In:Phonological and Phonetic Considerations of Lexical Processing
Edited by Gonia Jarema and Gary Libben †
[Benjamins Current Topics 80] 2015
► pp. 67–86
Phonological reduction in the first part of noun compounds
A case study of early child language
Published online: 1 October 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.80.03ste
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.80.03ste
Regular plural nouns rarely appear as the first member of a compound noun in English under any circumstances, while irregular plurals are more likely under certain conditions. One explanation holds that this is a consequence of the fundamentally different ways in which regular and irregular plurals are stored and processed, while an alternative explanation suggests that it may be rooted in phonological differences between regular and irregular forms. If the first part of a compound is phonologically restricted, the restrictions may interact with lexical access in a way that disfavors regular plurals (especially given that plurals of any sort are of low frequency in the first part of a compound, so processing is far from ceiling). This paper provides evidence from a case study of one child that the first part of a compound can be phonologically restricted compared to nouns when they appear as independent words. The data address compounds whose first elements are monomorphemic nouns, rather than plurals, but document the existence of phonological restrictions within compounds for at least one child This existence proof strengthens the hypothesis that differences between regular and irregular forms may derive partly from differences in phonological structure.
References (28)
Berent, I., & Pinker, S. (2007). The dislike of regular plurals in compounds: Phonological or morphological. The Mental Lexicon, 2, 129–181.
Bernhardt, B.H., & Stemberger, J.P. (1998). Handbook of phonological development: From the perspective of constraint-based nonlinear phonology. San Diego: Academic Press.
Bleile, K.M. (1987). Regressions in the phonological development of two children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa.
Boersma, P., & Hayes, B. (2001). Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 45–86.
Browman, C.P., & Goldstein, L.M. (1986). Towards an articulatory phonology. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 219–252.
Buck-Gengler, C.J., Menn, L., & Healy, A. (2004). What ‘‘mice-trap’’ tells us about the mental lexicon. Brain and Language, 90, 453–464.
Gerken, L. (1991). The metrical basis for children’s subjectless sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 431–451.
Gopnik, M., & Crago, M.B. (1991). Familial aggregation of a developmental language disorder. Cognition, 39, 1–50.
Gopnik, M., & Goad, H. (1997). What underlies inflectional error patterns in Genetic Dysphasia? Journal of Neurolinguistics, 10, 109–137.
Haskell, T.R., MacDonald, M.C., & Seidenberg, M.S. (2003). Language learning and innateness: Some implications of compounds research. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 119–163.
Hayes, B. (1999). Phonetically-driven phonology: The role of optimality theory and inductive grounding. InM. Darnell, E. Moravscik, M. Noonan, F. Newmeyer, & K. Wheatly(Eds.), Functionalism and formalism in linguistics, vol. 1 (pp. 243–285). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kehoe, M., & Stoel-Gammon, C. (1997). Truncation patterns in English-speaking children’s word productions. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 40, 526–541.
Kiparsky, P. (1982). From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. InH. van der Hulst & N. Smith(Eds.), The structure of phonological representations, part 1 (pp. 130–175). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris.
Klein, H.B., & Liu-Shea, M. (2009). Between-word simplification patterns in the continuous speech of children with speech sound disorders. Language, speech, and hearing services in schools, 40, 17–30.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk. Third Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Marshall, C.R., & Van der Lely, H.K.J. (2006). A challenge to current models of past tense inflection: the impact of phonotactics. Cognition, 100, 302–320.
Menn, L., & Matthei, E. (1992). The “two-lexicon” approach of child phonology: Looking back, looking ahead. InC.A. Ferguson, L. Menn, & C. Stoel-Gammon(Eds.), Phonological development: Models, research, implications (pp. 211–248). Timonium, MD: York Press.
Pinker, S., & Prince, A.S. (1988). On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition, 28, 73–194.
Pinker, S., & Ullman, M.T. (2002). The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 456–463.
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (2004). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ramscar, M., & Dye, M. (2010). Learning language from the input: Why innate constraints can’t explain noun compounding. Cognitive Psychology, 62, 1–40.
Smolensky, P. (1999). Grammar-based connectionist approaches to language. Cognitive Science, 23, 589–613.
. (2007). Children’s overtensing errors: Phonological and lexical effects on syntax. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 49–64.