Patterns in German /ʃC/-cluster acquisition

ABSTRACT

This study reports on the developmental patterns of /ʃC/ clusters in 145 normally developing monolingual German-speaking children between 2;00 and 2;11. All children completed a picture naming task to allow a systematic qualitative analysis of the production patterns. Children’s reductions of target /ʃC/clusters are examined and are evaluated with respect to two models, ‘factorial typology’ and ‘headedness’, to account for them. The results reveal expected patterns of C2 retention for ‘/ʃ/+[−continuant]’ (e.g. ‘/ʃ/+stop’ and ‘/ʃ/+nasal’) targets, and a rather indeterminate pattern for /ʃl/ and /ʃʁ/. The results for /ʃv/, a clear-cut preference of C2 retention, were rather unexpected, as the C2 is a [+continuant]. The explanation offered for the retention of /v/ is related to a place constraint. The study also examines the data from children who reached an advanced stage of cluster formation with differential targets. More specifically, in several children, one target, /ʃv/, is found to have stayed behind in the reduction phase while all others have advanced to the ‘cluster stage’. Neither the type nor the token frequencies seem satisfactory in accounting for the specific behaviour of /ʃv/. The explanation offered for the uniqueness of this target may be its non-abidence to the Sonority Sequencing Principle (SSP) because of its flat sonority and the Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP) [continuant], because of the unchanging ‘continuance’ which is demanded by the OCP. Theoretical and clinical implications are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• Consonant clusters
• German
• /ʃC/-clusters
• 2-years old
• toddlers

Declaration of interest

The authors of this article report no conflicts of interest.

Notes

1. There are, however, instances whereby the target cluster is modified by epenthesis (e.g. ‘blood’ [blʌd]→[bəlʌd]), and coalescence (e.g. ‘swim’ [swɪm] → [fɪm] or ‘smoke’ [smok] → [fok], whereby the labiality of /w/ and /m/ the frication of /s/ are combined in [f]).

2. Besides the ‘adjunct’ (Appendix) status discussed above, there are several other proposals in the literature regarding the formal representation of sC clusters. We will not go into the details of these positions here. For a comprehensive account of these different positions, see Goad (2011).

3. The subjects in the studies cited below were chosen from the participants who had the mastery of single onset /s/ and the C2 of the clusters in question and showed some signs of acquisition of sC clusters without having completed the acquisition of all sC clusters. This criterion excluded children who produced all sC clusters correctly and those who produced all targets incorrectly. The studies all involved a picture-naming task.

4. We are indebted to one of the anonymous reviewers for this point.

5. Wiese (1996) does not treat German [ʃv] as a flat sonority cluster because he argues that [v] is /ʊ/ underlyingly, and that sonority is relevant for more abstract representation, not the surface phonetic form. However, as stated by Van De Vijver and Baer-Henney (2012), this is not tenable, as there are no alternations between [v] and [ʊ].

6. Regarding their sonority levels, different sonority scales are suggested in the literature. In Hogg and McCully’s (1987) 10-point scale, voiceless fricatives are ranked lower in sonority than voiced fricatives. Selkirk (1984), on the other hand, draws a finer distinction among fricatives and considers /s/ higher in sonority than /v, z, δ/, a view which is not shared by many.