MORRISETTE ,
CHRISTOPHER R. GREEN  and
ASHLEY W. FARRIS-TRIMBLE
DANIEL A. DINNSEN*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
JUDITH A. GIERUT
Affiliation:
Indiana University
MICHELE L. MORRISETTE
Affiliation:
Indiana University
CHRISTOPHER R. GREEN
Affiliation:
Indiana University
ASHLEY W. FARRIS-TRIMBLE
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
*
Address for correspondence: Daniel A. Dinnsen, Department of Linguistics, Indiana University, Memorial Hall 322, 1021 East Third Street, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA. tel: (812) 855-7948; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Error patterns in children's phonological development are often described as simplifying processes that can interact with one another with different consequences. Some interactions limit the applicability of an error pattern, and others extend it to more words. Theories predict that error patterns interact to their full potential. While specific interactions have been documented for certain pairs of processes, no developmental study has shown that the range of typologically predicted interactions occurs for those processes. To determine whether this anomaly is an accidental gap or a systematic peculiarity of particular error patterns, two commonly occurring processes were considered, namely Deaffrication and Consonant Harmony. Results are reported from a cross-sectional and longitudinal study of twelve children (age 3 ; 0–5 ; 0) with functional phonological delays. Three interaction types were attested to varying degrees. The longitudinal results further instantiated the typology and revealed a characteristic trajectory of change. Implications of these findings are explored.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , March 2011 , pp. 380 - 403
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

[*]

We are especially grateful to Amber Smith and the members of the Learnability Project for their help with various aspects of this work. This research was supported in part by grants to Indiana University from the National Institutes of Health (DC001694 & DC00012).

References

REFERENCES

Bermúdez-Otero, R. (2007). Diachronic phonology. In De Lacy, P. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology, 497–517. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernhardt, B. H. & Stemberger, J. P. (1998). Handbook of phonological development from the perspective of constraint-based non-linear phonology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bird, H., Franklin, S. & Howard, D. (2001). Age of acquisition and imageability ratings for a large set of words, including verb and function words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 33, 73–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boersma, P. (1998). Functional phonology: Formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A. (2002). A reconsideration of children's phonological representations. In Skarabela, B., Fish, S. & Do, A. H.-J. (eds), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 1–23. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A. (2008a). Recalcitrant error patterns. In Dinnsen, D. A. & Gierut, J. A. (eds), Optimality Theory, phonological acquisition and disorders, 247–76. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A. (2008b). A typology of opacity effects in acquisition. In Dinnsen, D. A. & Gierut, J. A. (eds), Optimality Theory, phonological acquisition and disorders, 121–76. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A. & Barlow, J. A. (1998). On the characterization of a chain shift in normal and delayed phonological acquisition. Journal of Child Language 25, 61–94.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A., O'Connor, K. M. & Gierut, J. A. (2001). The puzzle–puddle–pickle problem and the Duke-of-York gambit in acquisition. Journal of Linguistics 37, 503–525.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. & Farwell, C. B. (1975). Words and sounds in early language acquisition: English initial consonants in the first fifty words. Language 51, 419–39.Google Scholar
Fikkert, P. (2006). Developing representations and the emergence of phonology: Evidence from perception and production. Paper presented at LabPhon 10, Paris, June.Google Scholar
Gierut, J. A. (2008a). Fundamentals of experimental design and treatment. In Dinnsen, D. A. & Gierut, J. A. (eds), Optimality Theory, phonological acquisition and disorders, 93–118. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Gierut, J. A. (2008b). Phonological disorders and the Developmental Phonology Archive. In Dinnsen, D. A. & Gierut, J. A. (eds), Optimality Theory, phonological acquisition and disorders, 37–92. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Gilhooly, K. J. & Logie, R. H. (1980a). Age-of-acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1,944 words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 12, 395–427.Google Scholar
Gilhooly, K. J. & Logie, R. H. (1980b). Meaning-dependent ratings of imagery, age of acquisition, familiarity, and concreteness for 387 ambiguous words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 12, 428–50.Google Scholar
Goldman, R. & Fristoe, M. (1986). Goldman–Fristoe test of articulation. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Grunwell, P. (1982). Clinical phonology. Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. (1989). Phonological disability in children. London: Cole and Whurr.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1965). Phonological change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1971). Historical linguistics. In Dingwall, W. O. (ed.), A survey of linguistic science, 576–642. College Park: University of Maryland Linguistics Program.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1982). Lexical morphology and phonology. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 1–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Macken, M. A. (1980). The child's lexical representation: The ‘puzzle–puddle–pickle’ evidence. Journal of Linguistics 16, 1–17.Google Scholar
Maxwell, E. M. & Weismer, G. (1982). The contribution of phonological, acoustic and perceptual techniques to the characterization of a misarticulating child's voice contrast for stops. Applied Psycholinguistics 3, 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. (2002). Comparative markedness. Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-489.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. (2007). Hidden generalizations: Phonological opacity in Optimality Theory. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
McReynolds, L. V. & Elbert, M. (1981). Criteria for phonological process analysis. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 46, 197–204.Google Scholar
Morrisette, M. L. & Gierut, J. A. (2008). Innovations in the treatment of chain shifts. In Dinnsen, D. A. & Gierut, J. A. (eds), Optimality Theory, phonological acquisition and disorders, 205–220. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Nusbaum, H. C., Pisoni, D. B. & Davis, C. K. (1984). Sizing up the Hoosier mental lexicon. Progress Report No. 10, 357–76. Bloomington, IN: Speech Research Laboratory, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Pater, J. & Werle, A. (2003). Direction of assimilation in child consonant harmony. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics/La Revue Canadienne de Linguistique 48, 385–408.Google Scholar
Prince, A. & Smolensky, P. (1993/2004). Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Prince, A. & Tesar, B. (2004). Learning phonotactic distributions. In Kager, R., Pater, J. & Zonneveld, W. (eds), Constraints in phonological acquisition, 245–91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Shriberg, L. D. & Lof, G. L. (1991). Reliability studies in broad and narrow transcription. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 5, 225–79.Google Scholar
Smit, A. B. (1993). Phonologic error distributions in the Iowa–Nebraska articulation norms project: Consonant singletons. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 36, 533–47.Google Scholar
Smith, N. V. (1973). The acquisition of phonology: A case study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P. (1996). The initial state and ‘richness of the base’ in Optimality Theory. Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-154.Google Scholar
Tesar, B. & Smolensky, P. (1998). Learnability in Optimality Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 29, 229–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tihonova, O. (2009). Acquisition and opacity. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Tromsø. Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-1043.Google Scholar
Vihman, M. M. (1978). Consonant harmony: Its scope and function in child language. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of human language 2: Phonology, 281–334. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar