Sonority and the acquisition of #sC clusters

Abstract

Because of their rather exceptional behavior in languages, #sC clusters have been assigned a special ‘adjunct’ status and discussed separately from other (true) clusters. Support for the distinction between the two cluster types can also be found in developing phonologies. While the different (adjunct) status of #sC clusters has been agreed on, there is disagreement whether all or only some of these clusters should be considered as such. Cross-linguistic acquisition studies into the patterning of the different types of #sC clusters based on sonority can elucidate their status.

Keywords:

• Sonority
• s-clusters
• acquisition

Notes

1 For an exhaustive list of these characteristics, see Parker (2002).

2 There have been other proposals some presenting additional refinements within a certain class of sounds, others suggesting different orders across classes of segments. For example, Selkirk (1984) draws a finer distinction among fricatives in that /s/ is considered higher in sonority than /v, z, /, which in turn are higher than /f, /. Also noteworthy is the dispute in the relative order of voiced stops and voiceless fricatives. While some rank voiced stops higher than voiceless fricatives (Jespersen, 1904; Bolinger, 1962; Brakel, 1979; Boersma, 1998), several others hold the view that voiceless fricatives are higher in sonority than voiced stops (Lass, 1984; Selkirk, 1984; Katamba, 1989; Durand, 1990; Blevins, 1995; Gnanadesikan, 1997). There are also those who consider voiced stops and voiceless fricatives to be equal in sonority (Venneman, 1972; Hooper, 1976; Larson, 1990).

3 Although glides are not included in this hierarchy, it is not difficult to place them appropriately; since they are non-syllabic versions of high vowels, they can be assigned the same sonority value as the high vowels. Another class of sounds missing from the hierarchy is that of the affricates. Their position on the sonority scale has been a persisting question. Since these segments do not form clusters with other consonants, and thus do not provide any phonotactic evidence, their classification has not been very clear. Also, their complex geometric representation adds to this problem. I go along with several (Hankamer and Aissen, 1974; Lass, 1984; Katamba, 1989; Goldsmith, 1990) and put them in between stops and fricatives.

4 Other possibilities also exist; coalescence (blending) is one of them (e.g., /sw-/ →[f], as in swim→[fim] which combines the stridency of C1 with the labiality of C2. Another possibility is the substitution of one member or both members of the cluster (e.g., /sl-/ → [sw-] or [fw-] as in sleep → [swip] or [fwip]). However, such occurrences are not as common as the reductions.

5 Jongstra (2003) uses the following sonority scale:

• Table

She calls clusters with a sonority distance of less than three essentially ‘similar’ in terms of sonority and those with a sonority distance of at least three essentially ‘dissimilar’.

6 Comparative results and implications are discussed in Yavaş et al. (forthcoming).