| ROA: | 265 |
|---|---|
| Title: | Syllable types in cross-linguistic and developmental grammars |
| Authors: | Claartje Levelt, Ruben van de Vijver |
| Comment: | 19pp. Word and RTF files require SILDoulosIPA font (only for five characters) |
| Length: | 19 |
| Abstract: | Syllable types in cross-linguistic and developmental grammars Claartje Levelt & Ruben van de Vijver In Optimality Theory (OT) (Prince & Smolensky 1993) the basic assumption is that constraints are universal, but that the rankings of these constraints are language specific. For language typology the idea is that different rankings reflect grammars of different possible languages, while for acquisition the idea is that the learner needs to acquire the specific ranking of the mother-tongue. Languages are cross-linguistically marked to a greater or lesser extent with respect to structural constraints that refer to syllable type (ONSET, NO-CODA, *COMPLEX-ONSET, *COMPLEX-CODA). The assumption here is that the grammar of a totally unmarked language is identical to the initial grammar (G1) of the language learner (Gnanadesikan, 1995). When the language to be learned is marked in several respects, the hypothesis is that the learner acquires these marked aspects by gradually promoting Faithfulness above the Structural constraints in the hierarchy. There is, thus, a learning path where the learner, going from G1 to the final grammar (Gf), passes through several intermediate grammars. The hypothesis is that the intermediate grammars in development are also final state grammars of languages of the world. Vice versa, it is expected that, since languages can be marked in different respects, there are different possible learning paths which the learner can take to reach the final state. This hypothesis is tested here, by combining data on syllable types in different languages from Blevins (1995) ("cross-linguistic grammars") with data on the acquisition of syllable types (developmental grammars) of children acquiring Dutch (Levelt, Schiller & Levelt 1997). It turns out that cross-linguistic grammars differ from the developmental grammars in two respects. First, some intermediate developmental grammars apparently do not correspond to any cross- linguistic grammar. Some stages require a grammar where local conjunctions of constraints play a role (Smolensky 1993). The question is whether cross-linguistically a grammar which makes use of such local conjunctions exists, or whether local conjunctions in developmental grammars are acquisition-specific and reflect, for example, transient processing problems. Second, there is less variation in the intermediate grammars than could be expected on the basis of the cross-linguistic data. The second intermediate grammar, G2, corresponds to the grammar of Thargari, not to the grammar of Cayuvava, which is logically equally possible, G4 is Mokilese, not Sedang or Klamath. The only variation is for G5: Finnish for one group of learners, Spanish for another group of learners. The explanation given here is that in case alternative developmental steps are theoretically possible, information from the input pushes the learner in a particular direction. Syllable type frequencies in both child- and adult-directed Dutch speech exactly predict the choices for a specific intermediate grammar, and also predict where variation will occur. |
| Type: | Paper/tech report |
| Area/Keywords: | |
| Article: | Version 1 |