Acquisition of #sC clusters in Spanish-English bilingual children

Yavaş, Mehmet; Barlow, Jessica A.

doi:10.1080/14769670601110499

Cited by 22 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Goldstein and Washington, 2001), error patterns (such as processes, transfer, and cross-linguistic effects; cf. Gildersleeve-Neumann, Kester, Davis, andPeñ a, 2008 or Fabiano and, and specific phonological phenomena (such as word-initial sC clusters: Yavaş and Barlow, 2006). A common metric in analysing bilingual phonological acquisition has been the PCC, but, hitherto, the focus has been on overall segmental correctness rather than whole-word approximation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phonological whole‐word measures in 3‐year‐old bilingual children and their age‐matched monolingual peers

Bunta

Fabiano-Smith

Goldstein

et al. 2009

Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated phonological whole-word measures and consonant accuracy in bilingual and monolingual children to investigate how target approximations drive phonological acquisition. The study included eight bilingual Spanish- and English-speaking 3-year-olds and their monolingual peers (eight Spanish and eight American English). Phonological whole-word measures (pMLU and Proximity) and consonant accuracy (PCC) were calculated on elicited single words. Differences were found on each measure between bilinguals and monolinguals in English, but in Spanish, only the PCC displayed differences between bilinguals and monolinguals. Bilinguals displayed language separation on the pMLU and the PCC but not the Proximity, indicating structural phonological differences between the Spanish and English of bilinguals but commensurate target approximations. This suggests that maintaining a consistent level of phonological proximity to the target is an important factor in phonological acquisition. The measures and their relationships are also discussed.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phonological whole‐word measures in 3‐year‐old bilingual children and their age‐matched monolingual peers

Bunta

Fabiano-Smith

Goldstein

et al. 2009

Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One obvious problem with the sonority hypothesis is the existence of '/s/ þ stop' onsets in languages such as English, Dutch, Hebrew, Maltese, to name a few, that result in a drop in sonority level from C1 to C2 instead of the predicted rise (Jongstra, 2003;Ben-David, 2006;Gerrits and Zumach, 2006;Goad and Rose, 2004;Kristoffersen and Simonsen, 2006;Yavaş, 2006;Yavaş and Barlow, 2006;Yavaş and Beaubrun, 2006;Yavaş and Core, 2006;Yavaş and Somelian, 2006). In order to reconcile these clusters with the Sonority Sequencing Principle (SSP) referred to above, it has been proposed that these onsets (hereafter referred to as #sC clusters) are not syllabified directly under the onset constituent, but rather are 'adjunct' to the syllable (Giegerich, 1992;Kenstowicz, 1994).…”

Section: Sonoritymentioning

confidence: 97%

An analysis of the sonority hypothesis and cluster realization in a child with phonological disorder

Klopfenstein

Ball

2010

Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study describes the realization of onset and coda clusters in a 4-year old child acquiring American English, and with a higher than usual level of unintelligible speech. It reviews previous studies that have tested cluster realization against markedness and, in particular, the sonority hypothesis. This latter predicts steep rises in sonority at onsets and more gradual falls in sonority at codas of syllables. The data collected for this study cover four different onset cluster types and three different coda cluster types, and are derived from spontaneous speech produced during clinical sessions. An analysis of the patterns of cluster realizations shows that the participant's cluster realizations do not always follow the sonority hypothesis, and various factors are discussed that could be motivating the child's choice of realization.

show abstract

“…, Giegerich 1992;Kenstowicz, 1994;Barlow, 2001;Yavaş & Someillan, 2005;Yavaş & Barlow, 2006;Yavaş 2013). …”

Section: Frequency Based Analysisunclassified

“…Another study by Yavaş & Barlow (2006) showed that the developmental path followed the sonority predictions. The participant was successful in producing and subsequently acquiring less marked clusters (i.e., /sl/ > /sn/) before more marked ones (i.e., /st/).…”

Section: Sonority Sequencing Principle (Ssp)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of the studies on the L2 acquisition of the initial clusters in the literature have only looked at #sC clusters (e.g., Carlisle, 1991Carlisle, , 1994Carlisle, , 2006Someillan & Yavaş, 2005;Yavaş & Barlow, 2006;Cardoso, 2008; Cardoso, John & French, 2008;Cardoso & Liakin, 2009), with only few studies that included non #sC clusters (e.g., Broselow, 1983Broselow, , 1992Eckman & Iverson, 1994). Further, these studies usually reported that some participants employed epenthesis or prothesis as a process for cluster simplification.…”

Section: VIImentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Acoustic Investigation of Production of Clusters by Saudi Second Language Learners of English

Almalki¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Production errors made by second language (L2) learners of English have been attributed to markedness, L1 transfer or input frequency (cf. Major, 2001;Edwards & Zampini, 2008; Baptista, Rauber, & Watkins, 2009). This thesis examines the production of 17 English initial consonant clusters (e.g., /pr/ in pray) in a markedness relationship, whereby clusters with greater sonority distance between the first and second consonants are unmarked and clusters with smaller sonority distance between the first and second consonants are marked, by two groups of Saudi Arabian L2 English learners. It also explores the effect of input frequency and L1 transfer. Participants were asked to read 60 sentences and their reading was recorded for acoustic analysis. Analysis showed that prothesis was always used to simplify the clusters, and that, the duration of the prothetic vowel tended to get longer when clusters become more marked. Intermediate participants had greater degree of difficulty in producing the clusters and tended to insert a longer prothetic vowel in general. Markedness explained the performance on #sC clusters; however, performance on non #sC clusters was best explained by L1 transfer.Results further indicated that input frequency was irrelevant to this study. Within the realm of second language (L2) phonology, the acquisition of consonant clusters seems to pose great difficulty for speakers with first languages (L1) that do not allow consonant clusters. It is typically thought that the non-native productions by adult L2 speakers are due to differences between the L1 and the L2 linguistic systems. L1 transfer, whereby phonological rules or items from the L1 are transferred to the L2, has been highly used in the literature to account for many of the non-native productions (Lado, 1957;Selinker, 1972;Odlin, 1989). This explanation, for instance, was widely used to account for errors made by Arabic L2 learners of English. viiAccording to Broselow (1992), production errors in the L2 can be attributed either to transfer of L1 phonological rules or to the violation of some universal tendencies.Languages of the world, for instance, are different in their syllable phonotactics: On one hand, some languages are very restricted in their syllable structure by only allowing Consonant (henceforth C) + Vowel (henceforth V) sequencing; on the other hand, other languages are more flexible in allowing more complex structures. In the instances where L1 is restricted and L2 is more flexible, L1 phonotactic constraints would likely to be transferred to the L2. However, markedness has also been discussed in the literature as a plausible explanation for L2 acquisition patterns.In the discussion of the topic, markedness relationships among clusters are often determined by "implicational patterns" (Greenberg, 1965 common, as will be further discussed. The same goes for the degree of complexity by number; if a language allows three consonants to occupy the onset position or the coda position then it will necessarily allow clusters with two m...

show abstract

Acquisition of #sC clusters in Spanish-English bilingual children

Cited by 22 publications

References 17 publications

Phonological whole‐word measures in 3‐year‐old bilingual children and their age‐matched monolingual peers

Phonological whole‐word measures in 3‐year‐old bilingual children and their age‐matched monolingual peers

An analysis of the sonority hypothesis and cluster realization in a child with phonological disorder

Acoustic Investigation of Production of Clusters by Saudi Second Language Learners of English

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About