Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:04:15.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The prosodic (re)organization of children's early English articles*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2008

KATHERINE DEMUTH  and
ELIZABETH McCULLOUGH
KATHERINE DEMUTH*
Affiliation:
Brown University, USA
ELIZABETH McCULLOUGH
Affiliation:
Brown University, USA
*
Address for correspondence: Katherine Demuth, Brown University, 190 Thayer Street, Providence, RI 02912, United States. e-mail: Katherine_Demuth@brown.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Researchers have long been puzzled by children's variable omission of grammatical morphemes, often attributing this to a lack of semantic or syntactic competence. Recent studies suggest that some of this variability may be due to phonological constraints. This paper explored this issue further by conducting a longitudinal study of five English-speaking one- to two-year-olds' acquisition of articles. It found that most children were more likely to produce articles when these could be produced as part of a disyllabic foot. However, acoustic analysis revealed that one child initially produced all articles as independent prosodic words. These findings confirm that some of the variable production of articles is conditioned by constraints on children's early phonologies, providing further support for the Prosodic Licensing Hypothesis. They also hold important implications for our understanding of the emergence of syntactic knowledge.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 173 - 200
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.)

Footnotes

*

Previous versions of this paper have been presented at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, the MIT Speech Group, the GALANA-2, the University of Washington, the University of California at Berkeley, GURT '07, Oregon Health & Science University, and the Boston University Conference on Language Development. We thank those audiences as well as Theres Grüter, Aafke Hulk, Karen Jesney, Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel, Mark Johnson, Kenneth Stevens, Megha Sundara, Annie Tremblay and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and discussion, and Matt Adamo and Jae Yung Song for research assistance. This research has been supported by NIH Grant #R01MH60922.

References

REFERENCES

Allen, G. D. & Hawkins, S. (1978). The development of phonological rhythm. In Bell, A. & Hooper, J. B. (eds) Syllables and segments, 173–85. North Holland: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2005). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 4.4.07). http://www.praat.org/.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Carter, A. & Gerken, L. A. (2004). Do children's omissions leave traces? Journal of Child Language 31, 561–86.Google Scholar
Charette, M. (1991). Conditions on phonological government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Connelly, M. (1984). Basotho children's acquisition of noun morphology. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Demuth, K. (1994). On the ‘underspecification’ of functional categories in early grammars. In Lust, B., Suñer, M. & Whitman, J. (eds) Syntactic theory and first language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives, 119–34. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Demuth, K. (1995). Markedness and the development of prosodic structure. In Beckman, J. (ed.) Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 25, 13–25. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Demuth, K., Culbertson, J. & Alter, J. (2006). Word-minimality, epenthesis, and coda licensing in the acquisition of English. Language & Speech 49, 137–74.Google Scholar
Demuth, K. & Ellis, D. (in press). Revisiting the acquisition of Sesotho noun class prefixes. In Guo, J., Lieven, E., Ervin-Tripp, S., Budwig, N., Özçaliskan, S. & Nakamura, K. (eds) Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Festschrift for Dan Slobin. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Demuth, K. & Johnson, M. (2003). Truncation to subminimal words in early French. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 48, 211–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demuth, K. & Tremblay, A. (2008). Prosodically-conditioned variability in children's production of French determiners. Journal of Child Language 35, 99–127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doke, C. M. & Mofokeng, S. M. (1985). Textbook of Southern Sotho grammar. Cape Town: Longman.Google Scholar
Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Thal, D., Bates, E., Hartung, J. P., Pethick, S. & Reilly, J. S. (1993). The MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories: User's guide and technical manual. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Fikkert, P. (1994). On the acquisition of prosodic structure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Leiden, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Gerken, L. A. (1996). Prosodic structure in young children's language production. Language 72, 683–712.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. R. & Wanner, E. (1982). Language acquisition: The state of the art. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (eds) Language acquisition: The state of the art, 3–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goad, H. & Buckley, M. (2006). Prosodic structure in child French: Evidence for the Foot. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 5, 109–142. (Special issue on the acquisition of Romance languages as first languages.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1994). Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. (1986). Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Kehoe, M. & Stoel-Gammon, C. (2001). Development of syllable structure in English-speaking children with particular reference to rhymes. Journal of Child Language 28, 393–432.Google Scholar
Lleó, C. (2003). Prosodic licensing of codas. Probus 15, 257–81.Google Scholar
Liberman, M. & Prince, A. (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 249–336.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk, Vol 2: The Database, 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Marshall, C. & van der Lely, H. (2007). The impact of phonological complexity on past tense inflection in children with Grammatical-SLI. Advances in Speech Language Pathology 9, 191–203.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. & Prince, A. (1986). Prosodic morphology. Unpublished ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst and Rutgers University.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. & Prince, A. (2003). The emergence of the unmarked. In McCarthy, J. (ed.) Optimality Theory in phonology: A reader, 483–94. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
McGregor, K. K. & Johnson, A. C. (1997). Trochaic template use in early words and phrases. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 40, 1220–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nespor, M. & Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Pater, J. (1997). Minimal violation and phonological development. Language Acquisition 6, 201–253.Google Scholar
Peters, A. (1983). The units of language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1996). The prosodic structure of function words. In Morgan, J. & Demuth, K. (eds) Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition, 187–213. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Song, J. Y., Sundara, M. & Demuth, K. (in submission). Effects of phonology on children's production of English 3rd person singular -s.Google Scholar
Turk, A., Nakai, S. & Sugahara, M. (2006). Acoustic segment durations in prosodic research: A practical guide. In Sudhoff, S., Lenertová, D., Meyer, R., Pappert, S., Augursky, P., Mieinek, I., Richter, N. & Schlißer, J. (eds) Methods in empirical prosody research, 1–28. Language, Context, and Cognition 3. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Valian, V. (1991). Syntactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children. Cognition 40, 21–81.Google Scholar
Vihman, M. M. (1996). Phonological development: The origins of language in the child. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vihman, M. M. & McCune, L. (1994). When is a word a word? Journal of Child Language 21, 517–42.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. (1994). Optional infinitives, head movement and the economy of derivations in child grammar. In Lightfoot, D. & Hornstein, N. (eds) Verb movement, 305–350. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar