Psycholinguistic evidence for the composite group
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36505/ExLing-2016/07/0043/000302Keywords:
language acquisition, speech encoding, phonological word, composite groupAbstract
It is widely accepted that speech is phonologically structured in terms of phonological constituents composing a Prosodic Hierarchy (PH). There is less consensus, however, regarding the constituents themselves. We focus here on the controversy surrounding a prosodic constituent between the Phonological Word and the Phonological Phrase, the Clitic Group in (Nespor and Vogel 1986/2007). While in some analyses it has been excluded, elsewhere it has been replaced by a revised Composite Group (κ) (Vogel 2009). Here we present psycholinguistic data from language acquisition and adult speech production that support the existence of κ across languages.
References
Athanasopoulou, A. 2016. Prosodic development in Greek and English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware.
Demuth, K. and Fee, J. 1995. Minimal Words in early phonological development. Manuscript, Brown University & Dalhousie University.
Kehoe, M., Stoel-Gammon, C., and Buder, E. 1995. Acoustic correlates of stress in young children's speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38(2), 338-350.
Koirala, C. 2012. The composite group as the units of speech production in Nepali. Talk presented at the 33rd Annual Conference of the Linguistic Society of Nepal.
Levelt, W. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nespor, M. and Vogel, I. 1986/2007. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.
Shilling, H. 2010. Compound and phrasal stress acquisition: When a greenhouse becomes different to a green house. MA dissertation, University of Birmingham.
Tzakosta, M. 2004. The acquisition of the clitic group in Greek. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of Greek Linguistics, 693-704. Thessaloniki, Greece: Faculty of Philosophy, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
Tzakosta, M. and Manola, D. 2012. Perception and production of compounds by preschool children: pedagogical consequences. In Malafantis et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Greek Pedagogical Society – Greek Pedagogy and Educational Research, vol. 2, 1119-1130. Athens: Diadrasi.
Vigário, M. 2011. Prosodic structure between the prosodic word and the phonological phrase: recursive nodes or an independent domain? The Linguistic Review, 27(4), 485-530.
Vogel, I. 2009. The Status of the Clitic Group. In J. Grijzenhout and B. Kabak (eds.), Phonological Domains: Universals and Deviations, 15-46. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Vogel, I. and Raimy, E. 2002. The Acquisition of Compound vs. Phrasal Stress in English. Journal of Child Language, 29(2), 225-250.
Vogel, I. and Spinu, L. 2009. The domain of palatalization in Romanian. In P. Masullo, E. O’Rourke, and C. Huang (eds.), Selected Papers from LSRL 37, 307-320. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Vogel, I. and Wheeldon, L. 2010. Units of speech production in Italian. In S. Colina, A. Olarrea, and A. Carvalho (eds.), Romance Linguistics 2009, 95-110. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Wheeldon, L. and Lahiri, A. 1997. Prosodic Units in Speech Production. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 356-381.
Wheeldon, L. and Lahiri, A. 2002. The minimal unit of phonological encoding: prosodic or lexical word. Cognition, 85, B31-B41.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
