Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T01:44:40.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

René Kager, Joe Pater & Wim Zonneveld (eds), Constraints in phonological acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Pp. 417. ISBN 0-521-82963.*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2008

Suzanne Curtin
Suzanne Curtin
Affiliation:
Departments of Linguistics and PsychologyUniversity of CalgaryCalgary, AB, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , August 2008 , pp. 721 - 727
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

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

Barlow, J. (2001). The structure of /s/ clusters: evidence from a disordered system. Journal of Child Language 28, 291–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 and Row.Google Scholar
Curtin, S. (2002). Representational richness in phonological development. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D., McGarrity, L., O'Connor, K. & Swanson, K. (2000). On the role of sympathy in acquisition. Language Acquisition 8, 321–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gierut, J. (1999). Syllable onsets: clusters and adjuncts in acquisition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 42, 708–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hale, M. & Reiss, C. (1998). Formal and empirical arguments concerning phonological acquisition. Linguistic Inquiry 29, 656–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, B. (1999). Phonetically-driven phonology: the role of Optimality Theory and inductive grounding. In Darnell, M., Moravscik, E., Noonan, M., Newmeyer, F. & Wheatly, K. (eds) Functionalism and formalism in linguistics, Volume I: General papers, 243–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1999). Sympathy and Phonological Opacity. Phonology 16, 331–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, A. & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. MS., Rutgers University, New Brunswick and University of Colorado, Boulder. [Technical report 2, Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.]Google Scholar
Smith, N. (1973). The acquisition of phonology: a case study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stager, C. L. & Werker, J. F. (1997). Infants listen for more phonetic detail in speech perception than in word learning tasks. Nature 388(6640), 381–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tesar, B. & Smolensky, P. (1998). Learnability in Optimality Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 29, 229–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velleman, S. & Vihman, M. M. (2002). The optimal initial state. Ms. University of Massachusetts and University of Wales, Bangor. Rutgers Optimality Archive (ROA) 552–1002 (http://roa.rutgers.edu/).Google Scholar
Werker, J. F. & Curtin, S. (2005). PRIMIR: a developmental model of speech processing. Language Learning and Development 1(2), 197–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zamuner, T., Gerken, L. & Hammond, M. (2004). Phonotactic probabilities in young children's speech production. Journal of Child Language 31, 515–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed