OJSL Home

2022 - Volume 5 - Number 1

Consonant Epenthesis in Greek Child Speech: A Phonological Perspective

Anastasios Poulidakis * philp0824@philology.uoc.gr * ORCID: 0000-0002-7992-2192
University of Crete, School of Philosophy, Department of Philology, GREECE

Open Journal for Studies in Linguistics, 2022, 5(1), 1-10 * https://doi.org/10.32591/coas.ojsl.0501.01001p
Received: 19 March 2022 ▪ Revised: 11 June 2022 ▪ Accepted: 30 June 2022

LICENCE: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

ARTICLE (Full Text - PDF)

ABSTRACT:
In this paper a less well-studied process is discussed, namely, segmental insertion in child language. The main question of the study is why children use consonant epenthesis in their speech. Our assumptions are based on picture naming and spontaneous speech collected from four monolingual Greek-speaking children varying in age from 1;6.26 to 2;10.9. Their data reveal that it is a systematic process which helps them simplify their speech by forming unmarked structures (Oller, 1974). The position of the epenthetic segment as well as its quality are also examined. We observe that an epenthetic consonant is inserted at the left or right edge of the word in order for an unmarked CV syllable to emerge. In a few cases with cluster simplification, a consonant is inserted to the syllable that does not contain the cluster in order to maintain in number all the segments of the adult’s form. Further, the epenthetic segment, which arises in one of the two edges of the word, constitutes a full copy of a consonant located at the other edge. This interaction seems to support the view that edgemost syllables are psycholinguistically prominent positions (e.g., Pater, 1997, Smith, 2002) and children tend to pay more attention to them (Slobin, 1973). For the analysis of children’s tokens, Optimality Theory is adopted (Prince & Smolensky, 1993) and how this model can account for all the properties presented in consonant epenthesis is explained.

KEY WORDS: language acquisition, consonant epenthesis in Greek, prominence of word edges, optimality theory.

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Anastasios Poulidakis, University of Crete, School of Philosophy, GREECE. E-mail: philp0824@philology.uoc.gr.

REFERENCES:

Abrahamsson, N. (1999). Vowel epenthesis of /sC(C)/ onsets in Spanish/Swedish interphonology: A longitudinal case study. Language Learning, 49(3), 473-508. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00097

Alber, B., & Plag, I. (2001). Epenthesis, deletion and the emergence of the optimal syllable in creole: the case of Sranan. Lingua, 111(11), 811-840. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(00)00051-6

Boudaoud, M., & Cardoso, W. (2009). Vocalic [e] epenthesis and variation in Farsi-English interlanguage speech. In W. Cardoso, M. Levey, F. Stendardo & M. Williamson (Eds.), Concordia working papers in applied linguistics 2 (pp. 1-34). Montreal: Concordia University.

Demuth, K. (1995). Markedness and the development of prosodic structure. In n. J. Beckman (ed.), Proceedings of NELS, 25(2)(pp. 13-25). Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts. https://doi.org/doi:10.7282/T3F18WSK

Demuth, K., Culbertson, J., & Alter, J. (2006). Word-minimality, epenthesis and coda licensing in the early acquisition of English. In S. M. Vitevitch & A. R. Atchley (Eds.). Language and Speech, 49(2), 137-174. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309060490020201

Gnanadesikan, E. A. (2004). Markedness and faithfulness constraints in child phonology. In R. Kager, J. Pater & W. Zonneveld (Eds.), Constraints in phonological acquisition (pp. 73-108). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486418.004

Goad, H. (unpunblished results). Consonant harmony and reduplication: Parallels and differences. Paper presented at the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Boston University.

Hansson, Ó. G. (2010). Consonant harmony: Long-distance interaction in phonology. Ph.D. Dissertation. In UC Publications in Linguistics. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2qs7r1mw

Itô, J., & Mester, R. A. (1995). Japanese Phonology. In A. J. Goldsmith (Ed.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp. 817-838). Oxford: Blackwell.

Kappa, I. (2002). On the acquisition of syllabic structure in Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 3(1), 1-52. https://doi.org/10.1075/jgl.3.03kap

Kappa, I., & Paracheraki, N. (2014). Blocking of velar palatalization in child speech. In: Koutsoukos Nikolaos (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory (pp. 56-58). Patra: University of Patras.

Kitto, C., & Lacy de Paul (1999). Correspondence and epenthetic quality. In C. Kitto & C. Smallwood (Eds.), Proceedings of AFLA VI (pp. 181-200). Ontario: University of Toronto. https://doi.org/10.7282/T3G15XWH

Klein, B. H. (2005). Reduplication Revisited: Functions, Constraints, Repairs, and Clinical Implications. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 14(1), 71-83. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2005/009)

Lombardi, L. (1999). Positional faithfulness and voicing assimilation in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17(2), 267-302. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006182130229

Lombardi, L. (2002). Coronal epenthesis and markedness. Phonology, 19(2), 219-251. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675702004323

McCarthy, J. J., & Prince, A. (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In N. J. Beckman, S. Urbanczyk & W. L. Dickey (Eds.). Papers in Optimality Theory, University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers, 18 (pp. 249-384). Amherst, MA: GLSA. https://doi.org/10.7282/T31R6NJ9

Midtlyng, P. (2005). Washo morphophonology: Hiatus resolution at the edges -or- let them be vowels. In L. Harper & C. Jany (Eds.). Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics 16 (pp. 50-62). Santa Barbara: University of California.

Oller, D. K. (1974). Simplification as the goal of phonological processes in child speech. Language Learning, 24(2), 299-303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1974.tb00510.x

Pater, J. (1997). Minimal violation and phonological development. Language Acquisition,6(3), 201-253. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la0603_2

Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms. Rutgers University, New Brunswick and University of Colorado Boulder.

Rose, Sh., & Walker, R. (2004). A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Language,80(3), 475-531. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0144

Slobin, I. D. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In A. C. Ferguson & I. D. Slobin (Eds.), Studies of child language development (pp. 175-208). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Smith, L. J. (2002). Phonological augmentation in prominent positions. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Stemberger, P. J. (1996). Syllable structure in English, with emphasis on codas. In B. Bernhardt, J. Gilbert & D. Ingram (Eds.), Proceedings of the UBC International Conference on Phonological Acquisition (pp. 62-75). Somerville: Cascadilla Press.

Tzakosta, M. (2003). Deletion and insertion: Two pathways towards optimality. In E. Athanasopoulou-Mela (Ed.), Festschrift for Prof. Gogos Alexander. Selected Papers from the 15th International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics (pp. 259-271). Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. https://doi.org/10.26262/istal.v15i0.5686

Tzakosta, M. (2007). Genetic and environmental effects in L1 phonological acquisition: The case of consonant harmony in Greek child speech. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 8(1), 5-30. https://doi.org/10.1075/jgl.8.04tza