Conspiring simplification strategies of [Obstruent+Liquid] clusters in a case study of child Greek: emergence of the marked

ABSTRACT

This paper addresses the idiosyncratic cluster simplification patterns observed in a child with disordered phonological development, who is acquiring Greek. The child has mastered word-internal and word-final codas and clusters of reversed sonority. However, the child does not realise the target well-formed tautosyllabic [Obstruent+Liquid] clusters with rising sonority. The child’s system requires a single onset with maximum sonority dispersion between the onset and the syllable nucleus. As a result, cluster simplification occurs, via reduction to the less sonorous Obstruent – the most prevalent reduction pattern cross-linguistically. However, at the same time, the grammar requires faithful realisation of the target segment number. This requirement is fulfiled through two distinct conspiring metathesis patterns, distributed complementarily, resulting in the realisation of marked structures. The patterns depend on the position of the cluster within the target word. In word internal position, a compensatory metathesis of the Liquid takes place in the preceding syllable coda. In word initial position, the Manner of Articulation of the metathesised Liquid is delinked, while its Coronal Place of Articulation is faithfully preserved, and is realised by default as a Coronal Sibilant [s]. The latter Sibilant is attached as an appendix to the syllable node at the word left-edge. We argue that, in the grammar of this child, there is a-synchronisation between the development of the prosodic word layer and the development of syllable layer. Specifically, a-synchronisation is evident in the development of the (branching) onset syllabic subconstituent.

KEYWORDS:

• Consonant clusters
• phonological disorders
• cluster simplification
• phonological development
• appendix
• Standard Modern Greek

Acknowledgments

We thank the guest editors of this volume, Katerina Nikolaidis and Anna Sfakianaki. We also wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments and suggestions, which improved the content and the readability of this paper. All errors remain ours.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

¹ e.g. J. A. Barlow and Dinnsen (1998) (English); Ben-David et al. (2010) (Hebrew); B. M. Bernhardt et al. (2015) (Granada Spanish); Gerrits (2010) (Dutch); Ignatova et al. (2018) (Bulgarian); Kavitskaya and Babyonyshev (2011) (Russian); Lundeborg Hammarström (2018) (Swedish); Másdóttir (2018) (Icelandic); Mildner and Tomi (2010) (Croatian); Ozbič et al. (2018) (Slovenian); Yavaș et al. (2018) (German), to name a few among many others.

² Details on the child’s background are provided in the Methods section.

³ Numerous proposals have been put forth regarding the internal structure of syllable (for an overview, see Blevins, 1995).

⁴ In some languages, the nuclear segment can also be a consonant (e.g. Zec, 2007, a.o.).

⁵ The Maximal Onset Principle seems to be violated in some languages. For example, according to Sommer (e.g. Sommer (1981), as cited in Blevins (1995, p. 230)), the Australian Aboriginal language Kunjen has the VC syllable type only. Therefore, in Kunjen, the sequence VCV is syllabified as VC.V.

⁶ According to Clements (1990), a syllable is divided into two demisyllables which overlap at the syllable peak. For example, the two demi syllables in a CCVC syllable are CCV and VC.

⁷ Language-specific phonotactic constraints impose co-occurrence restrictions on the licencing of tautosyllabic branching onsets. For this reason, Steriade (1982) proposed fine-grained, language-specific scales.

⁸ We are using the term cluster for all consonant sequences, not restricting it to well-formed tautosyllabic clusters. We define the clusters under a branching onset as tautosyllabic.

⁹ For a typological survey on word-final codas, see VanDam (2004).

¹⁰ But, see Footnote 5 on the Kunjen language, which has only the VC syllable type.

¹¹ Arvaniti (2007, p. 108) classifies [r] in Greek in the natural class of sonorants. In Standard Modern Greek, the rhotic sound is represented phonetically as a TAP [ɾ], based on its constriction duration (Arvaniti, 2007) as well as in a series of acoustic and articulatory studies (Baltazani & Nicolaidis, 2013; Nicolaidis & Baltazani, 2021; Baltazani, 2005; among others). However, this sound exhibits significant variability, and it can also be realised as an approximant (Baltazani, 2005). When Greek native speakers produce the rhotic sound in Cr clusters of rising sonority, the degree of constriction can vary widely, ranging from complete constriction to ‘very open approximant realisations’ (Nicolaidis & Baltazani, 2021, p. 1541). In their study, Baltazani and Nicolaidis (2013) observed incomplete constriction, particularly in intervocalic contexts. Arvaniti (1987, cited in Arvaniti, 2007, p. 110), provides evidence that the Rhotic is realised as a Tap in single onsets and as a short Trill in clusters and coda position, e.g. [ˈar.tos] ‘bread’. Baltazani and Nicolaidis (2012; 2013) and Nicolaidis and Baltazani (2011, 2013, 2021) have shown that the typical production is that of a tap in clusters. Furthermore, Baltazani (2005) in her acoustic study of the Greek Rhotic provides evidence provides evidence for the variability observed in rhotic production and the factors that affect its production. Baltazani found that the rhotic may be produced as a Tap (64%) (with 48% complete constriction and 52% incomplete constriction), as an Approximant 34%, and as Trill 2%. From a phonological viewpoint, the distribution of Rhotic classifies it as a Sonorant. The Tap, as a sonorant (in Greek), is more sonorous than Obstruents, exhibiting a reversed/falling sonority in [Rhotic+Obstruent] clusters which are disallowed in Greek (see the discussion in Mitsiaki (2014, pp. 43–44), a.o.). As a convention, we use [r] to represent the Greek rhotic in any syllabic position throughout this study.

¹² Homorganic clusters are not allowed in native Greek, e.g. *tl, *pm, *fm, *sn, *sl, *sr, etc. *[sl] may be realised in adapted loanwords, e.g. [ˈslavos] ‘Slav’ (Kappa, 1995).

¹³ The plateau clusters [fç, θç, vʝ, ðʝ] are derived from the underlying sequences/fiV/,/θiV/,/viV/,/ðiV/, respectively, where glide formation and subsequent strengthening of an unstressed vocalic/i/followed by a vowel/a, o, e, u/occur (e.g. Holton et al., 2012, a.o.).

¹⁴ The plateau clusters [pt] and [kt] belong to the earlier conservative/high variety of Greek, called Katharevusa (‘puristic’ formal language). They are mostly realised dissimilated as [ft] and [xt], respectively, in the demotic (colloquial) language (Holton et al., 2012, p. xxiii).

¹⁵ The appendix condition is termed ‘Spec(ifier)-condition’ in the theoretical approach of Drachman (1990) which is an extended version of the X-Bar syllable structure (Levin, 1985 a.o.).

¹⁶ [target (adult) form] ➝ [child’s realisation], age (year;months.days), gloss.

¹⁷ Gnanadesikan (1996, p. 238) points out that the characteristics of the child’s grammar were stable between the age of 2;03 and 2;09.

¹⁸ In the Greek case study (child’s age range 2;06–2;08), the homorganic cluster is either simplified to Obstruent₁ or metathesis takes place, but the latter occurs only word-internally, as exemplified in (19). It is worth noting that this child has acquired the tautosyllabic [Obstruent₁+Sonorant₂] clusters (with the exception of the homorganic Coronal ones (ratio 100%), like [tr, ðr, θr, θn]) in both word-initial and word-internal onset position, as well as reverse sonority clusters consisting of [Fricative+Stop], i.e. [st, sp, sk, ft, xt] (Kappa & Papoutsi, 2019, p. 438).

Ιn the Polish case study, according to Łukaszewicz (2007, pp. 65–66), the child realises all target word-internal Stop-Sonorant clusters as homorganic Nasal-Stop sequences invariably. The Stop is parsed in the onset position of the syllable, whereas the Sonorant is metathesised and occupies the empty coda position of the preceding syllable, realised as a Nasal with the same place of articulation as the Stop in the following onset position.

¹⁹ Only two tokens with epenthesis are attested in this developmental case study.

²⁰ But, cf. Kavitskaya and Babyonyshev (2011). In the pseudowords they used in their experiment, they observed systematic reduction to the Liquid in [Obstruent+Liquid] clusters, while [Liquid+Obstruent] reversed sonority clusters were reduced to the less sonorous Obstruent.

²¹ Note that reduction of the whole syllable is not necessarily related to the cluster; it is also attested in words without clusters.

³⁰ Substitution of the rhotic to produce reversed sonority cluster (target [‘el.ci.θro] ‘sleigh’ is realised as [‘el.ci.θto]), and realisation of a simple onset, containing an unfaithful Obstruent ([’ðra.kos] realised as [‘za.kos]). There is no systematicity in these very few tokens, and no claims can be made based on them. Marginal strategies will not be discussed in this study.

²² The marginal strategies attested in the child’s productions are beyond the scope of this paper and will not be addressed here.

²³ Note that, in this dataset, there are no target words where the syllable that precedes the word-internal OL cluster has a coda (e.g. [ˈan.θro.pos] ‘human’).

²⁴ Palatalisation of [+back] Obstruents [k, g, x, ɣ] before [+front] vowels [i, e] is an obligatory process in Greek.

²⁵ Word internal [Liquid+Obstruent] sequences are allowed in Greek but, in these cases, due to the Syllable Contact Law, the Liquid and the following Obstruent are heterosyllabic, i.e. the more sonorous Liquid is parsed as a coda, while the less sonorous the Obstruent is syllabified in the onset of the following syllable; e.g. [ˈor.kos] ‘vow’ (e.g. Kappa, 1995; a.o.)

²⁶ The symbol ^ means ‘immediately followed by’ (Green & Van de Vijver, 2003, p. 239)

²⁷ The short forms of the constraints are given in parentheses.

²⁸ At the time of data collection (child’s age 4;06–5 years).

²⁹ Remember that complex codas are not allowed in native Greek words (see the Background section).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (H.F.R.I.) under the ‘2nd Call for H.F.R.I. Research Projects to support Faculty Members & Researchers’ [#3754]. The project was awarded to Ioanna Kappa.