Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T21:08:32.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Categorization and feature specification in phonological acquisition*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Judith A. Gierut
Judith A. Gierut*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
*
Address for correspondence: Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405USA, email: gierut@indiana.edu.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Distinctive feature specification and representation in phonological acquisition are examined in the context of underspecification theory. Subjects were 30 children (aged 3;1 to 5;10) who exhibited systematic differences in their linguistic knowledge of target phonological contrasts. A free classification task was used to tap children's conceptual knowledge of these contrasts, with features of place and manner experimentally manipulated. Three questions were addressed: which features do children use to categorize segmentai information, do the defining features of a category shift as the phonological system advances, and which framework of underspecification theory best accounts for the results? All children categorized segments on the basis of marked nonredundant featural properties, and used only one feature value to define category membership consistent with radical underspecification. Linguistic knowledge and linguistic input both influenced children's category judgements, but to different degrees. The emergence of phonological categories involved increasing feature differentiation as the child's productive phonology advanced.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , June 1996, pp. 397 - 415
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

[*]

This research was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health to Indiana University (DC 01694, DC 00076). Jessica Barlow, Daniel Dinnsen, Mary Hughes and Michele Morrisette provided insightful comments and assistance. The following research assistants also participated in various aspects of data collection, analysis, and phonetic transcription: Annette Champion, Steve Chin, Elizabeth Connell Antonnen, Jennifer Huljak, Holly Storkel and Jennifer Taps. Aspects of this paper were presented at the International Conference on Phonological Acquisition, Vancouver, British Columbia, June 1995.

References

REFERENCES

Archangeli, D. (1988). Aspects of underspecification theory. Phonology 5, 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ASHA Committee on Audiologie Evaluation (1985). Guidelines for identification audiometry. ASHA 27, 49–52.Google Scholar
Biers, M. (1995). The acquisition of phonological contrasts in Dutch. Paper presented at the International Conference on Phonological Acquisition, Vancouver, British Columbia.Google Scholar
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chin, S. B. & Dinnsen, D. A. (1991). Feature geometry in disordered phonologies. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 5, 329–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A. (1992). Variation in developing and fully developed phonologies. In Ferguson, C. A., Menn, L. & Stoel-Gammon, C. (eds), Phonological development: models, research, implications. Timonium, MD: York.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A. (1996). Context-sensitive underspecification and the acquisition of a phonemic contrast. Journal of Child Language 23, 57–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A., Chin, S. B., Elbert, M. & Powell, T. W. (1990). Some constraints on functionally disordered phonologies: phonetic inventories and phonotactics. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 33, 28–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerken, L. A., Murphy, W. D. & Aslin, R. N. (1995). Three- and four-year-olds' perceptual confusions for spoken words. Perception & Psychophysics 57, 475–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gierut, J. A. (1985). On the relationship between phonological knowledge and generalization learning in misarticulating children (doctoral dissertation). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Gierut, J. A., Elbert, M. & Dinnsen, D. A. (1987). A functional analysis of phonological knowledge and generalization learning in misarticulating children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 30, 462–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gierut, J. A., Simmerman, C. L. & Neumann, H. J. (1994). Phonemic structures of delayed phonological systems. Journal of Child Language 21, 291–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldman, R. & Fristoe, M. (1986). Goldman-Fristoe test of articulation. Circles Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Graham, L. W. & House, A. S. (1971). Phonological oppositions in children: a perceptual study. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 49, 559–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ingram, D. (1992). Early phonological acquisition: a cross-linguistic perspective. In Ferguson, C. A., Menn, L. & Stoel-Gammon, C. (eds), Phonological development: models, research, implications. Timonium MD: York.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. J. (1992). Developing phonological categories from the speech signal. In Ferguson, C. A., Menn, L. & Stoel-Gammon, C. (eds), Phonological development: models, research, implications. Timonium MD: York.Google Scholar
Keating, P. A. (1988). A survey of phonological features. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, M. (1994). Phonology in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. (1975). A course in phonetics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Lahiri, A. & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1991). The mental representation of lexical form: a phonological approach to the recognition lexicon. Cognition 38, 245–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. (1988). Feature geometry and dependency: a review. Phonetica 43, 1–25.Google Scholar
Mester, R. A. & Itô, J. (1989). Feature predictability and underspecification: palatal prosody in Japanese mimetics. Language 65, 258–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milenkovic, P. H. (1992). CSpeech Version 4. Madison, WI.Google Scholar
Paradis, C. & Prunet, J. F. (eds). (1991). Phonetics and phonology, volume 2: the special status of coronals: internal and external evidence. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rice, K. & Avery, P. (1991). Segmental complexity and the structure of inventories. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 12, 97–130.Google Scholar
Rice, K. & Avery, P. (1995). Variability in a deterministic model of language acquisition: a theory of segmental elaboration. In Archibald, J. (ed.), Phonological acquisition and phonological theory. New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1988). Dependency, place, and the notion ‘tier’. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America, New Orleans.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1993) [Labial] relations. Paper presented at the Ohio State University, Columbus and Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Smit, A. B., Hand, L., Freilinger, J. J., Bernthal, J. E. & Bird, A. (1990). The Iowa articulation norms project and its Nebraska replication. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 55, 779–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steriade, D. (1987). Redundant values. In Bosch, A., Need, B. & Schiller, E. (eds), Papers from the parasession on autosegmental and metrical phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Treiman, R. & Baron, J. (1981). Segmental analysis ability: development and relation to reading ability. In MacKinnon, G. E. & Waller, T. G. (eds), Reading research: advances in theory and practice. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Treiman, R. & Breaux, M. (1982). Common phoneme and overall similarity relations among spoken syllables: their use by children and adults. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 11, 569–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Velleman, S. L. (1988). The role of linguistic perception in later phonological development. Applied Psycholinguistics 9, 221–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walley, A. C., Smith, L. B. & Jusczyk, P. W. (1986). The role of phonemes and syllables in the perceived similarity of speech sounds for children. Memory and Cognition 11, 220–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar