2004
Volume 25, Issue 2-3
  • ISSN: 1384-5845
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1171

Abstract

Abstract

This paper reflects on the acquisition of Dutch word stress reported in 1 (1996), where I argued that children systematically build up a grammar for word stress that fits a parameter framework without assuming innate knowledge. In the past 25 years this work has been praised and criticized because (a) the theoretical framework changed to Optimality Theory, (b) the proposed stages did not always adequately fit the data, and (c) new evidence from infant speech perception suggested that children know the word stress system before they start speaking. To fully understand how children acquire word stress, the next 25 year requires researchers from various disciplines to join forces to study representations and perception-production processes in tandem, the mechanisms that cause learning, and the interaction of word stress with other linguistic subdomains.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2020.2-3.012.FIKK
2020-10-01
2022-01-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ambridge, B. & LievenE.(2011). Child language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Bree, E. de, van AlphenP., FikkertP. & WijnenF.(2008). Metrical stress in comprehension and production of Dutch children at risk of dyslexia. In: ChanH., JacobH. & KapiaE. (red.), BUCLD 32: Proceedings of the 32nd annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville: Cascadilla Press, 60–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Carter, A. & GerkenL.(2004). Do children’s omissions leave traces?Journal of Child Language31(3), 561–586.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Dresher, B.E. & KayeJ.D.(1990). A computational learning model for metrical theory. Cognition34(2), 137–195.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Fikkert, P.(1996). Kinderfonologie. De verwerving van klemtoon. Nederlandse Taalkunde1(1), 2–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Fikkert, P.(1994). On the acquisition of prosodic structure. HIL dissertations in Linguistics 6. Den Haag: Holland Academic Graphics.
  7. Fikkert, P.(2005). Getting sounds structures in mind. Acquisition bridging linguistics and psychology? In: CutlerA.E. (red.), Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 43–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Fikkert, P., OtaM. & LiuL. (te verschijnen). Acquisition of word prosody. In ChenA. & GussenhovenC. (red.). Oxford Handbook of Prosody. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Frank, M.C., BergelsonE., BergmannC., CristiaA., FlocciaC., GervainJ., HamlinJ.K., HannonE.E., KlineM., LeveltC., Lew‐WilliamsC., NazziT., PannetonR., RabagliatiH., SoderstromM., SullivanJ., WaxmanS. & YurovskyD.(2017), A collaborative approach to infant research: Promoting reproducibility, best practices, and theory‐building. Infancy22, 421–435.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Gerken, L. A.(1994). A metrical template account of children’s weak syllable omissions. Journal of Child Language21, 565–584.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Gussenhoven, C.(2009). Vowel duration, syllable quantity, and stress in Dutch. In: HansonK. & InkelasSharon (red.). The nature of the word. Essays in honor of Paul Kiparsky. Cambridge, MA/London, UK: MIT Press, 181–198.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gussenhoven, C.(2014). Possible and impossible exceptions in Dutch word stress. In: van der HulstH. (red.), Word stress: Theoretical and typological issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 276–296.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hayes, B.(1995). Metrical stress theory: Principles and case Studies. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  14. Houston, D.M., JusczykP.W., KuijpersC., CoolenR. & CutlerA.(2000). Cross-language word segmentation by 9-month-olds. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review7(3), 504–509.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hulst, H. van der(2014). Word stress: Theoretical and typological issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  16. JusczykP. W., HoustonD., & NewsomeM.(1999). The beginnings of word segmentation in english-learning infants. Cognitive Psychology39, 159–207.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Jusczyk, P. W. & CutlerA. & RedanzN.(2008). Infants’ preference for the predominant stress patterns of English words. Child Development64, 675–687.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kager, R.(1989). A metrical theory of stress and destressing in English and Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
  19. Kager, R.(1995). The metrical theory of word stress. In: GoldsmithJ. (red.), The handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 367–340.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kehoe, M.(1999). Truncation without shape constraints: The latter stages of prosodic acquisition. Language Acquisition8(1), 23–67.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kehoe, M. & Stoel-GammonC.(1997). The acquisition of prosodic structure: An investigation of current accounts of children's prosodic development. Language73(1), 113–144.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Levelt, C.(1994). On the acquisition of place. HIL dissertations in Linguistics 8. Den Haag: Holland Academic Graphics.
  23. Levelt, C., SchillerN. & LeveltW.(2000). The acquisition of syllable types. Language acquisition8(3), 237–264.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. LeveltC.(2012). Perception mirrors production in 14- and 18-month-olds: the case of coda consonants. Cognition123, 174–179.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. MacWhinney, B.(2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk. Third Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  26. Nazzi, T., BertonciniJ. & MehlerJ.(1998). Language discrimination by newborns: Toward an understanding of the role of rhythm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance24(3), 756–766.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Rose, Y. & MacWhinneyB.(2014). The PhonBank Project: Data and software-assisted methods for the study of phonology and phonological development. In: DurandJ., GutU. & KristoffersenG. (red.), The Oxford handbook of corpus phonology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 380-401.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Smith, N.V.(1973). The acquisition of phonology: A case study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  29. Smolensky, P.(1996). On the comprehension/production dilemma in child language. Linguistic Inquiry27, 720–731.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Taelman, H. & GillisS.(2000). Gebruiken kinderen abstracte prosodische representaties? Een analyse van truncaties in het Maarten-corpus (Vol. 99). Antwerpen: University of Antwerp.
  31. Taelman, H. & GillisS.(2003). Hebben Nederlandstalige kinderen een voorkeur voor trochaïsche productievormen? Een onderzoek naar truncaties in vroege kindertaal. Nederlandse Taalkunde8, 130–157.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Oostendorp, M. van(2015). Parameters in phonological analysis: Stress. In: FabregasA.J., MateuJ. & PutnamM. (red.). Contemporary linguistic parameters. Londen: Bloomsbury, 234–258.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Ota, M(2001). Phonological theory and the development of prosodic structure: Evidence from child Japanese. Annual Review of Language Acquisition1(1), 65–118.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Pater, J.(1997). Minimal violation and phonological development. Language Acquisition6(3), 201–253.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Prince, A. & SmolenskyP.(1993). Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Technical Report CU-CS-696-93, Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.
  36. Yang, C.(2016). The price of linguistic productivity: How children learn to break rules of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2020.2-3.012.FIKK
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): child language; language acquisition; Optimality Theory; parameters; production; word stress
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error