(1) Acquisition of consonants by type
(6) Deletion of /ʁ/
• Study the acquisition of word-final sonorants relative to their acquisition in onset position (in comparison with other consonant types)
• Determine the prosodic category of these sonorants; see if the observations follow cross- linguistic trends
• Determine whether other factors are playing a role in the acquisition of word-final consonants and, if so, examine their general effect on acquisition
Goals of this research
Sonorants acquisition and Sonorants acquisition and
positional neutralization:
positional neutralization:
typological, prosodic and typological, prosodic and articulatory considerations articulatory considerations
Yvan Rose 1 and Christophe dos Santos 2
1Department of Linguistics, Memorial University, Canada; 2Laboratoire Dynamique Du Langage (UMR CNRS 5596) Université Lumière Lyon 2, France
This research is financed by the National Institute of Mental Health Grant #IR0 IMH60922-01A2, project author K. Demuth (Brown University, Providence).
Onset of stressed
syllable
Deletion
(%) Word-final Deletion (%)
Stops YES 3,30 YES 8,96
Coronal fricatives YES 12,47 YES 18,78
Labial Fricatives NO 60,19 YES 36,00
Nasals YES 1,82 NO 78,46
/l/ YES 2,20 NO 92,43
/ʁ/* NO 71,83 NO 95,80
* We excluded the /n/ substitution caused by only one word representing 54% of the data.
(2) Coda and onset of empty-headed syllable
Onset of empty-headed syllable No branching structure
Acquired early in word-final position (Goad and Brannen 2003)
Prime prosodic position for obstruents
Coda
Branching rhyme projection
Acquired late in word-final position (Rose 2000)
Sonorant acquisition
Prosodic analysis
Gloss Word Target Production
shoe chaussure [ʃosyʁ] [lyly]
it's c'est [sɛ] [lɛ]
paintbrush pinceau [pɛ̃so ] [lo]
thing chose [ʃoz] [los]
cat chat [ʃa] [la]
eyes yeux [zjø] [lø]
house maison [mɛsɔ̃] [lõ]
to arrange ranger [ʁɑ̃ʒe ] [leː]
Gloss Word Target Production
thanks merci [mɛʁsi] [mɛːni]
to pass passer [pase] [pete]
damn! zut [zyt] [dyt]
house maison [mɛsɔ̃] [mɛdɔː]
scarf écharpe [eʃaʁp] [tap]
to cheat tricher [tʁiʃe] [te]
yellow jaune [ʒon] [no]
major majeur [maʒœʁ] [mɛmɛ]
Gloss Word Target Production
strong fort [fɔʁ] [ɔ]
fairy fée [fe] [e]
soccer foot [fut] [ut]
sheet feuille [fœj] [œː]
green vert [vɛʁ] [ɛː]
seen vu [vy] [y]
wave vague [vag] [ak]
washed lavé [lave] [e]
Gloss Word Target Production
stop arrête [aʁɛt] [ɛt]
rinse rince [ʁɛ̃s] [aːs]
rose rose [ʁoz] [os]
syrup sirop [siʁo] [o]
dress robe [ʁob] [ɔpp]
rail rail [ʁaj] [aj]
godfather parrain [paʁɛ̃] [paaː]
square carré [kaʁe] [kaeː]
(3) Coronal fricatives substituted through CH (4) Coronal fricatives substituted by /l/
(5) Deletion of labial fricatives
Word-final consonants:
Obstruents = acquired
Sonorants ≠ acquired
Word-initial consonants
Obstruents = acquired (except labial fricatives)
Sonorant = acquired (except /ʁ/)
Generalization in comparison with typological trends:
Obstruents behave like onsets of empty-headed syllables (2)
Sonorants behave like codas (2)
Methodo logy
The prosodic category to which belongs the consonant at the right edge of the word is subject to controversy
This debate is due to the different behaviors that this consonant can display across natural languages
Several propositions has been made to categorize this consonant: coda (Tranel 1987), extrasyllabic consonant (Itô 1986), onset of an empty-headed syllable (Kaye, Lowenstamm et Vergnaud 1990)…
Piggott (1999) proposes to categorize each consonant on a language-specific basis, depending on its behavior relative to other consonants
Zec (1988) noted that sonorants tend to behave more like codas than non- sonorants
Introduc tion
Data from the child named Marilyn (code-named MAS in other publications):
Monolingual French learner
Recorded every second week between 0;9 and 3;0
Period studied: 1;11.13 to 2;2.29 (8 recordings; 5386 utterances)
Recorded data transcribed phonetically by native speakers of French
Results are compiled in an Excel spreadsheet
Data
Discussion on external factor
Labial fricatives (5) and /ʁ/ (6) are not acquired in onset of stressed syllable
The typological trend and the prosodic analysis cannot explain this phenomenon
Hypothesis: this phenomenon is due to articulatory constraints
specific for this child (Inkelas and Rose 2003, Rose and dos Santos, to appear)
1. Coronal fricatives are not totally acquired
The place of coronal fricatives in the prosodic word structure is acquired (87,5% produced)
The segment is not acquired: 80,25% are substituted
50% by nasals or stops Harmony (=CH) (3)
50% by /l/ if there is no nasals or stops in the output (4) 2. The onset of stressed syllable is a strong prosodic position
3. Coronal fricatives require refined control of the apex, especially in strong prosodic positions (to prevent overshooting, stopping effects)
4. /l/ is a good candidate to substitute coronal fricatives
From an articulatory point of view, /l/ is easier to maintain because it offers a support point in the alveolar region
The substitution preserves the continuancy of the substituted fricative
[ɬ] is more complex than /l/ and is not in the child’s inventory 5. Labial and dorsal fricatives [f, v, ʁ] are deleted
No labial or dorsal consonant exists which could enable a preservation of the continuancy of the target fricatives or provide an articulatory support
Conclusio n
A full analysis of the general development of final consonant requires a combination of different grammatical and non-grammatical factors.
This study provides evidence for a significant interaction between grammatical and articulatory (physiological, motoric) factors. These types of interactions help to explain phenomena observed in children’s productions. In order to provide full story of the development of child phonology, we need a model in which we can combine and weigh each of the different factors involved and predict their interactions. The relationship between acquisition and typology provides insight into the general condition of the acquisition process by the human language faculty
Goad, Heather and Kathleen Brannen (2003). Phonetic Evidence for Phonological Structure in Syllabification. In The Phonological Spectrum, Vol. 2, Jeroen van de Weijer, Vincent van Heuven and Harry van der Hulst (eds.).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 3-30.
Inkelas, S., & Rose, Y. (2003). Velar Fronting Revisited. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Somerville, MA.
Itô, J. (1986). Syllable Theory in Prosodic Phonology. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Kaye, J., Lowenstamm, J., & Vergnaud, J.-R. (1990). Constituent Structure and Government Phonology. Phonology, 7, 193-231.
Piggott, G. L. (1999). At the Right Edge of Words. The Linguistic Review, 16(2), 143-185.
Rose, Y. (2000). Headedness and Prosodic Licensing in the L1 Acquisition of Phonology. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, McGill University.
Rose, Y., & dos Santos, C. (à paraître). Influences multiples dans l'harmonie consonantique et la métathèse en acquisition du français. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes.
Tranel, B. (1987). The Sounds of French : An Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Zec, D. (1988). Sonority Constraints on Prosodic Structure. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University.
