The Case of Consonant Harmony in Greek Child Speech*

Genetic and environmental effects in L1 phonological acquisition The case of consonant harmony in Greek child speech*

Marina Tzakosta University of Crete

Consonant harmony (CH) is a phenomenon commonly found in child language. Cross-linguistically, Place of Articulation (PoA), specifically the Coronal Node, undergoes CH, while regressive harmony seems to be the preferred directionality that CH takes (cf. Goad 2001a, b; Levelt 1994; Rose 2000, 2001). In the present study, drawing on naturalistic data from nine children acquir- ing Greek L1, we place emphasis on the fact that multiple factors need to be considered in parallel, in order to account for CH patterns: Not only PoA, but also Manner of Articulation (MoA) contributes to CH; consequently, (de)voicing or continuity harmony emerges. Although regressive harmony is generally fa- voured, markedness scales and word stress highly affect directionality. Coronal, stop and voiceless segments trigger and undergo CH depending on their degree of prominence and their position in the word. Harmony can be partial or full, i.e. either place or manner or both place and manner of articulation are targeted. Progressive harmony emerges when the triggers belong to the stressed syllable or when they are stops. Cases of double, bidirectional and recursive harmony are also reported. In general, Greek CH patterns are the product of combined factors determined by phonological principles and input frequency in the ambient language. In other words, the degree to which Greek CH patterns are different from cross- linguistic findings depends on the combination of UG principles and language specific/environmental effects, as well as the prominence of certain of these factors over others.

Keywords: consonant harmony, place of articulation, manner of articulation, full/partial/bidirectional/double/recursive/regressive/progressive harmony, stress, language development

Journal of Greek Linguistics 8 (2007), 5–30. doi 10.1075/jgl.8.04tza issn 1566–5844 / e-issn 1569–9856 © John Benjamins PublishingDownloaded Company from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:02:26PM via free access 6 Marina Tzakosta

1. Introduction

Consonant Harmony (hereafter CH) is a phenomenon widely characteristic of child speech. As opposed to contact assimilation, in which strictly adjacent segments become similar to one another, CH is defined as the assimilation of two non-adjacent consonants within a word. Put differently, CH influences non-adjacent segments belonging to the same or different syllables. According to some researchers (cf. Vih- man, 1978; 1996; among others), CH is a repair strategy, which facilitates language learning.1 However, Berg (1992) argues that CH develops into a process that takes place irrespective of whether sounds need to be repaired or not. Stemberger (1991), Stemberger & Stoel-Gammon (1991), Stoel-Gammon & Stemberger (1994) see harmony patterns not as consistent language patterns, but as repair mechanisms equivalent to performance errors or slips of the tongue appearing in adult language. CH is never the only phenomenon emerging at the segmental level in child speech. Fronting (cf. Ingram 1974, Inkelas & Rose 2003), stopping (cf. Menn 1978, Smith 1973), gliding (Dinnsen & O’ Connor 2001) and coalescence/fusion of two adjacent consonants (cf. Drachman 1973) are some of the repair strategies taking place during language learning. Drachman (1978:128) reports on cases of prophy- lactic harmony which “appears where a consonant would otherwise be completely lost.” Drachman (1978) refers to instances in which a segment is substituted for another one, e.g. /ð/ → [l], so that the syllabic structure remains intact. A logical question related to our discussion is how we know that a given piece of data involves CH and not another phenomenon. The answer is quite plausible; fronting, stopping, or gliding apply irrespective of whether there are other coronals, stops or glides in the word, which would cause the activation of the relevant process in the data. However, in cases of CH the segment that causes harmony, i.e. the trigger, is a segment or feature already part of the target word. Here, we take only clear cases of CH into account. Furthermore, we do not consider CH as an instance of reduplication. Even though both CH and reduplication involve melody copy (cf. Goad 2001b), we consider reduplication to involve syllabic or foot copy, like in (3b) below, rather than segmental or featural copy. Put differently, CH applies at the lower levels of the prosodic hierarchy, namely the featural and/or segmental level, while reduplication is activated at the upper levels of the hierarchy, i.e. the syllable and the foot. It is open to discussion whether CH takes the shape of a feature-filling or a feature- changing phenomenon. The data under examination will elucidate this issue. Cross-linguistically, it appears that place of articulation (hereafter PoA), primarily the Coronal and, secondarily, the Labial node, undergo harmony, with velars being the primary triggers of CH (cf. Goad, 1997a; b; 2001a; Menn, 1975; Pater, 1997; 2002; 2003; Rose, 2000; Rose & dos Santos, 2004; Smith, 1973; Stoel-Gammon,

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:02:26PM via free access Genetic and environmental effects in L1 phonological acquisition 7

1996; Stoel-Gammon & Stemberger, 1994; Waterson, 1971). The fact that coronals are the main targets of CH is exemplified in the English data in (1), where the unmarked coronals2 are harmonised to the following velars and labials (data in (1a–b) and (1c), respectively). In terms of Underspecification, this is analysed as spreading of positive feature values to segments lacking such values, as shown in (2). In other words, according to the model of Underspecification, less specified segments are ‘filled in’ by featural material they lack, material which is spread to them by more specified/marked segments. This is the reason why coronals are the targets, while velars and, secondarily labials, are the triggers of harmony, at least in the English data. CH seems to drive the production of ‘difficult’ segments, that is, segments, which are more marked compared to the CH triggers. (1) a. ‘duck’ → [ɡʌk] b. ‘cloth’ → [ɡɔk] c. ‘knife’ → [maip]3

(2) /dʌk/ → [ɡʌk] Dor | d → g ʌ k

Dor (adopted from Goad 1997b) Coronals are reported to be the targets of assimilation and/or harmony also in adult speech (cf. Cho, 1989; De Lacy, 2002; Hume & Tserdanelis, 2002; Jun, 1995). According to Pater (1997; 2002; 2003), this is due to the constraints REPEAT and AGREE, which force segmental agreement with respect to PoA. More specifically, coronals tend to be substituted for velars especially in structurally prominent positions, such as stressed or edgemost syllables. This is related to the view commonly found in the literature, namely that marked segments occupy psycholinguistically prominent positions (cf. Smith 2002 and more references therein). Regressive Harmony, that is, right-to-left harmony (hereafter RH) seems to be the preferred directionality of CH (cf. Bernhardt & Stemberger, 1998; Cruttenden, 1978; Goad, 1997a; b; Menn, 1971; 1975; 1978; Rose & dos Santos, 2004; Smith, 1973; Stemberger, 1995; Vihman, 1978). As shown in the English data in (3a), a coronal nasal harmonises to a following labial stop, while in the Dutch data in (3b) a labial fricative is harmonised to a following velar fricative. The second example in (3b) further illustrates a case of stopping; fricative segments become stops.4 In both cases in (3), less specified coronals and labials assimilate to the more marked velar segments. (3) a. ‘knife’ → [maip] b. /ˈvo.χəl/ → [ˈχo.χo] (Tom: 1;05.23), [ˈko.ko] (Eva: 2;01.17) ‘bird’

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:02:26PM via free access 8 Marina Tzakosta

On the other hand, Pater (2003) and Pater & Werle (2001, 2003) report on rare cases of Progressive Harmony (hereafter PH), i.e. left-to-right harmony, in which coronals are again targeted (KVT input patterns resulting in KVK output forms). Directionality seems to be driven by the need that coronals be harmonised to more marked segments. In other words, directionality is determined by the need for the preservation of specific segments. Berg (1992), on the other hand, argues that harmony has predominantly a R-to-L directionality due to articulatory factors. More specifically, since difficult sounds are usually word initial sounds, regressive harmony is more common. Consequently, ease of articulation forces directionality. However, Berg (1992) does not provide any input frequency rates regarding the positions where so-called difficult segments occur in a word. Moreover, it is proposed that in Dutch and Spanish child speech, C(onsonant) V(owel) interactions rather than CH emerge (cf. Levelt, 1994; 1995; 1996 and Lléo, 1996, respectively). According to Levelt (1996), CV interactions take place when constraints on word edges and features of PoA do not influence child produc- tions. Lléo (1996) claims that the data of the children she investigates vary; they exhibit both C-C and C-V interactions. However, the degree to which one or the other pattern is more dominant varies per child. Representative examples of CV harmony are presented in (4) below. The data exemplify that consonants undergo fronting in the second example in (4a), provided they are adjacent to front vowels, or become round (4b), when they are close to round vowels. This process takes place irrespective of whether consonants precede or follow vowels. CV harmony is reported to be primarily regressive in Dutch, since it is the segment occupying the syllabic onset rather than the syllabic coda that undergoes harmony. Appar- ently, the rightmost/syllable-final segment needs to preserve its featural specifica- tions. According to Pater & Werle (2001, 2003) and in terms of Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky 1993), this is attributed to the activation of a constraint that favours the full preservation of the rightmost segment in a syllable. Goad (2001a, b, 2003) and Rose (2000), however, argue that these are not cases of CV interactions, which reflect the child’s phonologies; they are, rather, speech errors. (4) a. /kip/ → [kɛt] (Jarmo: 2;03.09), [tip] (Noortje: 2;08.29) ‘chicken’ b. /kuk/ → [puk] (Elke: 1;09.10) ‘cake’ To sum up, given the above findings, we reach the conclusion that the study of CH in English and Dutch is mainly based on the examination of PoA and directionality phenomena. Coronals are the targets of harmony, favouring analyses within the model of Underspecification (cf. Goad 1997a; b, Stoel-Gammon & Stemberger, 1994); velar harmony is more common in English, while harmony is almost ex- clusively labial in Dutch. Interestingly, CH of MoA is avoided in most studies, especially under the scope of Underspecification, since the latter fails to explain

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:02:26PM via free access Genetic and environmental effects in L1 phonological acquisition 9 why marked/more specified fricatives are harmonised to unmarked/less specified stops.5 Finally, CH seems to occur in maximally disyllabic forms in English and Dutch. The Greek data raised our interest as it became evident that Greek child speech exhibits exceptional harmony patterns. The data illustrate that it is not a specific set of segments that causes harmony. For example, unmarked coronals are not the main CH targets; rather, they are the primary triggers of CH in child speech with respect to PoA. Consequently, an analysis within Underspecification would not explain why less specified segments influence the realization of more specified/marked segments (cf. Tzakosta 2001). Apparently, any segment type may cause harmony when MoA is the driving force of harmony (cf. Dinnsen 1998, for comparable discussion). Apparently, the trigger of CH is determined by place and manner considerations. Like in cross-linguistic findings, regressive harmony is the main CH directionality in Greek child speech. However, directionality may also be affected by the featural composition of the trigger as well as the shape, the status and the position of the stressed syllable. In other words, progressive harmony serves as the means for facilitating harmony of stop segments. In the present study, apart from inves- tigating the CH patterns attested in Greek, we aim at evaluating the differences arising from Greek and cross-linguistic CH patterns. A related goal is to highlight the factors these differences are attributed to and estimate the extent to which UG and input frequency affect the realized CH patterns. We argue that the combination of theoretical unmarkedness and segmental/featural frequency in the ambient language determine harmony (cf. Anderson & Smith 1987, for a similar account of Puerto Rican Spanish learning children). The paper is organised as follows: Sec- tion 2 describes the research methodology and Section 3 the CH patterns attested in Greek child speech. Section 4 discusses the factors determining these patterns, while Section 5 concludes the paper.

2. Research methodology

2.1 Subjects

We selected nine normally developing Greek monolingual children from kinder- gartens located in Rethymno and Heraklion on Crete, Greece, and one child who was recorded at his home in Chania, Crete, Greece. Children came from middle- class homes, and at least one of the parents carried a University degree. Children were recruited with their parents’ permission. Parents were fully informed about the content and the design of our research program as well as the aims of the

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:02:26PM via free access 10 Marina Tzakosta

project. Some of them asked for tape copies because they wanted to keep records of the language development of their children. Tape copies were provided to these parents.

2.2 Research methodology

The children were recorded on a weekly basis for a period of almost two years, while they interacted with their teachers as well the experimenters in their class/ playroom settings. Picture naming was mainly used as an experimental task. Pic- tures represented toys and objects children make use of in their everyday life. Children were familiarised with the experimenters before the recording sessions started. The recording period varied per child and ranged between three months and two years. The children’s age ranged between 1;07 and 3;05 years. Different children of different ages accounted for different developmental phases. However, these developmental phases lie within the major intermediate stage of language development (cf. Tzakosta 2004) which is not confined by specific age limits but involves the production of variable forms, unmarked and marked ones. The col- lected tokens of data (≈ 100,000) were transcribed by at least two linguists, native speakers of Greek who were trained in narrow phonetic transcriptions. The data were organised in an ACCESS database under the financial and technological aus- pices of the University of Leiden Centre of Linguistics. Data were included in the database only if the transcribers reached full consensus on them. For more details on the compilation and the content of the database, see Tzakosta (2004).

3. CH patterns in Greek child speech

3.1 Harmony at the featural level

A first approach of CH phenomena in Greek child speech is attempted by Kap- pa (1999, 2001), who examines the data of one child. Her findings illustrate that coronal segments harmonize to labials (example in (5a)) and dorsals (examples in (5b–c)), while velars harmonize to labials (5d).6 Labial harmony is reported to take place in most cases irrespective of the MoA of the targeted or the triggering segment. This is in accordance with the Dutch child data. Moreover, the direction of harmony in Kappa’s data is not only right-to-left (5a), but also left-to-right (5b, c, d). Kappa accounts for directionality by means of alignment and linearity constraints between harmonised and non-harmonised segments. She further argues that left-to-right (PH) harmony is more likely in polysyl- labic words with trochaic stress. Right-to-left (RH) harmony is more typical of

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:02:26PM via free access Genetic and environmental effects in L1 phonological acquisition 11 domains with initial unstressed syllables. However, trisyllabic words with initial unstressed syllables are involved in both types of harmony, progressive and regressive, something that makes the analysis less solid (examples in 5e, 5f). Moreover, Kappa (1999, 2001) does not provide any frequency rates of the presented CH patterns in child and child-directed speech. Kappa takes child Greek CH to be an instance of segmental copy. (5) a. /ˈsto.ma/ → [ˈpo.ma] ‘mounth’ (S.:2;10.02) b. /ˈci.ta/ → [ˈci.ka] ‘look-2nd. IMP.’ (S.: 2;02) c. /kor.ˈðɛ.la/ → [ɡo.ˈɢɛ.la] ‘ribbon’ (S.: 2;09.08) d. /bi.ˈsko.to/ → [bi.ˈbo.to] ‘biscuit’ (S.: 2;02.28) e. /pa.ˈta.ta/ → [pa.ˈpa.ta] ‘potato’ (S: 2;06.21) f. /tro.ˈmbe.ta/ → [bo.ˈbe.ta] ‘trumpet’ (S: 2;09.08) Magoula (2000), on the other hand, indirectly discusses data of CH which she con- siders instances of assimilation. She recognizes patterns of place harmony but she fails to reflect on issues related to the nature of the emergent harmony templates. The examination of the Greek data in the present study reveals new and re- fined CH patterns. We do not intend to make a child-by-child presentation of the data here, even though we expect that inter-child CH may exhibit variable shapes.7 Instead, we aim at making first a more general presentation of the attested CH patterns and their frequency rates. Generally, 6.45% of the data under discussion undergo CH. We could thus argue that CH is a rather systematic process in Greek child speech. With respect to the attested patterns, we observe that not only PoA (examples in (6)) but also MoA (examples in (7)) crucially affect harmony patterns. In (6), we notice that all segment types, i.e. coronals (examples in (6a), (6b)), labials (examples in (6c), (d)), and velars may trigger harmony (example (6e)). It is interesting that, like in the Dutch example in (3b), apart from harmony, stopping (6c, 6e) and fronting (6a, 6c) are involved in parallel. In these cases, stopping is not an instance of CH, however the former confirms the unmarked character of [−cont] segments. There are also cases where stopping takes place first and then the stop segment causes harmony, as exemplified in (6e)). This is further supported by MoA harmony, where the triggers are basically [−cont] segments, irrespective of their place features. Put differently, all segment types, i.e. coronals, labials, and velars, may trigger manner harmony, as long as they are stops. It is important to note that place harmony is always and only regressive, namely leftmost (6d, 6e) or initial (6a, 6b, 6c) segments undergo harmony, while manner harmony is both regressive (7c) and progressive (7a, 7b).8

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:02:26PM via free access 12 Marina Tzakosta

(6) Harmony of PoA a. /ˈka.ni/ → [ˈta.ni] ‘do-PRES.SG.’ (B.M: 2;02.12) b. /ˈci.ta/ → [ˈti.ta] ‘look-2nd IMP.SG.’ (B.M: 1;10.18) c. /ˈɣra.fo/ → [ˈpa.fo] ‘write-1st PRES.SG.’(D: 2;01) d. /ˈsku.pa/ → [ˈpu.pa] ‘broom’ (D: 2;02.06) e. /ˈa.lo.ɣo/ → [ˈa.ko.ko] ‘horse’ (B.T: 1;11.28) (7) Harmony of MoA a. /pɛ.ˈða.ci/ → [pa.ˈta.ci] ‘child-DIM.’ (F: 2;0.27) b. /kar.ˈðu.la/ → [ka.ˈdu.la] ‘heart-DIM.’ (F: 2;02.03) c. /ˈvlɛ.po/ → [ˈpɛ.po] ‘see-1st PRES.SG.’ (Stef: 2;05.08) Dinnsen & O’ Connor (2001) illustrate that manner harmony is restricted to glide harmony, i.e. cases where glides trigger harmony. In other studies, MoA harmony patterns are limited to obstruent segments being replaced by nasals (cf. Vihman, 1978). As already mentioned, in Greek, MoA is not restricted to specific segments, rather any segment type regarding PoA may cause harmony if it is a stop. Appar- ently, manner harmony is blind to effects of PoA. To sum it up, the Greek data demonstrate that all segments may trigger and undergo CH. As Figure 1 shows, the majority of CH patterns emerge at the level of PoA (64%). However, the rate of MoA harmony is considerably high (36%), too high to be understudied or ignored.

Figure 1. MoA & PoA triggers of CH Statistically, place harmony is primarily coronal. Coronal triggers are statistically followed by labial triggers. Velars exhibit the lowest rate of triggering place harmony. Such facts confirm the segmental scale coronals >> labials >> velars, according to which coronals are more unmarked compared, first, to labials and, second, to velars (cf. Prince & Smolensky 1993); the same scale signals the descending order of harmony triggers, i.e. coronals are more frequently harmony triggers, followed by labials and velars. This is illustrated in Figure 2. These data are counterexamples to the English or Dutch data, which exhibit predominantly velar and labial harmony, respectively, and to the theoretical proposals that are put forth.9 Kappa (1999, 2001), on the basis of intra-child developmental data and given that labials do not

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:02:26PM via free access Genetic and environmental effects in L1 phonological acquisition 13 undergo harmony, proposes the hierarchy labials >> dorsals >> coronals. Labials avoid harmony because they are stronger compared to velars and coronals.10 How- ever, she does not provide any frequency rates regarding the behaviour of labials and other segments in child and child-directed speech which would support such a claim. In Greek, harmony does not seem to drive the realization of marked segments, but, rather, the fixation of acquired unmarked segments in child speech. Appar- ently, CH is a feature-changing phenomenon in child Greek; namely, it involves segmental copy and not featural spreading, given that unmarked segments do not have ‘+’ features to spread to adjacent segments (cf. Goad 1997a, Kappa 2001, Tza- kosta 2001).11 As will be discussed in detail in Section 4, harmony rates in Greek are attributed to input frequency effects.

Figure 2. Distribution of PoA triggers Manner harmony, on the other hand, is driven by [−cont] segments, which are predominantly velars. Coronals and labials exhibit lower rates of MoA harmony. Why this happens is not directly evident. However, it seems that coronals and labials survive due to their unmarked place features, while velars, when involved in harmony patterns, leave the trace of their unmarked manner specification, i.e. [−cont]. Manner harmony rates for different segment types are illustrated in Figure 3 below. Apparently, the MoA scale is the mirror image of the place scale, namely velars >> labials >> coronals. In other words, velars are primarily involved in manner harmony, followed by labials and velars, respectively.

Figure 3. Distribution of MoA triggers

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:02:26PM via free access 14 Marina Tzakosta

Generally speaking, coronals constitute the main triggers of CH, regarding both PoA and MoA. Labials and velars follow, exhibiting considerably lower rates compared to coronals. This is demonstrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Triggers of P & M harmony

3.1.1 Full and Partial CH According to Macken (1978, 1979), CH is full, i.e. the harmonised segments agree in both place and manner of articulation. However, cross-linguistic and Greek child data reveal that harmony can be either full, involving both PoA and MoA, as exemplified in (8), or partial, involving either PoA (examples in (9)) or MoA, as shown in (10). In other words, full harmony is not a prerequisite in Greek harmony. Full harmony involves copy of a whole segment regarding all featural dimensions, i.e. manner, place and voicing. In (8a) and (8b), for example, the /k/ of the initial syllable becomes a labial regarding PoA and voiced with respect to voicing. Hoefflin & Stemberger (2003) relate voicing to manner. They further argue that fricatives, affricates and velar stops prefer to bear a [−voi] value, while labial stops prefer the [+voi] value in German child speech. Van der Feest et al. (2003), on the other hand, show that in data of Dutch and German children, there seems to be no effect of voicing harmony. However, they note that this may be attributed to final neutralization, which, apparently, takes place before harmony. The Greek data seem to be in support of Borowski (1999), who claims that voicing assimilation is restricted to the inter-word environment and is, in general, rare. In another example, (8c), the segments involved in harmony are both voiced, however word-initial /ð/ is harmonised to the onset /ɡ/ of the following syllable, adopting its [+velar] feature. Finally, in (8d), we have an instance of frication, voicing and place harmony, namely the [−cont], [−voi] and [−peripheral] /t/ becomes a [+cont], [+voi], [+ peripheral] /v/.12 To sum up, full harmony takes place if, ex- cept for PoA, both frication and voicing or either frication or voicing are involved in harmony patterns. (8) Full harmony of PoA and MoA a. /ˈka.bjɛs/ → [ˈba.bɛ] ‘grub-PL.’ (B.M: 1;09.29) b. /bi.ˈsko.to/ → [bi.ˈbo.to] ‘biscuit’ (S.: 2;02.28)

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:02:26PM via free access Genetic and environmental effects in L1 phonological acquisition 15

c. /ða.ˈɡo.ni/ → [ɡa.ˈɡo.nɛ] ‘bite-3rd PRES.SG.’ (B.M: 2;05.07) d. /sta.ˈvro/ → [va.ˈvo] ‘cross-ACC.’ (B.M: 1;10.18) The examples in (9) and (10) constitute sporadic cases of place and manner harmony, respectively. To be more specific, the coronals in (9a), (9b) and (9d) affect their adjacent nasal and velars, whereas the labial in (9c) affects its adjacent coronal. Additionally, velars may affect coronals, as exemplified in (9e). As already claimed, all kind of segments may trigger place harmony. Coronals may affect labials and velars and labials may influence coronals and velars (9f). In other words, less specified segments modify the featural composition of more specified ones. As will be shown in subsequent sections, fully specified segments cause harmony only when additional factors, such as stress, are involved. Finally, in (10), some cases of manner harmony are presented. (10a) and (10b) are some examples of [+cont] segments which are harmonised to [−cont] segments. In (10c), initial voiceless labial /f/ becomes /b/ due to the fact that its adjacent /g/ spreads its [−cont] and [+voi] values. Again, both ‘+’ and ‘-’ feature values trigger harmony (see also 10d). This is due to the fact that child Greek harmony is an instance of copy/agreement rather than spreading. (9) Partial Harmony of PoA a. /ˈka.ni/ → [ˈta.ni] ‘do-PRES.SG.’ (B.M: 2;02.12) b. /ˈci.ta/ → [ˈti.ta] ‘lady’ (B.M: 1;10.18) c. /tra.ˈpɛ.zi/ → [pa.ˈpɛ.ji] ‘table’ (Me: 2;0.06) d. /ar.ku.ˈða.ci/ → [tu.ˈða.ci] ‘bear-DIM.’ (Stef: 2;03.29) e. /ða.ˈska.la/ → [ɣa.ˈka.la] ‘teacher’ (Kon: 2;0.22) f. /ˈxro.ma.ta/ → [ˈfo.ma.ta] ‘color-PL.’ (F: 2;05.16) (10) Partial Harmony of MoA a. /kar.ˈðu.la/ → [ka.ˈdu.la] ‘heart-DIM.’ (F: 2;02.03) b. /ˈvlɛ.po/ → [ˈpɛ.po] ‘see-1st PRES.SG.’ (Stef: 2;05.08) c. /fɛ.ˈɡa.ri/ → [bɛ.ˈɡa.ri] ‘moon’ (D: 2;03) d. /ˈtri.ɣo.no/ → [ˈti.xo.no] ‘triangle’ (I: 3;04.26)

3.2 Directionality

Regarding CH directionality, research has not made clear if the former influences, or is influenced by, the quality of the harmonised segments. In general, regressive harmony is preferred irrespective of the featural composition of the involved segments. As we have already mentioned, right-to-left directionality is due to the de- mand for preservation of the rightmost elements (see Pater & Werle 2001, 2003). If RH is preferred, an issue that needs to be explained is why PH also applies. We need to further examine whether the composition or the position of the

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:02:26PM via free access 16 Marina Tzakosta

harmonised segments in the word affects directionality. In (11) we provide only some representative examples of PH, where we notice that PH is driven by (un) markedness considerations. In other words, marked segments in terms of manner and voicing, i.e. fricatives and voiced segments, copy the [−cont] and/or [−voi] feature of their equivalent unmarked segments located to the right side of the marked segments. This is shown in (11a and b). Unmarked place features are also copied, as exemplified in (11c) where the labial segment modifies the segment adjacent to its right (a velar segment) to a labial. We should note that we consider labials to be unmarked compared to velars given the hierarchy coronals >> labials >> velar we proposed above. In other words, preference of labials over velars in domains where coronals do not emerge is an instance of relative unmarkedness. In the same example, we assume that /sk/ is first reduced to /k/ and then /k/ is harmonized to the preceding segment. In the data of RH, on the other hand, there appear instances of coronal harmony ((12b), (12c), labial harmony ((12a), (12d–g)) and velar harmony ((12h)). Manner harmony is attested in (12e–g). To sum up, RH takes place irrespective of the segmental composition of the triggering segments, unmarked and marked segments may trigger harmony in parallel, while PH takes place when (un)markedness prevails. In other words, PH occurs under very specific conditions. (11) Data of progressive harmony a. /pɛ.ˈða.ci/ → [pa.ˈta.ci] ‘child-DIM.’ (F: 2;0.27) b. /kar.ˈðu.la/ → [ka.ˈdu.la] ‘heart-DIM.’ (F: 2;02.03) c. /bi.ˈsko.to/ → [bi.ˈbo.to] ‘biscuit’ (S.: 2;02.28) (12) Data of regressive harmony a. /ˈstoma/ → [pˈoma] ‘mouth’ (S.:2;10.02) b. /ˈka.ni/ → [ˈta.ni] ‘do-PRES.SG.’ (B.M: 2;02.12) c. /ˈci.ta/ → [ˈti.ta] ‘look-2nd IMP.SG.’ (B.M: 1;10.18) d. /ˈɣra.fo/ → [ˈpa.fo] ‘write-1st PRES.SG.’(D: 2;01) e. /ˈvlɛ.po/ → [ˈpɛ.po] ‘see-1st PRES.SG.’ (Stef: 2;05.08) f. /ˈka.bjɛs/ → [ˈba.bɛ] ‘grub-PL.’ (B.M: 1;09.29) g. /sta.ˈvro/ → [va.ˈvo] ‘cross-ACC.’ (B.M: 1;10.18) h. /ða.ˈska.la/ → [ɣa.ˈka.la] ‘teacher’ (Kon: 2;0.22) Figures 5 to 7 show the rates of RH and PH. RH exhibits considerably higher rates than PH in both place and manner harmony. However, PH is clearly influential (compare Figures 5 and 6). Additionally, PoA harmony is the predomi- nant trigger in both dimensions, right-to-left and left-to-right. In the following section, we examine the degree to which stress influences harmony patterns and directionality.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:02:26PM via free access Genetic and environmental effects in L1 phonological acquisition 17

Figure 5. Directionality Figure 6. RH distributions

Figure 7. PH distributions

3.3 Stress

Up to this point, we have observed that in Greek child speech CH is influenced by PoA and/or MoA. In this section, we will exemplify that CH is also subject to suprasegmental factors. In other words, word stress plays an influential role in CH patterns. In (13), it is demonstrated that the stressed syllable, irrespective of its position, word-initial or -medial, and its segmental composition, may drive RH (examples in (13b,) (13c), (13d)–(13g), (13j)) or PH (examples in (13a), (13h)), of place (examples in (13a)–(13e), (13i), (13j)) or manner harmony (examples in (13f), (13g), (13h), (13i), (13j)). The data further illustrate that the stressed syllable can cause partial and/or full harmony of MoA (as demonstrated in (13f–j)), and PoA ((13a–e) and (13i)), respectively.13 (13) a. /fi.ˈla.ca/ → [fi.ˈla.ta] ‘kiss- DIM.PL.’ (B.M: 2;02.12) b. /ci.ˈθa.ra/ → [ti.ˈθa.ra] ‘guitar’ (I: 3;02.13) c. /ða.ˈska.la/ → [ɣa.ˈka.la] ‘teacher’ (Kon: 2;0.22) d. /tra.ˈpɛ.zi/ → [pa.ˈpɛ.ji] ‘table’ (Me: 2;0.06) e. /ar.ku.ˈða.ci/ → [tu.ˈða.ci] ‘bear-DIM.’ (Stef: 2;03.29) f. /ɣa.ˈtu.la/ → [ka.ˈtu.la] ‘cat-DIM.’ (B.M: 2;05.21) g. /fɛ.ˈɡa.ri/ → [bɛ.ˈɡa.ri] ‘moon’ (D: 2;03) h. /ˈtri.ɣo.no/ → [ˈti.xo.no] ‘triangle’ (I: 3;04.26) i. /sta.ˈvro/ → [va.ˈvo] ‘cross-ACC.’ (B.M: 1;10.18) j. /ða.ˈɡo.ni/ → [ɡa.ˈɡo.nɛ] ‘bite-3rd PRES.SG.’ (B.M: 2;05.07)

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:02:26PM via free access 18 Marina Tzakosta

Our claim about the prominence of the stressed syllable irrespective of its position in the word is in line with the argumentation developed in Tzakosta (2004) regarding the stress system of Greek. In that study, Tzakosta argued that Greek children do not clearly favour a trochaic or iambic stress pattern. This is exemplified by cases in which, for example, WSWW target words are truncated to trochaic SWW and SW forms, as well as iambic WS forms, by learners of Greek. This indicates that children tend to assign stress to edgemost syllables or, at least, as edgemost as possible, irrespective of whether the target forms are considered to be iambic or trochaic. In other words, young learners of Greek treat the accentual system of the language as one demanding stress assignment on edgemost syllables, not one which is clearly trochaic or iambic. Tzakosta’s (2004) data illustrated that only input frequency gives precedence to trochees. It is interesting to note that, according to Figure 8, directionality can be half influenced by word stress. More specifically, stress is involved when marked segments, that is, fricatives, voiced segments and velars, motivate harmony. Obvi- ously, directionality is not only determined by segmental factors, rather, it is the product of combined segmental and prosodic/accentual factors.

Figure 8. Stress as a CH trigger

3.4 Domains of Consonant Harmony

Most CH patterns in English (cf. Goad, 1997a; b) and Dutch child speech (cf. Lev- elt, 1994; 1996) tend to emerge within the domain of maximally disyllabic words, or disyllabic feet. As shown in the English and Dutch examples, presented in (1) and (3) above, the syllabic onset harmonises to the syllabic coda, but rarely vice versa. For the ease of reading, examples are rewritten in (14) below. (14) a. ‘duck’ → [ɡʌk] b. ‘cloth’ → [gɔk] c. ‘knife’ → [maip] d. ‘bed’ → [det] e. ‘good’ → [fut] f. ‘chicken’ → [tip] Kappa (1999) demonstrates that Greek CH also takes place in the domain of the disyllabic foot (examples in (5)). If we have a closer look at the data of the nine

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:02:26PM via free access Genetic and environmental effects in L1 phonological acquisition 19 children examined here, the domain of CH seems to be larger than the disyllabic word/foot and covers the whole prosodic word. Some representative examples are given in (15) in which CH relates edgemost, i.e. leftmost and rightmost, syllables, leaving middle syllables intact, even if the latter are stressed. Such data show that CH is blind to intervening consonants, especially nasals and liquids.14 (15) a. /ka.ˈmi.la/ → [ta.ˈmi.la] ‘camel’ (Ste: 2;05.08) b. /sxo.li.ˈko/ → [ko.li.ˈko] ‘school bus’ (B.M: 2;03.19) Figure 9 shows that frequency rates regarding the emergence of such forms confirm the fact that prosodic words consisting minimally of two syllables constitute the domain of CH. Interestingly, trisyllabic and longer words constitute the majority of CH domains in the Greek data.

Figure 9. Types of targeted forms/domains of CH The claim just made is further verified by the fact that, in Greek, there appear cases of bidirectional and recursive harmony exemplified in (16) and (17), respectively. Bidirectionality, on the one hand, takes the shape either of the interactive full or partial harmony occurring between two segments or the partial or full spreading of the featural composition of one segment to other segments located to its left and/or right side. Recursivity, on the other hand, refers to harmony that applies re- peatedly in different consecutive syllables. As a result, in (16a) /f/ and /k/ are both harmonised to each other, the first regarding PoA, the second regarding MoA. In practice, the result is the realisation of segments that are the product of fusion. However, fusion mostly refers to strictly adjacent segments.15 The same holds for (16d). In (16b) and (16c), /l/ and /t/ spread their feature of coronality to segments belonging to adjacent and non-adjacent syllables to their left and right. (16) a. /a.fto.ˈko.li.ta/ → [po.ˈpo.li.ta] ‘sticker-PL’ (Stef: 2;04.21) b. /sa.li.ˈɡa.ri/ → [ta.li.ˈɡa.li] ‘snail’ (Mar: 2;08.15) c. /po.ˈti.ri/ → [to.ˈti.li] ‘glass’ (B.M: 2;04) d. /kor.ˈðɛ.la/ → [ɡo.ˈɢɛ.la] ‘ribbon’ (S.: 2;09.08)

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:02:26PM via free access 20 Marina Tzakosta

In the cases of recursive harmony in (17), on the other hand, the coronal /l/ and the labial /v/, respectively, affect the onsets of both syllables located to their left, not only their adjacent syllable.16 (17) a. /ka.ˈpɛ.lo/ → [ta.ˈtɛ.lo] ‘hat’ (S: 2;02;28) b. /ˈku.nɛ.los/ → [ˈtu.lɛ.loɥ] ‘rabbit’ (Stef: 2;06.03) c. /ku.ku.ˈva.ja/ → [pu.pu.ˈva.ja] ‘owl’ (Stef: 2;03.17) The types of directionality, bidirectional and recursive, and the degrees of CH patterns, full and partial, are provided in Figure 10. Most harmony patterns are char- acteristically partial and double.

Figure 10. Types of CH

4. Consonant harmony: Is it a genetic or an environmental phenomenon?

The CH patterns of Greek child speech highlight the differences between Greek and cross-linguistic CH patterns. Therefore, what need to be examined are the factors that drive these differences. These factors are related to the issue of whether CH is a genetic or an environmental phenomenon. In terms of Optimality Theory this issue is partly related to the debate regarding constraint innateness, that is, whether CH constraints are innate or ad hoc, i.e. phenomenon- specific (cf. Goad, 1997a&b, 2001b, Pater, 2002). However, research has not reached a definite answer with respect to that issue either.17 Various studies which take either a perceptual or production perspective have shown that the emergent child speech patterns are sensitive to frequency infor- mation in the target language (De Boysson-Bardies & Vihman, 1991; Roark & Demuth, 2000; Saffran, Newport & Aslin, 1996). Stoel-Gammon & Stemberger (1994), on the other hand, propose that phoneme frequency together with the order of acquisition and regressive overgeneralization cannot provide an adequate account of the attested CH patterns. Fikkert et al. (2004), however, argue that only in combination with a theoretical analysis can frequency determine the order of acquisition. In Dutch, for example, Labial harmony is dominant because labials

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:02:26PM via free access Genetic and environmental effects in L1 phonological acquisition 21 prevail in the segmental distribution of adult speech. In English, coronals are preferred for C2 positions; in Dutch, on the other hand, there are not specific positions where marked segments are allowed. Labials occur in C1 position, whereas dorsals occur in C2 positions. Coronals are also preferably found in C2 positions. This entails the fact that segmental distribution in the target language is respon- sible for the attested patterns. Here, it will be shown that Greek CH patterns are equally affected by theoretical factors, as well as input frequency effects (hereafter IF). The Greek data have demonstrated that, at a theoretical level, CH patterns are determined by (un)markedness or universal considerations in combination with the phonotactic constraints of the target language. As a result, coronals and stop segments are the main triggers of CH. On the other hand, as shown in Figures 2, 3 and 4, variable place and manner distributions in the ambient language result in various harmony patterns (cf. also Lléo, 1996; Fikkert et al., 2004, for Portuguese and Dutch, respectively). Put differently, in Greek, IF gives out a confusing picture regarding PoA and MoA distributions in child-directed speech. This corresponds to the variability in the distribution of manner and place triggers or directionality tendencies exhibited by Figures 1 through 10.18 Figure 11, for example, demonstrates that coronals exhibit the lowest rate of occurrence in word-initial position in child-directed speech.

Figure 11. Consonant distribution in word-initial position However, Figures 12 and 15 show that coronals appear more frequently in strong positions, i.e. when they are voiced and/or belong to stressed syllables, in adult language. Theoretically, this is in contradiction with the view that a strong position is occupied by marked segments regarding their featural composition. In other words, a marked segment occurs in psycholinguistically prominent positions, while the same segment tends to be neutralised in weak positions (cf. Smith 2002, and more references therein). Psycholinguistically prominent positions are edgemost and stressed syllables because they reinforce word segmentation tasks (cf. Cutler, 1994; Jusczyk, 1997; 1998). Conversely, as demonstrated by Figures 13 and 14, velars and labials emerge more often in weak positions in adult speech, that is, in unstressed and medial syllables.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:02:26PM via free access 22 Marina Tzakosta

Figure 12. Consonant distribution in Figure 13. Consonant distribution in stressed syllables word-initially unstressed syllables word-initially

Figure 14. [−voice] word-initially (all) Figure 15. [+voice] word-initially (all) Our assumption here is that marked segments occurring in psycholinguistically prominent positions, i.e. stressed and edgemost syllables, promote accurate per- ception. However, the same salient constituents, when accurately perceived, are simplified at the featural level so that they are more easily produced. Irregular segmental distribution in the ambient language motivates variable patterns in child harmony. However, (un)markedness considerations place a limit in the possible output forms As a result, we can safely deduce that IF together with theoretical/genetic factors, such as (un)markedness and prosodic saliency, rule child production.19 Schemas 1 and 2 summarise the patterns attested in CH and the factors determining them, respectively. Both schemas additionally highlight that parallel combined factors may contribute to the shape of CH patterns.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:02:26PM via free access Genetic and environmental effects in L1 phonological acquisition 23

We would like to conclude our discussion by making reference to the special status of CH in child speech in Greek and cross-linguistically. CH is considered to be a child-, rather than an adult-specific phenomenon. In other words, major place of articulation is involved in child harmony, while only secondary PoA, for example, roundedness or velarisation, is reported to sparsely emerge in adult speech (cf. Hannsson, 2001). Many researchers have discussed this issue (cf. Vihman, 1978; Goad, 1997a; b; 2001; among others), but no explicit solution to the problem is reached. Goad (2001b) has found parallels of CH in reduplication. However, she claims that reduplication is morphologically driven, while CH is prosodically circumscribed. Additionally, even though CH harmony is characteristic of child speech, vowel harmony, which is morphologically determined, emerges only in adult speech. Our assumption is that harmony is a general, universal process, which facilitates speech production, but the way it is realized differs in various aspects of a language. Consequently, vowel harmony is governed by morphological factors, while CH is mostly phonologically governed. Therefore, CH is present in child speech at a stage during which morphology is not yet acquired and it disap- pears when morphology is productive. We still need to examine whether CH stops being active when morphology is acquired. This issue is amenable to future research. Finally, we would like to mention that, in this study, we did not aim at provid- ing a thorough theoretical analysis of the attested CH patterns, even though we referred to different theoretical accounts in many cases. At this point, we prefer to place emphasis on the typology of factors which determine different patterns of CH cross-linguistically.

5. Conclusions

The purpose of this paper has been to account for, on the one hand, the CH harmony patterns, which are attested in Greek child speech, and on the other hand,

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:02:26PM via free access 24 Marina Tzakosta

the differences between CH patterns in Greek and other languages, and the factors that determine these differences. We have observed that Greek harmony patterns are driven by universal, phonological and IF factors. More specifically, Greek CH is influenced, first, by the phonological principles of Greek, second, by (universal) (un)markedness and, finally, by segmental distribution in the ambient language. As a result, coronals constitute the majority of CH triggers because of their unmarked status as well as their high frequency rate, unlike in English and Dutch, where velars and labials prevail for the same reasons. This highlights the fact that the nature of CH is different in different languages. To be more specific, CH takes the shape of segmental copy in languages like Greek given that unmarked triggers do not have ‘+’ values to spread to other segments, while in languages like English and Dutch, CH is rather a feature filling process because marked segments spread their ‘+’ values to other segments in the word. This is related to the issue of ‘harmony drivers’ (cf. Pulley- bank 2002); CH in child Greek is attributed to agreement rather than positional faithfulness or featural prohibition. Word stress also plays a role in CH when (un)markedness is involved. How- ever, marked segments, such as labials and velars cause CH, in the case that weak positions, such as unstressed syllables, need to be reinforced. Consequently, different segments may cause place and/or manner harmony towards all directions. In general, the order of harmony triggers is coronals >> labials >> velars regarding place harmony; the opposite scale, that is, velars >> labials >> coronals holds for manner harmony. It has also been shown that the domain of CH is larger than the disyllabic foot and extends to the whole prosodic word.20 The statistical analysis provides evidence for the factors that determine CH patterns in Greek and confirms that segmental distribution and frequency in the ambient language give an adequate explanation as to why Greek exhibits different CH patterns compared to other languages.

Notes

* An earlier version of the paper was presented at the LATSIS Colloquium on Language De- velopment and Language Disorders, organised in Geneva by the University of Geneva (January 2006). I wish to thank the participants and audience of the conference for useful discussion and feedback. Needless to say that all errors remain mine.

1. This claim is in line with the one made by Stampe (1969), according to which the innate phonological system is revised and approaches the adult one every time the learner acquires a new phonetic opposition.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:02:26PM via free access Genetic and environmental effects in L1 phonological acquisition 25

2. Coronals are also referred to as alveolars, especially in the figures presented in Sections 3 and 4.

3. The English data are drawn from Goad (1997a; b), Menn (1978) and Smith (1973,) and the Dutch data from Levelt (1994).

4. Stopping, as a child speech repair strategy attested cross-linguistically, takes place irrespective of whether stops co-exist with fricatives (cf. Drachman 1978, Jakobson 1941/1968).

5. See Dinnsen (1998) for a first attempt to account for manner harmony.

6. The vowel system of Greek includes the vowels /i, ε, a, o, u/, while the consonantal inventory of the language consists of /p, b, f, v, t, d, θ, ð, k, c, g, ɢ, χ, ç, γ, j, m, n, ɲ, ŋ, l, ʎ, r, s, z, ts, dz/. Greek allows for a large variety of combination of consonantal segments resulting in ‘unexpected’ clusters sharing the same MoA, for example /vγ/, /vð/, /fθ/, /fχ/.

7. For a detailed discussion on inter- and intra-child CH patterns see Tzakosta (in prep.).

8. In (6d) the cluster /sk/ is first simplified to /k/; /k/ is then harmonised to the following /p/. We consider /k/ and not /s/ to survive because if /s/ survived, an extra phonological process, that of stopping, should be involved. Our assumption is that the learner would opt for the simpler learning path.

9. Kiparsky (1994) has proposed a universal hierarchy labial >> dorsal >> coronal, while Ma- likouti-Drachman (2001) has proposed a different place hierarchy, namely coronal >> dorsal >> labial supported by historical and dialectal Greek data. However, such hierarchies are based on theoretical models, especially Underspecification and Feature Geometry, while our hierarchy is mostly a statistical result.

10. Tzakosta (2002) and Revithiadou & Tzakosta (2004a, b) consider labials to be preserved only when positional faithfulness constraints take over well-formedness constraints. In other words, labials surface instead of coronals in word initial position. For comparable examples in English child speech, see Pater (1997).

11. Goad (1997b) claims that coronals are the only segments that are always targets of CH. This is in line with Vaux & Samuels (2005) who, among others, claim that coronals are unspecified for laryngeal features. However, Goad (1997b) reports on cases where coronals behave as fully specified segments and, therefore, trigger harmony; in these cases liquids are the harmony targets.

12. We use the feature [peripheral] for dorsals and labials following Rice & Avery (1995).

13. See also Bernhardt and Stemberger (1998) for additional discussion on this issue.

14. We presume that in (15c) the cluster /sx/ is reduced to /x/ and then stopping takes place. As in note 6 above, we do not expect /s/ to have survived, because /s/ should first be transformed to some velar segment, which in turn would become [k]. Again, we assume that the learner would opt for the simpler learning path, not one which would involve multiple repair strategies.

15. Cluster simplification takes place when one of the cluster members is deleted and the other is preserved intact. In (16a), on the other hand, we consider /p/ to be the product of fusion because the realized segment bears place and manner features of both cluster members.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:02:26PM via free access 26 Marina Tzakosta

16. In the examples in (15), however, liquids and nasals were not harmonised to the triggering segments, something that entails transparency of the former segments. The conditions under which liquids are nasals need to be further explored.

17. For more detailed discussion see Tzakosta (in prep.).

18. In this study, IF is measured only for word-initial positions. However, we have tested stressed and unstressed syllables as well as voiced and voiceless segments. For an exhaustive comparison of segmental distribution in word-initial, word-medial and word-final position in Greek adult speech, see Tzakosta (in prep.). For measuring IF in Greek we used the Greek-Greek dictionary of Georgopapadakos (1997).

19. We consider (un)markedness and prosodic saliency to be universal properties because they are attested in most languages of the world.

20. For a discussion on different manner and place scales see Tzakosta and Karra (2007).

References

Anderson, R. & Bruce L. Smith. 1987. “Phonological development of two-year-old monolingual Puerto Rican Spanish-speaking children”. J. of Child Language 14. 57–78. Berg, Thomas. 1992. “Phonological harmony as a processing problem”. J. of Child Language 19. 225–257. Bernhardt, Barbara H. & Joseph Paul Stemberger. 1998. Handbook of Phonological Development from the Perspective of Constraint-based Nonlinear Phonology. San Diego: Academic Press. Borowski, Toni. 2000. “Word faithfulness and the direction of assimilations”. The Linguistic Re- view 17.1. Berlin: Mouton. Cho, Young-Mee Yu. 1989. Korean assimilation. In Proceedings of the 7th West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics. 41–52. Cruttenden, Allan. 1978. “Assimilation in child language and elsewhere”. J. of Child Language 5. 373–378. Cutler, Anne. 1994. “Segmentation problems, rhymthic solutions”. Lingua 92. 81–104. De Boysson-Bardies, Benedicte & Marilyn May Vihman. 1991. Adaptation to language: Evi- dence from babbling and first words in four languages. Language 67. 297–319. De Lacy, Paul. 2002. The Formal Expression of Markedness. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Dinnsen, Danniel A. 1998. “On the organization and specification of manner features”. J. of Linguistics 34. 1–25. Dinnsen, Daniel A. & Kathleen M. O’ Connor. 2001. “Typological predictions in developmental phonology”. J. of Child Language 28. 597–628. Drachman, Gaberell. 1973. “Some strategies in the acquisition of phonology”. Issues in Phono- logical Theory ed. by M. Kenstowicz and C.W. Kisseberth. 145–159. The Hague: Mouton. Drachman, Gaberell. 1978. “Child Language and Language Change: A Conjecture and Some Refutations”, Recent Developments in Historical Phonology, ed. by J. Fisiak. 123–144. The Hague: Mouton.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:02:26PM via free access Genetic and environmental effects in L1 phonological acquisition 27

Fikkert, Paula, Clara C. Levelt & Joost van de Weijer. 2004. “Input, intake and phonological development; The case of consonant harmony”. Paper presented at the GLOW Conference. Utrecht: Utrecht University. Georgopapadakos, A. 1997. Το Μεγάλο Λεξικό της Νεοελληνικής Γλώσσας. Ερμηνευτικό, Ορθογραφικό, Ετυμολογικό. [Large Dictionary of the Modern Greek Language, Interpreta- tive, Orthographic, Etymological]. Thessaloniki: Malliaris-Paideia. Goad, Heather. 1997a. “Consonant harmony in child language: An optimality theoretic account”. Focus on Phonological Acquisition ed. by S.J. Hannahs and M. Young-Scholten. 113–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Goad, Heather. 1997b. “Coronals are not underspecified”. Proceedings of the 15th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. 161–175. Goad, Heather. 2001a. “Assimilation phenomena and initial constraint ranking in early grammars.”, Proceedings of the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Develop- ment. Vol. 1, ed. by A.H.-J. Do, A.H.-J., L. Dominguez, and A. Johansen. 307–318. Somer- ville: Cascadilla Press. Goad, Heather. 2001b. “Consonant harmony and reduplication: parallels and differences”. Pa- per presented at the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Boston University. Goad, Heather. 2003. “Licensing and directional asymmetries in consonant harmony”. Paper presented at the Child Phonology Conference, Vancouver: UBC. Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur. 2001. Theoretical and Typological Issues in Consonant Harmony. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California at Berkeley. Hoefflin, Steven & Joseph Paul Stemberger. 2003. “Intervocalic voicing in German acquisition”. Poster Presented at the Child Phonology Conference 2003. Vancouver: UBC. Hume, Elisabeth & Giorgos Tserdanelis. 2002. “Labial unmarkedness in Sri Lankan Portuguese Creole”. Phonology 19. 441–458. Ingram, David. 1974. “Fronting in child phonology”. J. of Child Language 1. 233–241. Inkelas, Sharon & Yvan Rose. 2003. “Velar fronting revisited”. Proceedings of the 26th Annual BUCLD. vol. 1, ed. by B. Beachley, A. Brown and F. Conlin. 335–345. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Jakobson, Roman. 1941/1968. Child Language, Aphasia and Phonological Universals. The Hague/ Paris: Mouton. Jun, J. 1995. Perceptual and Articulatory Factors in Place Assimilation: An Optimality Theoretic Approach. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California at Los Angeles. Jusczyk, Paul W. 1997. “Finding and remembering words: some beginnings by English learning Infants”. Current Directions in Psychological Science 6. 170–174. Jusczyk, Paul W. 1998. “Constraining the Search for structure in the Input”. Lingua 106. 197– 218. Kappa, Ioanna. 1999. “Consonant harmony in phonological development”. Paper presented at GALA 1999. Potsdam: University of Potsdam. Kappa, Ioanna. 2001. “Alignment and Consonant Harmony: Evidence from Greek”. Proceedings of the 25th Boston University Conference on Language Development ed. by A.H.-J. Do, L. Dominguez and A. Johansen. 401–412. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Kiparsky, Paul. 1994. “Remarks on Markedness”. Paper presented at TREND 2 (Trilateral Pho- nology Weekend) Santa Cruz, Jan 1994. Levelt, Clara C. 1994. On the Acquisition of Place. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leiden.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:02:26PM via free access 28 Marina Tzakosta

Levelt, Clara. 1995. “Unfaithful Kids”. Handout of Talk delivered at John’s Hopkins University. Levelt, Clara C. 1996. “Consonant-vowel interactions in child language”. Proceedings of the UBC International Conference on Phonological Acquisition ed. by B. Bernhardt, J. Gilbert and D. Ingram. 229–239. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Lléo, C. 1996. “To spread or not to spread: different styles in the acquisition of Spanish Phonol- ogy”. Proceedings of the UBC International Conference on Phonological Acquisition, ed. by B. Bernhardt, J. Gilbert and D. Ingram. 215–228. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Macken, Marlys. 1978. “Permitted complexity in phonological development: one child’s acquisition of Spanish consonants”. Lingua 44. 219–253. Macken, Marlys. 1979. “Developmental reorganization of phonology: A hierarchy of basic units of acquisition”. Lingua 49. 11–49. Magoula, Eugenia. 2000. Η Κατάκτηση του Φωνολογικού Συστήματος της Ν.Ε.: Η Περίπτωση των Συμφώνων [The Aquisition of the Phonological System of Modern Greek: The case of consonants]. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Linguistics, School of Phi- losophy, Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece. Malikouti-Drachman, Angeliki. 2001. “Συλλαβικοί Περιορισμοί και Διαλεκτική Ποικιλία” [Syl- labic Constraints and Dialectal Variation]. Studies in Greek Linguistics 21. 402–413. Menn, Lise. 1971. “Phonotactic rules in beginning speech”. Lingua 26. 226–251. Menn, Lise. 1975. “Counter example to ‘fronting as a universal of child phonology”. J. of Child Language 2. 293–296. Menn, Lise. 1978. “Phonological units in beginning speech”. Syllables and Segments, ed. by A. Bell and J.B. Hooper. 315–334. Amsterdam: North Holland. Pater, Joe. 1997. “Minimal violation and phonological development”. Language Acquisition 6. 201–253. Pater, Joe. 2002. “Form and substance in phonological development”. In the Proceedings of the 21st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. 348–372. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Pater, Joe. 2003. “The Perceptual Acquisition of Thai Phonology by English Speakers: Task and Stimulus Effects”. Second Language Research 19.3.209–223. Pater, Joe & Adam Werle. 2001. “Typology and variation in child consonant harmony”. Linguis- tics in Potsdam 12. Proceedings of HILP5, ed. by C. Féry, A. Dubach Green and R. van de Vijver 119–139. Potsdam: University of Potsdam. Pater, Joe & Adam Werle. 2003. “Direction of assimilation in child consonant harmony”. Cana- dian Journal of Linguistics 48 (3/4). 385–408. Prince, Alan. and Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Ms., Rutgers University, NJ and University of Colorado at Boulder. Pulleyblank, Douglas. 2002. “Harmony drivers: No disagreement allowed”. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 249–297. University of California at Berkeley. Revithiadou, Anthi & Marina Tzakosta. 2004a. “Markedness Hierarchies vs. Positional Faithful- ness and the Role of Multiple Grammars in the Acquisition of Greek”. Proceedings of GALA 2003. Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition. Vol. 2, ed. by S. Baauw and J. van Kampen. 377–388. Utrecht University. LOT Occasional Papers 3. Revithiadou, Anthi & Marina Tzakosta. 2004b. “Alternative Grammars in Acquisition: Marked- ness- vs. Faithfulness-Oriented Learning”. Proceedings of The 28th BUCLD Annual Confer- ence on Language Development: Supplement ed. by A. Brugos, L. Micciula and C.E. Smith. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:02:26PM via free access Genetic and environmental effects in L1 phonological acquisition 29

Rice, K & P. Avery. 1995. “Variability in a Deterministic Model of Language Acquisition: A Theory of Segmental Elaboration”.Phonological Acquisition and Phonological Theory, ed. by J. Archibald. 23–42. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Roark, Brian & Katherine Demuth. 2000. “Prosodic constraints and the learner’s environment: a corpus study”. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development ed. by S. Howell, S. Fish, and T. Keith-Lucas. 597–608. Somerville, MA: Cas- cadilla Press, Rose, Yvan. 2000. Headedness and Prosodic Licensing in the L1 Acquisition of Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation. McGill University. Rose, Yvan. 2001. “Foot form and prosodic licensing in child phonology long-distance feature assimilation”. Handout of paper presented at GALA 2001. Palmela: Portugal. Rose, Yvan & C. dos Santos. 2004. “The prosodic basis of consonant harmony and metathesis”. Paper presented at the 3rd Phonological Acquisition Workshop. Nijmegen: University of Ni- jmegen. Saffran, Jenny, Elissa L. Newport, & Richard Aslin. 1996. “Word Segmentation: The role of dis- tributional cues”. J of Memory and Language 35. 606–621. Smith, Jennifer. 2002. Phonological Augmentation in Prominent Positions. Ph.D. dissertation. UMass, Amherst. Smith, Neil. 1973. The Acquisition of Phonology: A Case study. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press. Stampe, David. 1969. “The Acquisition of Phonetic Representation”. Proceedings of the Fifth Re- gional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society ed. by I. Binnick, et al. 443–454. University of Chicago. Stemberger, Joseph Paul. 1991. “Apparent anti-frequency Biases in language production: the addition bias and phonological underspecification.” Journal of Memory and Language 30. 161–185. Stemberger, Joseph Paul. 1995. “Why is there consonant harmony?” Paper presented at the Child Phonology Conference. Department of communication disorders. University of Memphis. Stemberger, Joseph Paul & Carol Stoel-Gammon. 1991. “The Underspecification of coronals: Evidence from language acquisition and performance errors”. The Special Status of Coronals ed. by C. Paradis and J.F. Prunet. 181–199. New York: Academic Press. Stoel-Gammon, Carol. 1996. “On the acquisition of velars in English”. Proceedings of the UBC Conference on Phonological Acquisition ed. by B. Bernhardt, J. Gilbert and D. Ingram. Somerville: 201–214. Cascadilla Press. Stoel-Gammon, Carol & Joseph Paul Stemberger. 1994. “Consonant harmony and phonological underspecification in child speech”. First and Second Language Phonology, ed. by M. Yavas. 63–80. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group. Tzakosta, Marina. 2001. “The Acquisition of manner features in Modern Greek”. Linguistics in Potsdam 12. Proceedings of HILP5 ed. by C. Féry, A. Dubach Green and R. van de Vijver. 178–193.Potsdam: University of Potsdam. Tzakosta, Marina. 2002. “Consonant Harmony in Child Language”. Proceedings of the 22nd An- nual Meeting of the Greek of Linguistics. 635–646. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thes- saloniki. Tzakosta, Marina. 2004. Multiple Parallel Grammars in the Acquisition of Stress in Greek L1. Ph.D. dissertation, ULCL/HIL. LOT Dissertation Series 93.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:02:26PM via free access 30 Marina Tzakosta

Tzakosta, Marina. in prep. “Consonant harmony in Greek and cross-linguistically. The “whys” and “hows” of assimilatory phenomena.” Ms. University of Crete. Tzakosta, Marina & Athanassia Karra. 2007. “A Typological and Comparative Account of CL and CC Clusters in Greek Dialects”. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference of Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory. Nicosia: University of Cyprus. Van der Feest, Susanne, Paula Fikkert, Rene Kager, Anne-Marie Kerkhoff & Tania Zamuner. 2003. “Laryngeal representations are not equal: Cross-linguistic evidence from acquisition”. Poster presented at the Child Phonology Conference 2003. Vancouver: UBC. Vaux, Bert & Bridget Samuels. 2005. “Laryngeal Markedness and Aspiration”. Phonology 22. 395–436. Vihman, Marilyn M. 1978. “Consonant harmony: Its scope and function in child language”. Universals of Human Language, ed. by J. Greenberg. 403–442. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Vihman, Marilyn M. 1996. Phonological Development. Oxford: Blackwell. Waterson, Natalie. 1971. “Child phonology: A prosodic view”. J. of Linguistics 7. 179–211.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 02:02:26PM via free access