On the Role of Sympathy in Acquisition

Dinnsen, Daniel A.; McGarrity, Laura W.; O’Connor, Kathleen M.; Swanson, Kimberly A. B.

doi:10.1207/s15327817la0804_02

Cited by 16 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, the claim that opaque generalisations have a distinct status may be empty, if nothing correlates with this putative distinction. Another problem is that there is a significant body of literature arguing that some opaque generalisations are supported by external evidence of their psychological reality : speech errors (Fromkin 1971) ; language games (Al-Mozainy 1981, Sherzer 1970 ; historical change (Dresher 1981) ; versification (Halle & Zeps 1966, Zeps 1973 ; language acquisition (Dinnsen et al 1998, Kisseberth 1976 ; and intra-or inter-dialectal variation (Bromberger & Halle 1989, Donegan & Stampe 1979. (This list is by no means exhaustive.)…”

Section: Denialmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sympathy and phonological opacity

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I also wish to acknowledge the assistance of Ellen Kaisse, two anonymous reviewers and especially the anonymous associate editor, whose detailed, thoughtful and supportive comments did much to improve this article. 5 Since this research was first presented, several works have come to my attention that apply and extend the sympathy notion in novel and insightful ways : Bakovic! (to appear), Davis (1997a, b),

show abstract

Section: Denialmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sympathy and phonological opacity

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These and other opacity effects have also been documented and analysed in optimality-theoretic terms for children with and without phonological delays (e.g. Dinnsen et al 2000, Dinnsen et al 2001, Dinnsen 2004, Dinnsen & McGarrity 2004. The opaque generalisations that these L1 and L2 learners have acquired are common in fully developed languages, but happen not to be observable in the language that is being acquired and are moreover marked relative to the initial state.…”

Section: Shortcomingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

René Kager, Joe Pater and Wim Zonneveld (2004). Constraints in phonological acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. ix+417.

Dinnsen

2004

Phonology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After several years of being cited as in press, the long-anticipated volume Constraints in phonological acquisition, edited by René Kager, Joe Pater and Wim Zonneveld, finally appeared in spring 2004.* This is the first edited volume to be published that is devoted exclusively to phonological acquisition from the perspective of Optimality Theory. The volume includes important contributions from some of the leading figures in Optimality Theory and/or phonological acquisition. Descriptive, experimental and computational studies relating to typical first-language acquisition and foreign-word adaptation are included. The volume is unparalleled in these respects, and should serve as essential reading for researchers and students interested in phonological acquisition or Optimality Theory. In fact, the volume has already achieved considerable success, as evidenced by its many citations in the work of others. Naturally, as with any volume, some shortcomings are also expected, and this volume has its share. On balance, however, the strengths of the volume certainly outweigh its weaknesses. My review begins with a brief critique of each of the eleven chapters and then turns to a consideration of the volume's shortcomings. In fairness to all, it is important to keep in mind that there was a rather considerable lag between the times when the volume was conceived and ultimately published. Several of the chapters were drawn from a 1998 workshop on phonological acquisition held in Utrecht. Additionally, some of the work appeared in one form or another dating as far back as 1994. As a result, much of the volume reflects acquisition research that was conducted in the early stages of Optimality Theory. This review will thus attempt to fill in some of the gaps by identifying current challenges and relevant work. * I am especially grateful to Amanda Edmonds, Ashley Farris, Judith Gierut and Laura McGarrity for their discussions with me about this volume and related issues. I would also like to thank Sharon Hargus for comments on a preliminary draft of this review. This work was supported in part by a grant to Indiana University from the National Institutes of Health (DC 001694).

show abstract

“…Nor are implications of Sympathy in loanword adaptation and, more generally, in acquisition, ever discussed. Recent work by Dinnsen, McGarrity, O'Connor & Swanson (2000) addresses some of these issues.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

René Kager, Joe Pater & Wim Zonneveld (eds), Constraints in phonological acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Pp. 417. ISBN 0-521-82963.*

Curtin

2008

J. Child Lang.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the Role of Sympathy in Acquisition

Cited by 16 publications

References 45 publications

Sympathy and phonological opacity

Sympathy and phonological opacity

René Kager, Joe Pater and Wim Zonneveld (2004). Constraints in phonological acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. ix+417.

René Kager, Joe Pater & Wim Zonneveld (eds), Constraints in phonological acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Pp. 417. ISBN 0-521-82963.*

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About