Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-h2mp8 Total loading time: 0.199 Render date: 2021-07-30T15:15:24.580Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

The role of geminates in infants' early word production and word-form recognition*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2016

MARILYN VIHMAN
Affiliation:
Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York
MARINELLA MAJORANO
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Education and Psychology, University of Verona
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Infants learning languages with long consonants, or geminates, have been found to ‘overselect’ and ‘overproduce’ these consonants in early words and also to commonly omit the word-initial consonant. A production study with thirty Italian children recorded at 1;3 and 1;9 strongly confirmed both of these tendencies. To test the hypothesis that it is the salience of the medial geminate that detracts attention from the initial consonant we conducted three experiments with 11-month-old Italian infants. We first established baseline word-form recognition for untrained familiar trochaic disyllables and then tested for word-form recognition, separately for words with geminates and singletons, after changing the initial consonant to create nonwords from both familiar and rare forms. Familiar words with geminates were recognized despite the change, words with singletons were not. The findings indicate that a feature occurring later in the word affects initial consonant production and perception, which supports the whole-word phonology model.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[*]

The authors would like to thank Tamar Keren-Portnoy for her help planning the analysis of the production data and both Rory A. DePaolis and Tamar Keren-Portnoy for their advice regarding the choice of stimuli and other aspects of the experimental design. We thank Andrea Capra, who kindly recorded the stimuli and helped to set up the experiments, Chiara Rainieri, who also helped with the experiments and carried out some analyses of the production data, and Laura Guidotti, who carefully checked the production data for all thirty children at two time-points. Last but not least we thank all of the families for their participation.

References

Bhaya Nair, R. (1991). Monosyllabic English or disyllabic Hindi? Indian Linguistics 52, 5190.Google Scholar
Boysson-Bardies, B. de & Vihman, M. M. (1991). Adaptation to language: evidence from babbling and first words in four languages. Language 67, 297319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buder, E. & Stoel-Gammon, C. (2002). American and Swedish children's acquisition of vowel duration: effects of vowel identity and final stop voicing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 111, 1854–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caselli, M. C. & Casadio, P. (1995). Il primo vocabolario del bambino: Guida all'uso del questionario MacArthur per la valutazione della comunicazione e del linguaggio nei primi anni di vita. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Davis, B. L. & MacNeilage, P. F. (2000). An embodiment perspective on the acquisition of speech perception. Phonetica 57, 229–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Demuth, K., Culbertson, J. & Alter, J. (2006). Word minimality, epenthesis and coda licensing in the early acquisition of English. Language and Speech 49, 137–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grunwell, P. (1982). Clinical phonology. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Hallé, P. & Boysson-Bardies, B. de (1994). Emergence of an early lexicon: infants’ recognition of words. Infant Behavior and Development 17, 119–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallé, P. & Boysson-Bardies, B. de (1996). The format of representation of recognized words in infants’ early receptive lexicon. Infant Behavior and Development 19, 435–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, L. E. & Fogler, K. A. (2007). Meeting Mr. Davis vs. meeting Mr. Davin: the effects of name frequency on learning proper names in young and older adults. Memory 15, 366–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kager, R., Pater, J. & Zonneveld, W. (eds.) (2004). Constraints in phonological acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemler Nelson, D. G., Jusczyk, P. W., Mandel, D. R., Myers, J., Turk, A. & Gerken, L. A. (1995). The head-turn preference procedure for testing auditory perception. Infant Behavior and Development 18, 111–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keren-Portnoy, T., Majorano, M. & Vihman, M. M. (2009). From phonetics to phonology: the emergence of first words in Italian. Journal of Child Language 36, 235–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keren-Portnoy, T. & Segal, O. (in press). Phonological development in Hebrew- learning infants and toddlers: perception and production. To appear in Berman, R. (ed.), Acquisition of Hebrew from infancy to adolescence. TiLAR. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Khattab, G. & Al-Tamimi, J. (2013). Early phonological patterns in Lebanese Arabic. In Vihman, M. M. & Keren-Portnoy, T. (eds), The emergence of phonology, 374414. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunnari, S. (2000). Characteristics of early lexical and phonological development in children acquiring Finnish. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B34, University of Oulu.Google Scholar
Kunnari, S., Nakai, S. & Vihman, M. M. (2001). Cross-linguistic evidence for the acquisition of geminates. Psychology of Language and Communication 5, 1324.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: tools for analyzing talk, Vol. 1: Transcription format and programs, and Vol. 2: The database. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Majorano, M., Rainieri, C. & Corsano, P. (2013). Parents' child-directed communication and child language development: a longitudinal study with Italian toddlers. Journal of Child Language 40, 836–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marconi, L., Ott, M., Pesenti, E., Ratti, D. & Tavella, M. (1994). Lessico elementare: Dati statistici sull'italiano scritto e letto dai bambini delle elementari. Bologna: Zanichelli.Google Scholar
Olswang, L. B., Stoel-Gammon, C., Coggins, T. & Carpenter, R. (1987). Assessing prelinguistic and early linguistic behaviors in developmentally young children. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Ota, M. (2003). The development of prosodic structure in early words. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, E., Post, B., Astruc, L., Prieto, P. & Vanrell, M. M. (2012). Measuring child rhythm. Language and Speech 55, 203–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rinaldi, P., Barca, L. & Burani, C. (2004). A database for semantic, grammatical and frequency properties of the first words acquired by Italian children. Behavior, Research Methods, Instruments & Computers 36, 525–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savinainen-Makkonen, T. (2000a). Learning long words – a typological perspective. Language and Speech 43, 205–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savinainen-Makkonen, T. (2000b). Word initial consonant omissions – a developmental process in children learning Finnish. First Language 20, 161–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savinainen-Makkonen, T. (2001). Suomalainen lapsi fonologiaa omaksumassa. [Finnish children acquiring phonology.] Publications of the Department of Phonetics, University of Helsinki 42.Google Scholar
Savinainen-Makkonen, T. (2007). Geminate template: a model for first Finnish words. First Language 27, 347–59. Reprinted in Vihman & Keren-Portnoy (2013b).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seal, B., DePaolis, R. A., Baird, C., Kulsar, S., Keren-Portnoy, T. & Vihman, M. M. (2012). The effect of dialect, speaker gender, otitis media, and modality on word form recognition. Paper presented at the International Child Phonology Conference, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (1978). Temporal aspects of English speech production: a developmental perspective. Journal of Phonetics 6, 3767.Google Scholar
Stoel-Gammon, C., Williams, K. & Buder, E. (1994). Cross-language differences in phonological acquisition: Swedish and American /t/. Institute of Linguistics University of Stockholm (PERILUS) 18, 2138.Google Scholar
Swingley, D. (2005). Eleven-month-olds’ knowledge of how familiar words sound. Developmental Science 8, 432–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Szreder, M. (2013). The acquisition of consonant clusters in Polish: a case study. In Vihman, M. M. & Keren-Portnoy, T. (eds), The emergence of phonology, 343–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vihman, M. M. (2010). Phonological templates in early words: a cross-linguistic study. In Fougeron, C., Kühnert, B., D'Imperio, M. & Vallée, N. (eds), Laboratory phonology 10, 261–84. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vihman, M. M. (2014). Phonological development: the first two years, 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vihman, M. M. (2015). Perception and production in phonological development. In MacWhinney, B. & O'Grady, W. (eds), Handbook of language emergence, 437–57. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vihman, M. M. (2016). Prosodic structures and templates in bilingual phonological development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 19, 6988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vihman, M. M. & Croft, W. (2007). Phonological development: toward a ‘radical’ templatic phonology. Linguistics 45, 683725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vihman, M. M., Kay, E., Boysson-Bardies, B. de, Durand, C. & Sundberg, U. (1994). External sources of individual differences? A cross-linguistic analysis of the phonetics of mothers’ speech to one-year-old children. Developmental Psychology 30, 652–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vihman, M. M. & Keren-Portnoy, T. (2013a). Introduction. In Vihman, M. M. & Keren-Portnoy, T. (eds), The emergence of phonology, 114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vihman, M. M. & Keren-Portnoy, T. (eds.) (2013b). The emergence of phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vihman, M. M. & Kunnari, S. (2006). The sources of phonological knowledge: a cross-linguistic perspective. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 35, 133–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vihman, M. M., Macken, M. A., Miller, R., Simmons, H. & Miller, J. (1985). From babbling to speech: a reassessment of the continuity issue. Language 61, 395443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vihman, M. M. & McCune, L. (1994). When is a word a word? Journal of Child Language 21, 517–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vihman, M. M., Nakai, S. & DePaolis, R. A. (2006). Getting the rhythm right: a cross-linguistic study of segmental duration in babbling and first words. In Goldstein, L., Whalen, D. & Best, C. (eds), Laboratory phonology 8, 341–66. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vihman, M. M., Nakai, S., DePaolis, R. A. & Hallé, P. (2004). The role of accentual pattern in early lexical representation. Journal of Memory and Language 50, 336–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vihman, M. M., Thierry, G., Lum, J., Keren-Portnoy, T. & Martin, P. (2007). Onset of word form recognition in English, Welsh and English–Welsh bilingual infants. Applied Psycholinguistics 28, 475–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vihman, M. M. & Velleman, S. L. (2000). The construction of a first phonology. Phonetica 57, 255–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wauquier, S. & Yamaguchi, N. (2013). Templates in French. In Vihman, M. M. & Keren-Portnoy, T. (eds), The emergence of phonology, 317–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Vihman and Majorano supplementary material

Appendix

Download Vihman and Majorano supplementary material(File)
File 25 KB
13
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The role of geminates in infants' early word production and word-form recognition*
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The role of geminates in infants' early word production and word-form recognition*
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The role of geminates in infants' early word production and word-form recognition*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *