Heiner
Kleine
Description
and Statistical Analysis of the
Acquisition
of German Phonology. A Case Report
This is a shortened version of the paper. If you are
interested in receiving the full text with the complete sets of rules and all tables
and figures, please send an inquiry via the Kleine Language Services start page to let me know. The paper is also available in German language.
Heiner
Kleine
Maarbachstr.
107
53347 Alfter
Germany
Abstract
The present case report describes
the acquisition of phonology by two children, who were closely followed for
about one year after their "first word." For two defined times, the
phonologic data are translated into rules on the basis of both the German
standard and the distinctive features. The first type of rules provides a
complete description of the children's phonological systems by tagms. The
second set of rules, besides being a description by features, is used for
statistical evaluations to assess the differences and similarities between the
two children's phonological systems. The rules are further analyzed to
determine the effort necessary for each child to approach the German standard
system and to single out the features that are not constitutive for the
structure of the children's systems. The analysis of the differences in
phonological development shows that two different strategies of acquisition are
likely to be responsible for many of those differences.
Keywords
Language acquisition, phonology,
distinctive features, statistical evaluation
1
Introduction
[…]
Weighty—not only by number—are studies of
babbling and infants' earliest speech production. But however important these
publications may be, in particular with reference to the development of
language acquisition models (e.g., WRAPSA in Jusczyk 1993; investigations of
language acquisition in Optimality Theory (OT) in Kager 2004), a review of the
literature shows that there is only a relatively small number of studies that deal
with the development of phonological systems as the lexicon is growing; the
publications by Vihman (e.g. Vihman et al. 1985) need to be mentioned in this
category. If the material treating phonological systems is fairly scarce, there
is virtually none for those interested not only in finding information on
phonological systems, but also in getting an overall view of the phonotactic
developments and inventories in the course of language acquisition.
The present case study of two children was
therefore conducted as a continuous registration of phonological elements and
phonological change over quite a long period of observation so as to allow
interindividual and diachronic comparisons that would reveal common and
idiosyncratic features of phonology and phonotactics.
2
Subjects
2.1
Demographic
data
The two subjects were N., female, born […], and
A., male, born [….] Either child was born at term in the 42nd week
of gestation after a normal course of pregnancy. Neither child presents with
sensory, in particular auditory, motor or cognitive impairments.
2.2
Speakers
in the children's environment
[…]
3
Methods
3.1
Data
collection
[…] the linguistic data were recorded from the
first utterance that was definitely meaningful, which means that the examiner
could trace it back to its original situational context. This criterion was
used to prevent the evaluation from being distorted by words of unclear meaning
that did not recur and therefore could not reliably be related to their
phonetic source, i.e. the standard-system word imitated by the child. Likewise excluded were protoverbal
utterances of affect (Vihman and Miller 1988), such as were used, at 10½
months, by both N. (as [gai]) and A. (in the
similar forms of [g̊ai] or [g̊aʲg̊]) to
express pleasant sensations.
All spontaneous utterances were immediately
analyzed for agreement with earlier utterances. When an utterance was found to
be the first instance of a new word and met the aforesaid criteria, it was
transcribed according to IPA; the same was done for second or any later
instances of words if they showed phonetic deviations from earlier uses that
exceeded the usual degree of variability. Contrary to, e.g., Ferguson and
Farwell (1975), nonspontaneous utterances, e.g., the resumption of words of a
question in the child's answer, were never included in the evaluation to
eliminate any bias by immediate imitation to the best possible extent.
[…]
N.'s first clearly identifiable word developed
from [ai] and [hai] to [hais] "heiß" 'hot'
within few days in late September / early October 1996, i.e., when she was
almost 12 months old. A.'s first word was onomatopoetic: [bəːt] "heruntergefallen" (from bumm 'boom') appeared when he was a little over 11 months old. His first non-onomatopoetic word was [tʏːə] "Tür" 'door'
and emerged at the age of somewhat over 13½ months.
For both children, the period of observation
ended with the first word whose use could not be traced back to a specific
situation or did otherwise not seem clearly motivated to the examiner, since
this was the time when it was no longer possible to determine whether a word
was used for the first time or might have been used earlier in some as then
unidentifiable form and when, consequently, the chronology of language acquisition
began to become inextricable.
The period of observation so delimited lasted
from early October 1996 to early August 1997 for N. and yielded 280 words; for
A., it lasted from mid-June 1999 to mid-April 2000 and yielded 357 words. All
at first "unidentifiable referents" (Vihman, Macken, Miller et al.,
1985) could eventually be identified and are thus included in these figures.
The sizes of the subjects' lexicons correspond to the values found by other
researchers.
3.2
Evaluation
of the data
The data were evaluated on two different times.
The first time of evaluation was the 50-word stage, which occurred in either
child at the age of 17 months, 1 week, i.e. in early March 1997 for N. and in
early December 1999 for A. The reason for using a lexical threshold as a cut in
a phonological study was that this time was found to be characterized not only
by a marked increase in the rate of expansion of the lexicon, but also in the
rate of approximation to the phonetic standard. […]
[…]
The second evaluation was done at the end of
the data collection and was based on the whole material the child used at that
time.
A specific problem resulting from small
lexicons has to be considered in particular with reference to the first
evaluation. If, as commonly, a phoneme is defined as the smallest unit allowing
the differentiation of meaning, the question arises how phonemes can be
delimited in extremely small lexicons. The substitution test proves
impracticable in such a case since there may often not be two words differing
by one sound only. […]
In the present study, phonemes were therefore
derived from word-specific variants or phone clusters : If, for instance, there was free
variation in a word between [e], [i] and the phones between them, and this phenomenon was also observed in
other words the child used, while other sounds were not included in this
variation, the assumption of a phoneme |i‑e| would be well-founded, even though no strict demonstration by the usual
tests were possible. For lack of a better procedure, the
existence of a "broad" phoneme, which might be represented by |ɪ|, would therefore be assumed in this case. The transcription depends
upon the case; the phones covered by a specific phoneme result from the
distinctive features used in the rules.
3.3
Description
of the data
3.3.1
Phonological
systems at the first time of evaluation (17 months)
The description of the phonological systems
that the two children used at the age of 17 months begins with a comparison
with Standard German, which means that for either child information is given
which word-onset consonants, word-coda consonants, intervocalic word-internal
consonants (if existent) and vowels were present in the language and how they
were correlated with the standard language. This data is then taken as a basis
to formulate the rules of phonotagmic substitution that a child used
consistently. Finally, a comprehensive description of the two children's
phonological systems observed at the first time of evaluation is given on the
basis of feature-based rules.
3.3.2
Phonological
systems at the second time of evaluation (end of study)
The situation at the end of the study is
described by first listing N.'s and A.'s word onsets, word codas, intervocalic
consonants, and nuclei as functions of the Standard German phonotagms. The
rules given in these listings offer a comprehensive survey of all phonotagms of
the standard language and their equivalents, if realized, in the subjects'
systems. The phonological systems are then again described by feature-based
rules.
3.3.3
Phonological
distances
The feature-based rules are further
used to calculate phonological distances between the children's systems and the
standard language. The distances serve, on the one hand, to measure the
phonological development; this is done by comparing the distances of the
overall systems and of the subsystems of the first and second times of
evaluation. On the other hand, the distances are used for a synchronous,
interpersonal comparison, which reveals differences of language development.
[ ] Morph Ɨ Morpheme boundary (by
substitution: +)
[ ] Lex ǂ Lexeme boundary (by
substitution: ≠)
[ ] Phonotagm / / Phonemotagm
|
R reference system
|
[a] earlier tagm that had been abandoned
by the time of examination
|
|
|
phonological system used by N. or A. at the
first time of evaluation
|
|
|
phonological system used by N. or A. at the second
time of evaluation
|
|
used for the first time within two weeks of
the time of evaluation (of rule 1 / by subject X)
|
|
= concatenated to
|
|
|
|
← originating
in
|
|
→ is
replaced by, yields
|
|
a ↦ b a replaced by b within the following two months
|
(V) vowel
|
|
(C) consonant
|
|
⇄ tagms / realizations used in free
variation
|
 no less than x consonants, e.g., 
|
|
 no more than y consonants, e.g., 
|
|
Ø element inexistent
|
 between x and y consonants inclusive,
e.g., 
|
|
? element not
observed
|
|
(U) environment
|
 exactly x consonants, e.g., 
|
/ ___ A before A
/(U1)/ phonotactic environment 1,
i.e. Ɨ
/(U2)/ phonotactic environment 2,
i.e. Ɨ
{[a] : [ b] /___ /(U1)/ : /(U2)/} phonotagm [a] is used
in /(U1)/, phonotagm [ b] is used
in /(U2)/
4
Results
4.1
Phonological
systems at the first time of evaluation (17 months)
4.1.1
N.
4.1.1.1
Word
onset
At 17 months, N. used the following
word-onset inventory:
|
Ø
|
[ p]
|
[ b]
|
[ t]
|
[ d]
|
|
[ts]
|
|
|
[ f] ([ɸ] [w̥] [hw̥])
|
[ hw]
|
[ s]
|
[ z]
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ m]
|
|
[ n]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ h]
|
|
A striking feature of N.'s
word-onset system is its high degree of regularity. Except for [h], all her
word-onset consonants at this age were characterized by being [-compact]. According to the feature [acute], they fell into two groups, which
corresponded to two different places of articulation: labial and alveolar. No
velar consonants existed at this time.
[…]
The diphonic word-onset tagm [ts] occurred in the word [tsʊ̥] "zu"
from age 13½ months, but was abandoned at the age of about 15 months.
[…]
4.1.1.2
Word
coda
Immediately before the word
boundary, N. at the age of 17 months used only two phonotagms, [f]—also realized as [ɸ]—and [s]; the word-coda inventory was completed by [j] and [w], which occurred before vowels only. [f] and [s] were not, however, distributed according to
the standard pattern: there was rather a set of specific rules to govern
substitution in function of the preceding nucleus. The following rules can be
derived from the paradigms:
[…]
[…] Standard German [f], [s] and—generally speaking—polyphonic word-coda
tagms with |s| as the
final phoneme are replaced by [f] when they follow [a] or [u]. The coda tagms of the other Standard German
words that N. used at the time of the first evaluation, i.e. [d], [l], [s] and [ʃ], and the syllable den of baden 'take a bath,' were replaced by [s], if necessary with the insertion of [ɪ] [….] The determinant was the nucleus, as can
be shown by [buf] "Bus." The analysis of the rules under the aspect of
distinctive features shows that the value of the feature [acute] of the word-coda consonant always
agreed with the value of that feature in the preceding nucleus.
That these rules are no artifacts
resulting from N.'s lexicon, is verified by rule 2.2, which was first used for
substitutions after [a] and, at the age of nearly 20 months, also
spread to the environment [u]__, where it was to be effective for several weeks: [f] in Bus
and other words had by that age been corrected to result in the coda [s], but [buf] had now
turned into [buɪs]. This
means that the assimilation of vowel and consonant tagms according to the value
of [acute] was not changed
by rule 2.2, but the nucleus ceased to be the determinant and was replaced in
that function by the coda.
[…]
4.1.1.3
Nucleus
and intervocalic word-internal consonants
The method described above of
delimiting phone clusters allows the following vowel tagms to be identified in
N.'s language on the first evaluation:
·
With [-long]: [ ɪ], [a], [ɔ], and [u]. [e] was used, but was not reliably separated from [ɪ] so that a phoneme |ɪ|
extending from [i] through [ɪ] to [e] was stipulated.
·
With [+long]: [ ɪː], [æː], and [aː]. N. had a tendency of realizing [ ɪː] as a diphonic tagm, i.e. [ei].
·
Diphonic
nuclei: [aɪ] and [au]; lengthening of the first element was
possible.
The analysis of the vowel tagms by their source
forms in the standard language shows that phonotagms that contained no elements
with the feature value [+acute] always originated in tagms that differed from
N.'s phonotagms only in the value of [open]. This means that under the aspect of N.'s
phonological system, the standard was imported largely one to one.
The situation was different for vowel tagms
that contained an element with the value [+acute]. [+acute] seems to have inhibited the
differentiation of the two values of [compact] so that |ɪ| and |ɪː| represented very "wide" phonemes, with the long nucleus even
including the diphonic realization [ei]—under the
aspect of N.'s phonological system, the latter can be seen as a glide covering
the whole range of the phoneme.
[…]
4.1.1.4
Description
of the phonological system by a set of rules
The following rules comprehensively
describe N.'s phonological system at the age of 17 months:
Word onset
Number of elements
N1-01 
= / ¯¯/ / __ [-cns]
Inhibition and selection
N1-02 
N1-03 
® Ø /
___ [-cns]
N1-04 
® Ø /
___ [-cns]
N1-05 
® Ø /
___ [-cns]
N1-06 
® Ø / ǂ ___
Concatenation
N1-07 [+cns] + Ø =
N1-08 
Substitution
N1-09 
Word coda
Number of elements
N1-10 
= / ¯¯/ / [-cns] ___
Inhibition and selection
N1-11 
N1-12 
® Ø
/[-cns] ___
N1-13 
® Ø
/[-cns] ___
N1-14 
® Ø
/[-cns] ___
N1-15 
® Ø
/[-cns] ___
N1-16 
® Ø /
___ ǂ
Concatenation
N1-17 [+cns] + Ø =
Substitution
N1-18 
Nucleus
Number of elements
N1-19 
= / ¯¯¯/ / 
Inhibition and selection
N1-20 
N1-21 
®
Ø
N1-22 
®
Ø
N1-23 
®
Ø
N1-24 
®
Ø
Concatenation
N1-25 [-cns] + Ø = 
N1-26 
Substitution
N1-27 
N1-29 
/ ___ [-cns]
[…]
4.1.2
A.
4.1.2.1
Word
onset
A., when 17 months old, used the
following inventory of word-onset tagms:
|
Ø
|
[ p]
|
[ b]
|
[ t]
|
[ d]
|
[ k]
|
[ g]
|
|
[ ts]
|
|
|
|
[ m]
|
|
[ n]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ h]
|
|
Except for the diphonic tagm [ts], the
system was very regular, and except [h], all word-onset tagms were either [+cns, +abr] or [+cns, +voc], i.e., the fricatives of the
standard were almost completely absent.
[…]
The analysis of the Standard German sources of A.'s
word-onset tagms revealed that in almost all cases, his [‑abrupt] onset tagms—including diphonic [ts], where
this feature value was present in the second element—originated in the same
sounds of the standard.
[…]
[…] Particularly noteworthy is the word-onset
tagm [g], which never derived from Standard German [g], but from [ʀ], [d] or [ʃn]. Words with Standard German [g] did not
exist in A.'s lexicon at the time of evaluation.
The word onset Ø always originated in Ø, but about half of the cases with a Standard German Ø onset were supplemented with a
word-onset consonant.
4.1.2.2
Word
coda
At the age of 17 months, A. used
fairly many word-coda tagms, which had no regular relation to the source tagms
of the standard. The following word-coda tagms were observed (the tagms marked
with an asterisk occurred for the first time shortly after the evaluation):
|
Ø
|
|
[ b]
|
[ t]
|
[ d] *
|
[ k]
|
|
|
|
[ pf]
|
|
|
[ f]
|
[ w]
|
[ s]
|
|
[ x]
|
[ j]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ n]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ ʀ] *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ h]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The word-coda tagms obviously formed
no coherent system at this time. The analysis of the underlying tagms of the
standard language rather suggests that A.'s inventory of word-coda tagms was
augmented each time a newly acquired word made this necessary. Diphonic
word-coda tagms were often rendered by their abrupt element: [k], for
instance, was used for [ks]. The value of [voiced] was disregarded in the process, as
is shown by [k] from [ŋk] and [b] from [mp] ([gákèː] "danke" 'thank
you,' [báːbɔ̀ː] "Lampe"); since the coda tagm was followed by a vowel
in both cases, "final devoicing" can be ruled out as an explanation
of the phenomenon.
The diphonic word-coda tagm [lt] was,
however, not replaced by [t], but by [j]—as was monophonic [l], which was
replaced by [w] in another case, though. As [x] could also
originate in [t] ([bɔx], later [bʶɔx] "Brot" 'bread') and [k] could originate in [d] ([gákɔ̀ː] "Radio")—although this was an instance of a word-internal consonant—it becomes
evident that the approach of tracing A.'s word-coda tagms back to their
Standard German sources is not very fruitful.
[…]
[…] [s] is
maintained when it follows [ɪ] after
any substitution concerning vowel tagms has taken place. There is further the
substitution of [s] by [f] after [u] (in [hauf] "aus" 'out') [….] The rule [-cns] → [‑cns]+[ɪ] / __ [s] that emerged in the further course of language
development suggests, however, that this example was not accidental, but that [s] indeed required a preceding vowel with the
feature value [+acute] or—to put it differently—that [s] could not occur after a [‑acute] vowel. When A. was 17 months old,
his lexicon included no words in which [s] occurred after other nuclei than those
mentioned above.
[…]
4.1.2.3
Nucleus
and intervocalic word-internal consonants
The following tagms were identified
in A.'s nuclei:
·
Monophonic
tagms: [ɪ], [e], [a], [ɔ], and [u]. There had been no clear separation between [ɪ] and [e], on the one hand, and [ɔ] and [u], on the other hand for a fairly long time, but
by the time of the first evaluation, the separation had become stable. At the
very beginning of language acquisition, [ʏː] (in [tʏːə] "Tür" 'door') had also been used, but was abandoned before long.
·
Diphonic
tagms: [aɪ] and [au].
The value of the feature [long] of monophonic vowel tagms was in general
dependent on whether or not the syllable was closed, i.e., the vowel was short
in closed and long in open syllables. The exceptions to this rule cannot be
systematized phonologically, but were largely determined by situational
factors. The urgent request, for instance, to be lifted could be realized as [hɔːx] 'up,' in contrast to usual [hɔx]. The
feature [long] therefore lacked phonematic relevance.
[…]
4.1.2.4
Description
of the phonological system by a set of rules
[…]
4.2
Phonological
systems at the second time of evaluation
4.2.1
Preliminary
notes
The first part of this chapter deals with the
rules that the children used to substitute their tagms for the standard tagms.
It is a survey of the complete inventory of N.'s and A.'s word-onset, word-coda
and intervocalic word-internal consonants and their nuclei.
[…]
The rule numbers and tagms are followed by a
code of use: A stroke marks the absence of a tagm, while the codes N and A show
that the tagm was present in N.'s and A.'s systems, resp. Since […] the time of
evaluation was chosen for reasons outside the phonological system and is
therefore arbitrary under the aspect of phonology, the tagms registered for the
first time within two weeks and two months of the time of evaluation are also
marked with the code, which is then supplemented with a single and double
asterisk, resp. Such later substitution rules will, however, be disregarded for
the formulation of the rules of the phonological systems.
A lean-faced code, followed by a number, means
that the tagm was realized in the same way as in the standard and that this is
evidenced by the given number of paradigms. If secondary forms existed for any
of the paradigms or if other notes concerning the rules are necessary, they
will be given in footnotes.
When substitutions by other than the
Standard German tagms were observed, N or A is set in boldface; this refers to
detailed information in the sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3,
where complete words can also be found.
Word onset (cf. 4.2.2.2, p. 12 and 4.2.3.2, p. 15)
1. [ b] N A,
4
2. [ d] N,
3 A
3. [ f] N, 3 A, 5
4. [ g] N,
3 A
5. [ h] N,
4 A,
6
6. [ j] N, 3 A
7. [ k] N,
3 A,
6
8. [ l] N A
9. [ m] N,
3 A,
5
10. [ n] N,
2 A,
6
11. [ p] N A
12/13. [ ʀ] N A, 4
14. [ z] N A,
5
15. [
ʃ] N A
16. [ t] N,
4 A
17. [ v] N A
18. [ pf] N A
19. [ sk] - -
20. [ bl] N A, 3
21. [ fl] N A
22. [ gl] N A
23. [ kl] N A
24. [ pl] N A,
1
25. [ ʃl] N A*
26. [ ʃm] N A
27. [ gn] - -
28. [ kn] N A
29. [ ʃn] N* A
30. [ ʃp] N A
31. [ bʀ] N A
32. [ dʀ] N A
33. [ fʀ] N A**, 1
34. [ gʀ] N A
35. [ kʀ] N A, 2
36. [ pʀ] - -
37. [ ʃʀ] N* A
38. [ tʀ] N A
39. [ vʀ] - -
40-48 = 31-39
49. [ ts] N A,
4
50. [ tʃ] N A
51. [ ʃt] N A
52. [ kv] N** -
53. [ ʃv] N A
54. [ pfl] N* A**
55. [ skl] - -
56. [ ʃpl] - -
57. [ pfʀ] - -
58. [ ʃpʀ] N* A
59. [ ʃtʀ] N A
60-62 = 57-59
63. [ tsv] N* A
Word coda (cf. 4.2.2.3, p. 14 and 4.2.3.3, p. 15)
Nucleus and
intervocal word-internal consonants (cf. 4.2.2.4, p. 14 and 4.2.3.4, p. 15)
Nucleus
Intervocalic word-internal
consonants
Deviations from the standard were found for the
following substitution rules that N. used at the age of 22 months. Paradigms
for which more than one rule is applicable are italicized and cross-referenced
to the other rule(s). As in the preceding list, the rules and paradigms that
were added within the first two weeks of the time of evaluation are marked with
one asterisk, while those added within the period from two weeks to two months
after the evaluation are marked with two asterisks. The arrow ↦ between two pronunciations of one word means
that the second pronunciation replaced the first one within the two months
following the evaluation. A question mark ? in a rule
with an environment specifies a tagm that was not observed in the environment
thus marked. Two opposing arrows ⇄ indicate
that the respective tagms occurred in free variation.
1.1 [ b] → [ b] Paradigms: backen, Bauch, bitte.
1.2 [ b] → [ h] Paradigm: Bäcker.
8.1 [ l] → [ z] Paradigms: lacht (cf. 8.4), Lampe, langsam [zaŋ],
laut.
8.2 [ l] → [ l] Paradigm: Loch.
8.3 [ l] → [ v] Paradigm: Löffel.
8.4 [ l] → [ j] Paradigm: lacht [jax]
(cf. 8.1).
11.1 [ p] → [ p] Paradigms:
packen, Post.
11.2 [ p] → [ b̥] Paradigms:
piekst [b̥̥eis], putzen.
12/13. [ ʀ] → [ h] Paradigms: Rassel,
Regen, rennen, runter.
14. [ z] → [ s] Paradigms: sauber, sechs,
Sonne.
15.1 [ ʃ] → [ s] Paradigms:
Schaukel, Schoß.
15.2 [ ʃ] → [ ʃˢ] Paradigms:
chic, scharf, Schiff, Schild.
17.1 [ v] → [ v] Paradigms:
warm, warten, was, Wäsche.
17.2 [ v] → [ b] Paradigm:
Wasser.
18. [ pf] → [ f] Paradigm:
Pferd.
20. [ bl] → [ b] Paradigm:
Blume.
21. [ fl] → [ f] Paradigms:
Fläschchen, Fleisch, fliegen.
22. [ gl] → [ g] Paradigm:
gleich.
23. [ kl] → [ k] Paradigms:
klein, Klötzchen.
24. [ pl] → [ p] Paradigms:
Platz, Plätzchen.
25.1 [ ʃl] → [ ʃˢ] Paradigm:
schlafen.
25.2 [ ʃl] → [ z] Paradigm:
Schlüssel.
26.1 [ ʃm] → [ p] Paradigm:
schmutzig.
26.2* [ ʃm] → [ m] Paradigms:
schmeckt, Schmetterling [mektaiŋ̩]
↦
[meta.liŋ], schmusen.
28. [ kn] → [ ŋ] Paradigm: Knopf.
29.1* [ ʃn] → [ ʃˢ] Paradigm: schneiden [ʃˢain̩] ↦ [hjain̩].
29.2** [ ʃn] → [ n] Paradigm:
Schnupfen.
30. [ ʃp] → [ p] Paradigms:
Spiegel, spülen.
31. [ bʀ] → [ b] Paradigms: Brille, Brot.
32. [ dʀ] → [ d] Paradigms:
dran, drauf, drei.
33. [ fʀ] → [ f] Paradigm:
Frau.
34. [ gʀ] → [ g] Paradigm:
groß.
35. [ kʀ] → [ k] Paradigm:
Krümel.
37.* [ ʃʀ] → [ ʃˢ] Paradigms:
Hubschrauber [ʃˢaube], Schrank.
38. [ tʀ] → [ t] Paradigms:
tragen, trinken, trocken.
49.1 [ ts] → [ ts] Paradigms:
anziehen, zu.
49.2 [ ts] → [ t] Paradigms:
Zaun, Zug.
50. [ tʃ] → [ t] Paradigm: tschüs [tis].
51. [ ʃt] → [ t] Paradigms:
einsteigen [aintain], Stein, Stufe, Stuhl.
52.** [ kv] → [ k] Paradigm:
bequem [keːm].
53. [ ʃv] → [ f] Paradigms:
schwer, verschwunden.
54.* [ pfl] → [ f] Paradigm: Pflaume.
58.* [ ʃpʀ] → [ p] Paradigm:
gesprochen.
59. [ ʃtʀ] → [ t] Paradigms:
Straße, Strümpfe.
63.* [ tsv] → [ ts] Paradigm:
zwei.
Particularly striking among the substitution
rules for monophonic word-onset tagms are the four rules for [ l]. When the onset of Löffel 'spoon,' which was certainly the product of assimilation in
N.'s language, is disregarded, the word-onset tagm [ l] is characterized
by the transition from the effort to attain the standard realization to the
consolidation of that realization. The tagm [z], which did not compete with standard [z], because the latter was always replaced by [s], was still prevalent at this time; rule 8.2,
however, testifies to the advance of the substitution that would produce the
standard form. Another development occurring at the time of the second
evaluation was the beginning of the differentiation between [s] and [ʃ].
The tagm [ʀ] was always replaced by [h] in the
word onset.
The polyphonic word-onset tagms in the words
used by N. were generally simplified to monophonic tagms by dropping the
non-abrupt, non-nasal element. If the word onset included a nasal element, it
was maintained, while the other elements were dropped; in the case of [kn], [k] and [n] were fused as it were (see rule 28) to become the word-onset tagm [ŋ], which
does not exist in the standard.
The most important exceptions to these general
rules were the rules 18 and 54, which are likely to be due to the father's
influence because his language does not include [pf] in the
word-onset, and the rules 49.1 and 63, where no further reduction of [ts] was seen.
[…]
The word-coda particularities
include [ŋ], which developed from -gen according to rule 69.3 and was
pronounced as a syllabic consonant in these cases. […] As to [ l] (rule 71), an increasing approximation to, and
adoption of, the standard pronunciation was found, as has already been described
for the word onset in 4.2.2.2. [….] The incipient differentiation between [s] und [ ʃ], which has already been described for the word
onset, was also observed in the word coda (rule 80). [t] as the second component of word-coda
tagms was maintained if the first component was voiced; it was, however,
dropped if the first component was voiceless (rules 144 to 154). The regular
diphonic word-coda tagms with [t] after voiceless consonants were
adopted within few weeks of the time of evaluation; in these cases, the [t] was initially often realized like a whispered syllable that was clearly
separated from the preceding portion of the word.
Nucleus
[…]
In the vowel tagms, the
differentiation of the length feature does not seem to have completely
consolidated. Open and closed vowels were not differentiated. The round, acute
vowels, the so-called umlauts, were in the phase of transition from approximate
substitutions to Standard German realizations, although the evidence is limited
to only one paradigm each for [øː] and [œ].
Intervocalic
word-internal consonants
[…]
The intervocalic word-internal
consonants correspond mostly to word-coda consonants, in few cases—e.g. rule
265/266—to the word onset.
4.2.2.5
Description
of the phonological system by a set of rules
For the time of the second
evaluation, the structure of N.'s phonological system—which underlies the
substitution rules—can be described with the following rules:
[…]
4.2.3.1
General
information
When A. was 21½ months old, the following
substitution rules of his deviated from the standard. (Information on the
symbols used in the lists is given in section 4.2.2.1.)
At the age of 21½ months, monophonic
and diphonic tagms were present in A.'s phonological system. If substitutions
concerning monophonic tagms did not agree with the standard, they were in most
cases paradigm-specific. Systematic differences from the standard were found
for [ j] (rule 6) and [ l] (rule 8), which had merged in [ z]; the beginning of their
differentiation was observed at the time of evaluation, though. The word-onset tagms
that are diphonic in Standard German were in a similar transitional stage: Some
paradigms followed the general rule, i.e., omission of the non-abrupt,
non-nasal component and realization of the resulting monophonic word onset,
whereas other paradigms showed the Standard German diphonic realization. If the
first component of a diphonic word-onset tagm was [ ʃ ], this sound
was dropped, except in the Standard German word-onset tagms [ ʃn] and [ ʃʀ], where the elements [n] and [ʀ], resp., were dropped. […] A particularly striking feature was the use
of [ gʀ] for [ dʀ] and of [ kʀ] for [ tʀ]. This type of substitution covered the triphonic word-onset tagm [ ʃtʀ], too, and A. used it for a long time. […]
[…]
A striking substitution among the
word-coda changes is [ŋ] from Standard German ‑gen; it was sometimes supplemented by [ne] (e.g. [liːŋne] "liegen"
'to lie (down)') so that the original number of syllables was maintained.
The plosive was also dropped in -ben and -den; the nasal consonant, assimilated accordingly, was either
pronounced syllabically or the number of syllables was maintained by the
addition of [e]. […] When [ʀ] was the first component of polyphonic tagms, it was often dropped, but
there were also diphonic tagms with [ʀ] or [ʶ]. […] Two weeks after the second
evaluation, A. simultaneously adopted all the diphonic word-coda tagms with [t] after a voiceless consonant; the [t] was at first distinctly separated
from the beginning of the word and realized like a whispered syllable.
Nucleus
[…]
The length feature of the vowel tagms had not yet been very much
consolidated at the time of evaluation. Although there was a well perceivable
difference between long and short vowels, half-long variants were realized
conspicuously often and in part occurred in free alternation with either the
corresponding long or the corresponding short form. The half-long variants
therefore do not have the status of phonemes. Long vowels were also observed as
the first element of diphonic tagms (rule 212.2). At the age of 21½ months,
A.'s vowel tagms also showed deviations from the standard in respect of
openness, although free alternation between different degrees of openness was
not usually observed.
Intervocalic word-internal
consonants
[…]
4.2.3.5
Description
of the phonological system by a set of rules
A.'s phonological system at the time
of the second evaluation can be described by the following rules:
4.3
Comparison
between the phonological systems used at the two times of evaluation
4.3.1
N.
The comparison of the systems N1 and N2 shows a
slight increase in the total number of rules, which hides a much more drastic
change in the structure of the rule set, though. When all onset, coda and
nuclear rules are considered, a marked reduction of inhibition and selection
rules is offset by a still greater increase in the number of concatenation and
substitution rules.
The lower number of selection rules on the
second evaluation is directly linked to the expansion of N.'s inventory of
phonemes, because this resulted in a reduction of the necessity to block
elements in the tables of phones, which are essentially adapted to the
requirements of the standard language. The remaining selection rules have,
however, become more complex. Whereas some groups of sounds were completely
blocked in N1, e.g., all central consonants in the word onset, the inhibition
in N2 was more differentiated and necessitated several, partly quite elaborate,
rules. The greater number of concatenation rules in N2 reflects the increase in
multi-component phonotagms, which had totalled only three in N1.
The word onset had been enlarged in N2 by the
addition of several compact consonants, of which there had been only one in N1.
The clear structure of N1 was kept during this enlargement, in particular if [ʃˢ] is considered the voiceless pendant of [j], which is an unforced assumption because [ç] and [x] did not exist in N2. Like N1, N2 needed only
one rule to generate the single diphonic word-onset tagm—which was, however,
different from the diphonic tagm of N1. The word onset substitution rules had
the same function in N1 and N2, namely the modification of non-tense, voiceless
consonants.
The greatest changes between N1 and N2 occurred
in the word coda. After all consonants but four had been blocked in N1 and two
of the four, [f] and [s], had been distributed in strict agreement with
the preceding vowel tagm, the N2 system comprised nearly five times as many
monophonic word-coda tagms and thus almost all of Standard German. The
difference is even greater in respect of polyphonic word-coda tagms, which were
completely lacking in N1. A more detailed analysis of the concatenation rules
N2-16 to N2-20 shows that about three quarters of all polyphonic word-coda
tagms in N2 terminated in [f] or [s], whereas this applies to only one quarter of
the Standard German word codas. This high proportion, which was not due to the
wrong pronunciation of other word-coda tagms of the standard language, but to
N. "selecting" her words, may be regarded as a
reflex of the word coda in N1. A final devoicing rule, whose function had been fulfilled
by an inhibition rule in N1, supplemented the word-coda substitution rules of
N2.
[…]
The distances of the phonological systems N1
and N2 from the reference system of Standard German reveal a slight approximation to the reference system. When the overall
distance is analyzed by the position of tagms, it becomes apparent that the
word coda had the greatest distance from the reference system, whereas the
distance of the nucleus was smallest (cf. Table 1 and Fig. 1). This order did
not change between N1 and N2, but the nucleus contributed least to the
approximation to the reference system. The word onset showed a slight
approximation to the reference system, which nearly paralleled that of the
overall system. The word-coda distance was reduced a little more than the overall
distance. This allows the conclusion that the reduction of the phonological
distance to the reference system between N1 and N2 was mainly due to the
changes in consonant tagms.
The high degree of word-coda restructuring is
also reflected by the fact that the N1-N2 distance for this subsystem is
approximately the same as the respective R-N2 distance. The word onset and the
nucleus, on the other hand, show distinctly smaller distances between N2 and N1
than between N2 and R, as does the system as a whole.
4.3.2
A.
[…]
The word onset in A1 was characterized by great
regularity and simplicity. As far as the rules are concerned, the simplicity
was reflected in six inhibition and selection rules to block all the phones
that were not needed, while the regularity found its expression in the fact
that only two concatenation rules and no substitution rules were necessary. The
word-onset rules of A2 show a completely different picture. The lower number of
inhibition and selection rules is explained by the greater inventory of
phonemes. The monophonic word-onset tagms were fairly regular in A2, too, but
the nine diphonic tagms were so diverse that—even though the second component
was [+voc] in all
cases but [ts]—four concatenation and one substitution rule
were necessary for their complete description.
[…]
In agreement with this finding, the A1-A2
distances of the word-onset and nuclear subsystems showed values above those
between R and A2. For the word coda and the overall system, A1‑A2 and
R-A2 were approximately equal.
4.4
Similarities
and differences in N.'s and A.'s language developments
4.4.1
Phonological
systems on the first evaluation
The word onset was limited to few tagms in both
N1 and A1. The rules N1-03 and N1-04 and A1-03 and A1-04 block similar groups
of consonants; following the application of further inhibition rules, two quite
regular word-onset subsystems result, with almost only non-compact consonants
in N1 and mainly abrupt and vocalic consonants in A1. The regularity of either
word-onset system is disturbed by one diphonic tagm each. Unlike A., N. seems
to have selected her "active" words so as to have them fit her
phonological system as well as possible, whereas A. used his restricted
inventory of word-onset tagms to reproduce a large number of different tagms of
the German standard.
[…]
4.4.2
Phonological
systems on the second evaluation
N2 and A2 showed considerable differences in
the word onset, which became also manifest in the about 50 % greater number of rules
in the latter system. Although the monophonic tagms generated by either system
were largely identical, N2 had only one diphonic word-onset tagm—[ts], which is also present in the reference system
—whereas A2, on the other hand, comprised a total of nine diphonic tagms in the
word onset. Except for one of these tagms, the second component was a [+voc] consonant, which is also the most
frequent second component in the Standard German word-onset tagms. Both N2 and
A2 contained variants in the form of voiceless lenes—not completely identical
in the two systems—and there were two substitution rules in either system to
describe them.
[…]
4.4.3
Rates
of approximation to the reference system
If a triangle is constructed according to Fig.
2 so that the three sides correspond to the distances between the systems, the angle b will be a measure of the rate at which
the test system approaches the reference system. The evaluation of the
phonological distances of N. and A. showed that, at an angle of b=52°, A.'s overall system approached
the reference system faster than N.'s overall system, for which a value of b=62° was found. The differences were
even greater in respect of the word onset and the nucleus; the calculation of
the latter subsystem yielded an angle b of 33°, which indicates a particularly fast
approximation to the reference system. For the word coda, on the other hand,
the two systems showed virtually identical values of 57° and 58° (cf. Table 2).
5
Discussion
The description of early infant speech by means
of phonological rules raises different questions. The first is in how far a set
of rules like the one given above is suitable to describe infant sound
sequences that are difficult to understand on first hearing—and not rarely on
repeated hearing, too—and moreover seem rather inconsistent. Does such a set
really describe phonological structures that are characteristic of a certain
time of the child's development, or does it rather force into an arbitrary
system what is actually marked by a more or less pronounced lack of rules? The substitutions described above
of tagms of the standard language do, however, show very clearly that N.'s and
A.'s ways of producing words were all but ruleless. The analysis of the substitution
rules reveals that they can often be explained by the replacement or avoidance
of certain distinctive features. At the first time of evaluation, for instance,
A. used almost only abrupt and nasal consonants in the word onset, whereas N.'s
word coda would be only [f] or [s] if no vowel followed. That the use of rules on
the basis of distinctive features allows a concise description of the
phonological structure in such cases is quite obvious.
[…]
When these considerations are
applied to the analysis of the two children's phonological systems and their
developments, fairly great differences become apparent. Whereas even before the
first time of evaluation, N. had shown a strong tendency to adapt new words to
structures she had developed before, A., when acquiring a new word, seemed to
be tempted to expand or modify the structures he had used so far in order to
assimilate the sound pattern he produced to the pattern he had heard. These
tendencies were not distinct in the word onset because both children had
developed quite regular inventories of consonants by 17 months. They were,
however, very pronounced in the word coda. From her first word, heiß 'hot,' N. was inclined to have new
words with acute vowel tagms terminate in [s], even if
there was no such combination in the Standard German source. The [s] word coda was supplemented by an [f] coda after non-acute vowels when she was 15
months old. She had thus built a regular system that continued for quite a long
time to be most important for her forming the word coda. A., on the other hand,
restructured his word-coda system as needed for the acquisition of new words;
between 14½ and 15 months of age, for instance, [k], [m], [x], [t], and [n] (in this order) were added. Since A.'s first
word, Tür 'door,' does not contain a
clearly noticeable word coda—the less so if the parents' pronunciation is also
considered—this fact, i.e. the absence of a marked first impression, might be
the explanation for the large inventory of word-coda consonants at the time of
the first evaluation. This could further mean that either
child's first word had a decisive importance for the initial development of the
phonological system.
[…]
The children showed marked
differences in the rates of approximation of their phonological systems to the
standard system. The rates of approximation, as measured by angle b (cf. p. 18), were virtually the same for N.'s
and A.'s word codas, but A. approached the reference system much more directly
than N. did, as far as the word-onset and nuclear subsystems and the overall
system were concerned (cf. Fig. 4). As a result, A2—in respect of both the
subsystems and the overall system—was closer to the reference system than N2,
although part of the distances between the reference system and A1 had been
greater than between the reference system and N1. If the phonological distances
N1-N2 and A1-A2 are taken as a measure of the intensity of remodelling the
phonological systems, N. is found to show almost the same intensity as A. does;
only for the word onset was her intensity of remodelling only about two thirds
of A.'s value. […]
The question therefore arises which
factor was responsible for N.'s much slower approximation to the reference
system, although she remodelled her phonological system similarly intensely as
A. did. Among the factors that were different for N. and A., e.g., first word,
size of the inventory of phonotagms, etc., the acquisition strategy seems to be
the factor that best explains the different rates of approximation during the
period of examination. As has already been mentioned above, the observations
suggest that A. remodelled his system—not rarely ad hoc—as he learned new words. This means that A. had a tendency of not
being particularly "careful" with any system he had developed by a
specific time. This allowed him, on the other hand, to integrate influences
emanating from the goal, i.e. the standard, fairly easily. N., however,
remodelled her system rather by developing the rules she had found earlier.
This probably limited the extent of changes by allowing only modifications that
did not—or at least not too much—affect the existing system. The direction of
changes thus depended on the prior system more than on the goal. Such an
acquisition strategy can be expected to result in lower rates of approximation.
The rules can also answer the question how
important specific distinctive features were at the two times of evaluation.
[…] Supposing that the rules have been formulated in a way adequate to the
system described, i.e., that they are economical, the absence or
disproportionately rare use of a distinctive feature in the rules could suggest
that this feature had no importance for the child, although this would give no
indication as to whether the lack of importance was more strongly related to
perception or production.
Such absences of distinctive features were
indeed found in the rules of N1 and A1. […]
Although at the first time of evaluation, the
phonological systems of the two children examined in this study comprised
phonemes with both positive and negative values of [intermediate] and [central], these features had no distinctive
force because the other features of those phonemes were sufficient to set them
off against other phonemes. In view of the differences between the subsystems
both of either child and interpersonally, it is very striking to find that, on
the first evaluation, the features [intermediate] und [central] had no (in N1) and almost no (in A1) function in the phonological
systems. This suggests that these two features were not yet available for the
production of sounds at that time.
[…]
6
References
BEST, Catherine T.
(1993) "Emergence of language-specific constraints in perception of native
and non-native speech. A window on early phonological development,” in
Bénédicte de Boysson-Bardies, Scania de Schonen, Peter W. Jusczyk, Peter F.
MacNeilage, and John Morton, eds., Developmental
neurocognition: Speech and face processing during the first year of life,
Kluwer, Dordrecht.
BLOOM, Lois (1993) The transition from infancy to language:
acquiring the power of expression, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
(UK).
BOYSSON-BARDIES, Bénédicte
de and Marilyn May VIHMAN (1991) "Adaptation to language: Evidence from
babbling and first words in four languages," Language 67
(2), 297-319.
BRENT, Michael R. and
Timothy A. CARTWRIGHT (1996) "Distributional regularity and phonotactic
constraints are useful for segmentation," Cognition 61,
93-125.
CHURCH, Kenneth W.
(1987) "Phonological parsing and lexical retrieval," Cognition
25, 53-69.
CUTLER, A. (1994)
"Segmentation problems, rhythmic solutions," Lingua 29,
81-104.
EIMAS, Peter D.
(1975) "Auditory and phonetic coding of the cues for speech.
Discrimination of the /r-l/ distinction by young infants," Perception and Psychophysics 18, 341-347.
FERGUSON, Charles A.,
David B. PEIZER, and Thelma E. WEEKS (1973) "Model-and-replica
phonological grammar of a child's first words," Lingua 31,
35-65.
FERGUSON, Charles A.
and Carol B. FARWELL (1975) "Words and sounds in early language
acquisition," Language 51 (2), 419-439.
GOAD, Heather and
David INGRAM (1986) "Individual variation and its relevance to a theory of
phonological acquisition," J Child Lang 14, 419-432.
GOLDIN-MEADOW, Susan,
Martin P. SELIGMAN and Rochel GELMAN (1976) "Language in the
two-year-old," Cognition 4, 189-202.
GRIESER, DiAnne and
Patricia K. KUHL (1989) "Categorization of speech by infants: Supports for
speech-sound prototypes," Developmental
Psychology 25 (4), 577-588.
INGRAM, David (1978)
"Sensorimotor intelligence and language development," in Andrew Lock,
ed., Action, gesture and symbol. The emergence of language, p. 261-290,
Academic Press, New York.
INGRAM, David (1981) Procedures for the phonological analysis of
children's language, University Park Press, Baltimore.
INGRAM, David (1992)
"Early phonological acquisition: A cross-linguistic perspective," in
Charles A. Ferguson, Lise Menn, and Carol Stoel-Gammon, eds., Phonological development: models,
research, implications, p. 423-438, York Press, Timonium.
JAKOBSON, Roman (1941) Kindersprache,
Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze, Almqvist & Wiksell, Uppsala.
JUSCZYK, Peter W.
(1993) "From general to language-specific capacities: The WRAPSA model of
how speech perception develops," Journal of Phonetics 21, 3-28.
JUSCZYK, Peter W.
(1995) "Language acquisition: Speech sound and the beginnings of
phonology," in Joanne L. Miller and Peter D. Eimas, eds., Speech,
language, and communication, p. 263-301, Academic Press, London.
JUSCZYK, Peter W. and
Carolyn DERRAH (1987) "Representation of speech sound by young
infants," Developmental
Psychology 23 (5),
648-654.
JUSCZYK, Peter W. and
Paul A. LUCE (1994) "Infants' sensitivity to phonotactic patterns in the
native language," Journal of Memory and Language 33,
630-645.
KAGER, René, Joe PATER, and Wim ZONNEVELD (2004) Constraints on Phonological Acquisition,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
KENT, Ray D. (1993a)
"Infants and speech. Seeking patterns," Journal of Phonetics 21, 117-123.
KENT, Ray D. (1993b)
"The biology of phonological development," in Charles A. Ferguson, Lise Menn, and
Carol Stoel-Gammon, eds., Phonological development: models, research,
implications, p. 65-91, York Press, Timonium.
KLANN-DELIUS, Gisela (1996) "Einige praktische Probleme von
Langzeituntersuchungen und ihre methodologischen Implikationen," in Konrad
Ehlich, ed., Kindliche Sprachentwicklung,
p. 17-29, Westdt. Verlag, Opladen.
KLEINE, Heinrich (1989) Phonologische und statistisch-dialektgeographische Untersuchungen an
nordelsässischen Ortsdialekten, Franz Steiner, Stuttgart. (ZDL Beihefte 63)
KUHL, Patricia K.
(1979) "Speech perception in early infancy. Perceptual constancy for
spectrally dissimilar vowel categories," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 66, 1668-1679.
KUHL, Patricia K. and
Joanne D. MILLER (1982) "Speech perception by the chinchilla.
Voice-voiceless distinction in alveolar plosive consonants," Science
190, 69-72.
LANDAUER, T. K. and
L. A. STREETER (1973) "Structural differences between common and rare
words: Failure of equivalence assumption for theories of word
recognition," Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior 12, 119-131.
LOCKE, John L. (1983)
Phonological acquisition and change,
Academic Press, New York.
LOCKE, John L. (1993)
The child's path to spoken language,
Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass.
MACKEN, Marlys A.
(1992) "Where's phonology?" in Charles A. Ferguson, Lise Menn, and
Carol Stoel-Gammon, eds., Phonological development:
models, research, implications, p. 249-269, York Press, Timonium.
MACKEN, Marlys A. und
Charles A. FERGUSON (1983) "Cognitive aspects of phonological development:
Model, evidence and issues," in Keith E. Nelson, ed., Children's
language, vol. 4, p. 256-282, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
MENN, Lise (1979)
"Towards a psychology of phonology: Child phonology as a first step,"
Proceedings of the Conference on Applications of Linguistic Theory in the
Human Sciences, p. 138-179, Michigan State University, Lansing.
MESSER, Stanley
(1967) "Implicit phonology in children," Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior
6, 609-613.
MOSKOWITZ, Breyne
Arlene (1980) "Idioms in phonology acquisition and phonological
change," Journal of Phonetics 8, 69-83.
RATNER, Nan Bernstein
(1994) "Phonological analysis of child speech," in Jeffrey L. Sokolov
and Catherine E. Snow, eds., Handbook of research in language
development using CHILDES, p. 324-366, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
SAFFRAN, Jenny R.,
Elizabeth K. JOHNSON, Richard N. ASLIN, and Elissa L. NEWPORT (1999)
"Statistical learning of tone sequences by human infants and adults,"
Cognition 70, 27-52.
SCHLEIER, Inge (1996) "Phonologie und
Kindersprachforschung," in Konrad Ehlich, ed., Kindliche
Sprachentwicklung, p. 121-134, Westdt. Verlag, Opladen.
SCHWARTZ, Richard G.
(1988) "Phonological factors in early lexical acquisition," in
Michael D. Smith and John L. Locke, eds., The Emergent Lexicon. The child's
development of a linguistic vocabulary, p. 185–222, Academic Press, Inc.,
San Diego.
SMITH, Michael D.
(1988) "The meaning of reference in emergent lexicons," in Michael D.
Smith and John L. Locke, eds., The
Emergent Lexicon. The child's development of a linguistic vocabulary, p.
23-48, Academic Press, Inc., San Diego.
STEMBERGER, Joseph
Paul (1988) "Between-word processes in child phonology," J Child Lang 15, 39-61.
STOEL-GAMMON, Carol
(1985) "Phonetic inventories, 15-24 months: A longitudinal study," Journal of Speech and Hearing Research
28, 505-512.
STOEL-GAMMON, Carol
and Judith A. COOPER (1984) "Patterns of early lexical and phonological
development," J Child Lang 11, 247-271.
SUOMI, Kari (1993)
"An outline of a model of adult phonological organization and
behaviour," Journal of
Phonetics 21, 29-60
VIHMAN, Marilyn May
(1993) "Variable paths to early word production," Journal of Phonetics 21, 61-82.
VIHMAN, Marilyn May
(1996) Phonological development: the
origins of language in the child, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford.
VIHMAN, Marilyn May,
Marlys A. MACKEN, Ruth MILLER, Hazel SIMMONS, and Jim MILLER (1985) "From
babbling to speech: A re-assessment of the continuity issue," Language
61 (2), 397-445.
VIHMAN, Marilyn May
and Ruth MILLER (1988) "Words and babble at the threshold of language
acquisition," in Michael D. Smith and John L. Locke, eds., The Emergent
Lexicon. The child's development of a linguistic vocabulary, p. 151-184,
Academic Press, Inc., San Diego.
WERKER, Janet F.
(1991) "The ontogeny of speech perception," in Ignatius G. Mattingly
and Michael Studdert-Kennedy, eds., Modularity and the motor theory of speech
perception, p. 91 – 109, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
WINITZ, Harris and
Orvis C. IRWIN (1958) "Syllabic and phonetic structure of infants' early
words," Journal of
Speech and Hearing Research 1,3:
250-256.