Florida International University FIU Digital Commons FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations University Graduate School 3-28-1997 Feature geometry, underspecification and child substitutions Cynthia Williams Core Florida International University DOI: 10.25148/etd.FI14061514 Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd Part of the Linguistics Commons Recommended Citation Core, Cynthia Williams, "Feature geometry, underspecification and child substitutions" (1997). FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 2517. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd/2517 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the University Graduate School at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY Miami, Florida FEATURE GEOMETRY, UNDERSPECIFICATION AND CHILD SUBSTITUTIONS A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN LINGUISTICS by Cynthia Williams Core 1997 To: Arthur W. Herriott College of Arts and Sciences This thesis, written by Cynthia Williams Core, and entitled “Feature Geometry, Underspecification and Child Substitutions,” having been approved in respect to style and intellectual content, is referred to you for judgement. We have read this thesis and recommend that it be approved. Feryal Yavas Kemp Williams Mehmet Yavas, Major Professor Date of Defense: March 28, 1997 The thesis of Cynthia Williams Core is approved. Dean Arthur W. Herriott College of Arts and Sciences Dr. Richard L. Campbell Dean of Graduate Studies Florida International University, 1997 ©COPYRIGHT 1997 by Cynthia Williams Core All rights reserved I would like to express my most sincere gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Mehmet Yavas, for his help and support with this thesis. Without his encouragement, guidance and inspiration, this project would not have been possible. Special thanks also go to the other two member of my thesis committee, Dr. Kemp Williams and Dr. Feryal Yavas who cheerfully helped oversee this project. All three of my committee members graciously and generously gave their time and assistance in this project, providing an excellent example of leadership. I am thankful to have had the opportunity to have been their student. FEATURE GEOMETRY, UNDERSPECIFICATION AND CHILD SUBSTITUTIONS by Cynthia Williams Core Florida International University, 1997 Miami, Florida Professor Mehmet Yavas, Major Professor This thesis looks at two recent developments in phonology, feature geometry and underspecification. Three models for feature geometry (Bernhardt, Halle-Sagey and Clements-Hume) and principles of radical underspecification are studied using previously collected data from child substitutions which reflect normal and unusual substitution processes. The goal of the thesis is to determine the ability of the feature geometry models and underspecification to account for the differences between normal and unusual processes in a principled manner. The findings are that neither feature geometry nor underspecification when used alone provides a complete explanation for the difference between normal and unusual substitution processes. However, by incorporating principles of underspecification into the feature geometry models, the normal and unusual substitutions can be distinguished. Modifications to the feature geometries are recommended based on the findings. 1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................1 2. Literature Review...................... .'...................................................................................... 5 2.1 Feature Geometry.........................................................................................................5 2.2 Underspecification......................................................................................................16 2.3 Phonological Development........................................................................................22 2.4 Acquisition, Feature Geometry and Underspecification...................................... 28 2.5 Goal of the Thesis....................................................................... 31 3. Analysis of Feature Geometry Models and Substitutions...........................................34 3.1 Normal Processes........................................................................................................35 3.1.1 Stopping: /s/—»[t], /5/—>[d].................................................................................35 3.1.2 Fronting.................................................................................................................39 3.1.3 Liquid Gliding: /r/-»[w], /!/—>[j]...................................................................... 44 3.1.4 Fricative Replacement: /0/—>[s], /0/—>[f].........................................................48 3.1.5 Summary of Normal Processes...........................................................................52 3.2 Less Common Substitutions.....................................................................................53 3.2.1 Fricative to Liquid: /s/-»[l]................................................................................53 3.2.2 Stopping of Liquids: /l/—>[d], /r/—>[d]............................................................. 55 3.2.3 Summary of Less Common Processes.............................................................. 59 3.3 Unusual Processes.......................................................................................................60 3.3.1 Frication of Approximants: /I/->[6], /w/—»[v]................................................60 3.3.2 Backing: /t/—>[k]..................................................................................................65 3.3.3 Stopping Glides: /w/—»[b], /j/—>[t]......................................................................67 3.3.4 Frication of Stops: /b/-»[v].................................................................................71 3.3.5 Gliding of Fricatives: /17-»[w]............................................................................73 3.3.6 Summary of Unusual Processes.........................................................................75 4. Discussion of Analysis......................................................................................................75 4.1 Underspeciflcation......................................................................................................76 4.2 Feature Geometry Trees............................................................................................78 4.3 Markedness .............................................................................................................. 82 4.4 Developing a Metric....................................................................................................85 4.5 Data from Normal Phonological Development...................................................... 87 4.6 Relationship of Findings to Other Studies..............................................................90 4.7 Redefining the Tree Structure.................................................................................. 94 5. Conclusion......................................................................................................................... 95 Table I Underspecification of Adult English Consonants........................................... 22 Table 2 Order of Acquisition of Phonemes..................................................................... 24 Table 3 Customary Age of Production and Mastery of Consonantal Phonemes 24 Table 4 Age of Disappearance of Processes....................................................................26 Table 5 Chronology of Processes......................................................................... 26 Figure 2.1 .a The Halle-Sagey Model of Feature Geometry................................................ 13 Figure 2.1 .b The Clements-Hume Model of Feature Geometry.........................................14 Figure 2.1.c The Bernhardt Model of Feature Geometry.................................................... 16 Figure 3.1.a Bernhardt Model of /s/—>[t].................................. 36 Figure 3.1.b Clements-Hume Model of /s/—>[t]...................................................................36 Figure 3.l.c Halle-Sagey Model of /s/—>[t].........................................................................37 Figure 3.1.d Bernhardt Model of /d/—»[d]............................................................................37 Figure 3.1.e Clements-Hume Model of /6/-» [d ].................................................................38 Figure 3.1.f Halle-Sagey Model of /6/—>[d].........................................................................38 Figure 3.1 .g Bernhardt Model of /k/—>[t]............................................................................40 Figure 3.1 .h Clements-Hume Model of /k/—>[t]..................................................................40 Figure 3.l.i Halle-Sagey Model of /k/—>[t].........................................................................41 Figure 3.1.j Bernhardt Model of /J7->[s].............................................................................41 Figure 3.1.k Clements-Hume Model of /J/—>[s]........................................................