The Acquisition of Manner Features in Greek Marina Tzakosta

ULCL/HIL

0. Abstract In our study we will try to show, after a brief cross-linguistic discussion concerning manner features, which of these can be designated as the unmarked in child Greek. We will discuss the degree to which these features trigger or undergo assimilatory processes, as well as the order of their acquisition. All these provide clues as to which features of manner of articulation are the unmarked ones. We are also interested in examining the presence or absence of voicing contrasts during language acquisition, since we do consider voicing as a manner feature. 1. Introduction The study of manner features in language acquisition can be informed by cases of consonant harmony (CH), a process whereby consonants that are not string-adjacent assimilate to one another. Research has mainly focused on long-distance assimilation of place features (Drachman 1978, Shaw 1991, Stemberger and Stoel-Gammon 1991, Gierut 1996a,b, Goad 1996, 1997, Scott 1996, Heijkoop 1997). Examples are given in (1) from English and Greek respectively: (1) (a) /sop/ → [pop] (right-to-left labial harmony)

/spun/ → [bum] (left-to-right labial harmony) (from Goad 1997) (b) /pi»nelo/ → [pi»lelo] (=brush) (left-to-right liquid harmony)

/tra»pezi/ → [pa»peDi] (=table) (left-to-right labial harmony) (from Tzakosta 1999)

Both Goad (1997) and Tzakosta (1999) emphasized the place harmony effects, i.e. labial harmony in English and place harmony involving the influence of directionality in Greek, without focusing on the fact that the same cases involve manner harmony, i.e. full copy. Our research study is based on the data of Dionisis (hereafter D), a young boy we were meeting in a kindergarten in Rethymno, Crete. We collected our data between the child’s 2;1 and 2;9 years of age. Our sessions lasted 25-45 minutes once a week. D’s data have been transcribed in the IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet). The theoretical framework adopted for this study is

© 2001 Marina Tzakosta

Caroline Féry, Antony Dubach Green & Ruben van de Vijver (eds.), Proceedings of HILP 5, x-x, University of Potsdam

MARINA TZAKOSTA 2

Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993). In section 2 we discuss some cross-linguistic research findings on the acquisition of manner features. In section 3 we provide our findings from the acquisition of manner features in Modern Greek. In section 4 we refer to the models, which have been mainly used by researchers of language acquisition and we will justify why we will not adopt any of them for our analysis. Then, in section 5 we turn to Optimality Theory to account for our analysis and we will provide the constraints involved in the acquisition of manner features. Finally, we come up with some conclusions in section 6. 2. Cross-linguistic research findings Previous research, mainly for English, has indicated that some manner features are unmarked in child language. Linguistic evidence shows that ‘stopping’, i.e. the replacement of fricatives by stops, is the preferred pattern in child language, which means that continuancy constitutes the marked manner of articulation (see Jakobson 1941, Ingram 1978, Dinnsen 1996a,b, 1998, Gierut 1996a,b, Barlow and Gierut 1999, Ingram 1996 for English, Grijzenhout and Joppen 2000 and Grijzenhout and Joppen-Hellwig 2000 for German, Fikkert 1994 a,b for Dutch, Ueda 1996 for Japanese, Costa and Freitas 1998 for Portuguese). Most researchers claim that, when fricatives do come into the child’s system, they tend to occur first in word final or postvocalic contexts (Dinnsen 1998:63-74). Onset fricatives are mainly deleted or replaced by stops at an earlier stage (Velten 1943, Fikkert 1994 a,b, Dinnsen 1996a,b, 1998, Edwards 1996, Costa and Freitas 1998, Kappa 2000). Another level is that concerning the existence of the feature [±voice]. The early stage is characterized by the absence of voicing contrast; For example, voicing contrasts in American English appear to be learned very early, while Spanish learners show delayed acquisition of contrastive voice production, because voicing is a less crucial cue to the underlying voice specification in Spanish than frication (Davis 1995:278). The contrastive (phonemic) and non-contrastive character of phonological features is clearly one of the most fundamental properties of a sound system. In the early phases of a developing system, few contrasts are evident (Dinnsen 1996:58).

The general picture, which emerges from earlier work is the following: 1. Non-continuants are the unmarked segments in child language. 2. With respect to nasals /n/ is the first to be acquired. 3. The order of the acquisition of continuants which are characterized by the feature [approximant] is /r/>>/l/>>/j/. 4. Segments characterized by the feature [+voice] are very frequently produced.

ΑCQUISITION OF MANNER FEATURES 3

Other studies on L2 also support the above findings, especially those concerning ‘stopping’ (Lombardi 2000). Stops are considered to be less marked than fricatives. As Lombardi (2000:18) claims “we must see the stop substitution as the primary universal approach: This is the substitution used by children who pass through a stage with no fricatives; this is the result of a universal markedness relationship, that stops are less marked manner compared to fricatives. Thus, L2 speakers who substitute stops are showing a universal effect. Their grammars are using the initial ranking supplied by UG … L2 speakers that substitute fricatives, in contrast, must be showing a more explicit transfer effect: something in the phonology of their language prompted a change from the default ranking”. 3. Findings from Modern Greek As far as Modern Greek is concerned, the general picture we have is the following: Our data show the child’s clear tendency to keep non continuant segments unmarked in his language, throughout the total of our sessions, compared to continuants (see also Kappa 2000). Following McCarthy (1988), we assume that manner features are continuancy, voicing and nasality. (2) (a) /ka»seta/ → [»teta] (=tape)

(b) /pi»stoli/ → [te»toli] (=pistol) (2;1) (c) /»Fata/ → [»tati] (=cat) (2;1,16) (d) /kase»tofono/ → [e»totono] and [Da»Dofono] (=tape recorder) (2;1,23) (e) /pe»Daca/ → [»tata] (=little children, dim.) (2;2) (f) /to »sirti/ → [»titi] (= bolt, accus.) (2;2,06) (g) /»anTropi/ → [»apopi] (= people) (2;3) (h) /»anTropos/ → [»apopoT] (=man) (2;3,14) (i) /jera»no/ → [teta»no] (= derrick, accus.) (2;8,16) (j) /xar»tCa/ → [ca»ca] (= papers) (2;2,24) (k) /kase»tofono/ → [tate»otono] (= tape recorder) (2;4,27) (l) /»Dendro/ → [»dedo] (= tree) (2;8,29)

The whole set of our examples shows that the unmarked [-cont] manner of

articulation predominates over the feature [+cont]. In almost all of the cases ‘stopping’ is accomplished by means of melodic copy.

Modern Greek is mainly explained on the basis of regressive assimilation,

i.e. a segment is assimilated to a following one. And we say “mainly”, since we can find rare cases of progressive assimilation (e.g. (2)(e)). Moreover, the child

MARINA TZAKOSTA 4

selects the stronger, and as a result, the unmarked segment according to the scale of consonantal strength (Lass 1984). The scale of Consonantal Strength has the opposite direction of the Sonority Scale (Selkirk, 1984):

Plosives→fricatives/affricates→nasals→liquids→glides→vowels

(3) (a) /Dio»nisi/ → [oti»ti] (=name, acc.) (2;1)

(b) /»Dendro/ → [»tandi] (=tree) (2;1,23) (c) /va»silis/ → [la»Tili] and [na»niTi] (=santa claus) (2;2,06) (d) /Den Ta »erTis/ → [te»taTiT?](=won’t you come?) (2;1,23) (e) /kuku»vaja/ → [bu»buja] (=owl) (2;3) (f) /Den»draci/ → [da»di] and [de»daci] (little tree, dim.) (2;7,14)

Fricatives assimilate to non-continuants and it seems that at a certain point

of D’s linguistic development he child produces continuants only when continuants assimilate to one another. There are also cases where nasals assimilate to liquids. The examples are rare but indicative. (4) (a) /ne»ro/ → [re»ro] (=water) (2;3,28)

LIQUID >> NASAL

(b) /pi»nelo/ → [pi»lelo] (=brush) (2;4,01) LIQUID >> NASAL

Clusters and affricates are simplified to unmarked segments, i.e. stops.

The unmarked character of stops is again reinforced by the scale of consonantal strength within which stops voiced or voiceless are supposed to be strong and as a result more frequently uttered. However, even when clusters are produced, the more marked segment tends to assimilate to the unmarked one. (5) (a) /Di»psune/ → [di»ptune] (=they are thirsty) (2;6,08) (b)/»tsada/ → [»dada]/ [»tata] (= bag) (2;2,06)-(2;3,21) (c) /Fra»fio/ → [pa»pio] (= desk) (2;3,13) D demonstrates a specific order in acquiring stop segments. Coronals are acquired first followed by labials and velars. The order of acquiring manner features seems to be the following:

ΑCQUISITION OF MANNER FEATURES 5

NON-CONTINUANTS (coronals>labials>velars) >> CONTINUANTS (fricative coronals/labials/velars > approximants)

As for as voicing, voiceless stops are the first segments, which are produced as shown in (2)-(5). Still, there are cases where the child substitutes voiceless segments for voiced ones. It seems that voicing is overgeneralized contrasting to un-voicing, when D starts acquiring voiced segments. As a result, there are cases, where voiceless segments are substituted by voiced ones, or cases, where voiced segments are produced, even if this is not required by the target adult forms. (6) (a) /sku»pizune/ → [Ta»biDune] (=they sweep) (2;2,06) (b) /»Dendro/ → [»dedo] (=tree) (2;2,24/ 2;5,08/ 2;8,29) (c) /kuku»vaja/ → [bu»buja] (=owl) (2;3,07) (d) /se»doni/ → [de»doni] (= sheet) (2;4,17) (f) /fu»stani/ → [bu»tani] (= dress) (2;5,15)

Our view about the overgeneralization of voicing in acquisition is reinforced by data concerning the use of voiced and voiceless fricatives. That is, when D starts producing fricatives, he replaces voiceless fricatives with voiced ones, even within the same context, as shown in (7). (7) (a) /»fiDi/ → [»viDi] (=snake) (2;2,12)

(11) /kuku»vaja/ → [vu»vaja]/ [bu»buja] (= owl) (2;3) (12) /fo»vate/ → [vo»vate] (= he is afraid of) (2;3,14) (13) /zoFra»fizo/ → [Fa»viDo](= I paint) (2;5,08)

Till the child’s 2;02,06 years there seems to be no clear contrast between voiced and voiceless segments. It is important to note, however, that there are still cases where voiced segments emerge when the input’s segments are voiceless. Still, these cases are only indicative. In a further study we precisely examine the emergence of voicing contrasts (Tzakosta in prep.). After examining the status of voiced segments in child speech, the order of acquiring place and manner features is the following: VOICED STOPS>>VOICELESS STOPS >> VOICED FRICATIVES >> LIQUIDS/ NASALS/ GLIDES >> VOICELESS FRICATIVES 4. Models of approach of language acquisition

MARINA TZAKOSTA 6

Consonant harmony (or place/manner long distance assimilation processes) is motivated by lack of contrasts. According to Hayes (1999, as well as Dinnsen 1996a,b, 1998) phonological knowledge includes knowledge of the system of contrasts. Speakers of the languages of the world tacitly know that phonemes differing minimally in voicing, place, manner, etc. contrast.1 Children’s linguistic knowledge and linguistic input play a role in the conceptualization of phonological information but to different degrees. If a child produces a particular contrast of the language, then that knowledge may be used to guide judgements of phonological categories. But, if a contrast is not maintained productively by a child then that dimension may be unavailable for defining phonological categories. As far as manner, continuancy contrasts among stops and fricatives (Gierut 1996). Dinnsen (1996b) claims that non-contrastive features in the child’s system are simply underspecified. If, for example, there is no contrast between different places or manners of articulation, that is if they are not specified, spreading from a segment that is specified for place is possible. Once all place/manner contrasts are established there are no empty place/manner slots available and place/manner assimilation is no longer characteristically present in the child’s output (Heijkoop 1997:238). Consonant harmony as well as the acquisition of place features in child language have been typically treated as feature spreading; this is why they have been studied mostly within the framework of planar segregation and underspecification (Shaw 1991, Stemberger and Stoel-Gammon 1991, Dinnsen 1996, 1998). Triggers and blockers of assimilation tend to be limited to marked features whereas targets of assimilation tend to be restricted to segments that are unmarked with respect to feature assimilation (Dinnsen 1998:2). To cite it simply, underspecified features, meaning features lacking positions in the Root node, undergo assimilation, that is spreading. There are also researchers who argue that underspecification is not totally operative in child language (Goad 1996, Goad 1997, Heijkoop 1997, Dinnsen and Barlow 1998). The status of manner features is rather problematic to be defined within the framework of feature geometry, since, to begin with, researchers do not have a unified approach to it. McCarthy (1988) shows that within a segment the major dichotomy is between a Laryngeal node and a place node. The manner of articulation -sonority, consonality, nasality and continuance- is inherent in the segment itself rather than any of its subsidiary parts. The model he proposes is as follows:

1 In OT the system of contrasts is reflected in the language specific rankings of

conflicting constraints. Constraint ranking is the only way in which knowledge of contrast is grammatically encoded.

ΑCQUISITION OF MANNER FEATURES 7

(8) Root node

° Laryngeal node

[cont], [nas], [son], [lat] Place node

McCarthy claims that the two manner features [cont] and [nasal] are the immediate dependents of the root node. Beers (1996), Ingram (1996), Paradis and Prunet (1991), Rice and Avery (1991) follow McCarthy’s proposal. On the other hand, Clements (1985) claims that the manner of articulation is a subsidiary part of the Supralaryngeal node. Voicing is considered to be part of the Laryngeal node. There is another problem that derives from the status of the unmarked segments in our data for which Underspecification Theory doesn’t seem to be able to account sufficiently. That is, if stops are considered to be the unmarked segments, i.e underspecified within Underspecification Theory, they should undergo rather than trigger assimilatory processes. But this is clearly not the case. Unmarked segments, as is cross-linguistically attested, trigger assimilatory processes in child language. Underspecification Theory cannot give a satisfactory explanation for this fact. We also consider that the overgeneralization of unmarked manner features should be treated not as spreading of specified features to underspecified ones, but rather as cases of melody copy, that is copying of the unmarked features to features with marked character (following Goad 1997). The model we will use in order to account the acquisition of manner features in terms of CH is Optimality Theory (OT, Prince and Smolensky 1993). In OT, constraint demotion provides a very useful angle of the process of acquisition; constraints are universal but are still violable and ranked in a language specific way (Hayes 1999, Barlow and Gierut 1999, Smolensky et al. 2000). 5. Optimality Theory and Language Acquisition Within OT there are two levels of representations: (a) the underlying representation or the input and (b) the surface representation or the output. These universal constraints are ranked differently among languages, resulting in different grammars. The ranking of the constraints is reflected in adult language. As far as child language is concerned the same universal constraints are operative. It is the ranking that differs in child language, so that different outputs than those emerging in adult language occur.

MARINA TZAKOSTA 8

There are two types of constraints: faithfulness constraints, which are responsible for the disparities between an underlying and a surface representation. On the other hand, well-formedness favors unmarked structures and is closer to these forms of the standard language, which are selected as optimal. As a result, well formedness constraints are highly ranked in child language, because unmarked structures are favored. When children start to be faithful to the input, faithfulness constraints start gaining ground encroaching on the well-formedness constraints, so that a new ranking approximating the adult one emerges (Prince and Smolensky 1993, Tesar 1998, Tesar and Smolensky 1993, Tesar and Smolensky 1998a,b). We assume that harmony effects can be explained within the framework of OT. As for manner features there would be some constraints that “favor the multiple linking of features associated with the manner class” (Dinnsen 1998:21). Children’s outputs differ from the adult output forms, which are considered to be the input to the child language, so well-formedness constraints are ranked higher than faithfulness constraints, at least at early stages of development. For example, error patterns during which fricatives are replaced by stops and voiceless by voiced segments might be attributed to a highly ranked well-formedness constraint militating against the relatively marked feature [+continuant] in obstruent output candidates. The rankings we propose for Modern Greek account for the default character of (coronal) non-continuants over continuants and voiced over voiceless segments. The relevant well-formedness constraints are ranked higher rather than the faithfulness constraints. A relative ranking is the following: ALIGN [-CONT], L, HARMONY DOMAIN, L>>*[-voice]>>MAX [F] /PARSE (CONS/SV/APP/LAT/NAS) The constraints mean the following: ALIGN [-CONT], L, HARMONY DOMAIN, L: Align non-continuants with the left edge of the harmonic domain, i.e. the prosodic word. ALIGN [+CONT], L, HARMONY DOMAIN, L: Align continuant segments with the left edge of the harmonic domain. *[-voice]: Avoid voiceless segments. MAX [FEATURE]: Don’t delete material of the underlying representations.

In the following tableaus we show the cases described above. In the first tableau we see that fricatives are assimilated to labial stops.2 We can also

2 We don’t indicate all the violations marks, but just those which are crucial for the candidates’ evaluation.

ΑCQUISITION OF MANNER FEATURES 9

observe that in certain cases voiced stops are preferred, while not in others. The input forms are the adult target forms.

Tableau 1 Inputs: / »anTropi/(=men), /fu»stani/ (=dress), /Fra»fio/ (=desk), /kuku»vaja/ (=owl) FORMS ALIGN[-

CONT],L, HARMONY DOMAIN, L

ALIGN[+CONT],L,HARMONY DOMAIN,L

*[-voice] MAX[F]

[»aTopi] * * * ☞ [»apopi] * * * [fu»tani] * * * ☞ [bu»tani] * * [xa»fio] * * * ☞ [pa»pio] * * * [vu»vaja] * * ☞ [bu»buja] * * In tableau 2 we see fricatives assimilated to coronal and dorsal stops Tableau 2 Inputs:/pi»stoli/ (=gun), /jera»no/ (acc.sing.)(=derrick),/»Dendro/ (=tree), /xar»tCa/ (= sheets of paper)

MARINA TZAKOSTA 10

FORMS ALIGN[-CONT],L, HARMONY DOMAIN,L

ALIGN[+CONT],L,HARMONY DOMAIN,L

*[-voice] MAX[F]

[fi»Toli] * * * ☞ [te»toli] * * * [jera»no] * ☞ [teta»no] * * * [»DeDo] * * ☞ [»dedo] * * [xa»Ca] * * * ☞ [ca»ca] * * * When the child starts uttering fricative consonants the following constraint ranking emerges: ALIGN[+CONT] >>ALIGN [-CONT]>>*[-voice]>>MAX[F] Nevertheless, even when D utters fricatives the unmarked pattern of stopping is not abandoned3. (9) (a) /»Frafo/ → [»pafo] (= I write) (2;1) (b) /sku»pizune/ → [Ta»biDune] (= they sweep) (2;2,06) (c) /kuku»vaja/ → [vu»vaja] and [bu»buja] (= owl) (2;3) (d) /stin »taksi/ → [Di»DakTi] (= in the class) (2;5,08) (e) /»eftCaksa/ →

[»tekaTa] (= I made) (2;6,15) (f) /»vatraxos/ → [»vaxaxoT] (= frog) (2;3,28) Tableau 3 shows D’s tendency for frication Tableau 3 Inputs: /»Frafo/] (=write,1st. prs. sing), /sku»pizune/ (=sweep, 3rd. pers. pl.), /»vaxaxoT/ (=frog)

3 D starts producing fricatives (rarely though) at the age of 2;1. This could be

demonstrated in terms of the indeterminate ranking among the ALIGN[-cont] and ALIGN[+cont] constraints.

ΑCQUISITION OF MANNER FEATURES 11

FORMS ALIGN [+CONT],L, HARMONY DOMAIN,L

ALIGN[-CONT],L,HARMONY DOMAIN,L

*[voice] MAX[F]

/tu»pitune/ * * * ☞ [Ta»biDune] * * /»pataxos/ * * * ☞ [»vaxaxoT] * *

Tableau 3, as well as the examples in (10), indicate the general picture that D passes an intermediate stage during which he is moving between mixed forms, even though it is not required by his input, uttering stops and fricatives within the same words that are produced, even during the same session, both with stops in one instance and/or fricatives in the other. (10) (a) /»Frafo/ → [»pafo] (=write, 1st prs. sing.) (2;1) (b) /kase»tofono/ → [e»totono] and [Da»Dofono] (= tape recorder) (2;1,23) (c) /va»silis/ → [la»Tili] (=santa claus) (2;2,06) (d) /fo»vate] → [vo»vate] (=s/he is afraid) (2;3,14)

(11) /maska»raDes/→[FaFa»raDeT] and [kaka»raDeT] (=person in disguise) (2;3,28) (12) /tile»fono/ → [ti»leTono] (= telephone) (2;4,01)

As we pointed out above, D distinguishes between voiced and voiceless

segments. And not only this but also he spreads [+voice] to segments at-a-distance. Tableau 4 shows voiced segments that ‘spread’ the feature [+voice] to segments underspecified for voicing, which, as a result, become voiced. Tableau 4 Inputs: /kuku»vaja/, /»Dendro/, /se»doni/

MARINA TZAKOSTA 12

FORMS *[-voice] ALIGN[-CONT],L,HARMONY DOMAIN,L

MAX[F]

[pu»puja] * * ☞ [bu»buja] * [»DeDo] * * ☞ [»dedo]4 * [se»soni] * * * ☞ [de»doni] *

Our view about the ‘unmarked’ character of voicing is reinforced by data demonstrating that more than one segment within the same context which are unvoiced in the beginning, become voiced, showing by this way preference to the feature [voice]. The data show that it is mainly consonants in stressed or peripheral syllables that are voiced. This is something the following examples show

(11) (a) /ka»kos/ →[»dadoT] (b) /fu»stani/

→ [bu»tani] There are still forms where continuants and voiced segments both emerge.

In this case we have a slight ― and not crucial ― constraint reranking, but which shows the preference for voicing. Even when fricatives are produced uttered, they are mainly voiced. Tableau 5 Inputs: /»fiDi/, /fo»vate/, /zoFra»fizo/

ΑCQUISITION OF MANNER FEATURES 13

FORMS *[-voice] ALIGN[-CONT],L,HARMONY DOMAIN,L

MAX[F]

/»fiDi/ * * ☞ [»viDi] * * /fo»vate/ * * ☞ [vo»vate] * * /soxa»fiso/ * * * ☞ [Fa»viDo] * * 6. Conclusions Our findings from Modern Greek have confirmed our first assumption that [-CONT] is the unmarked manner of articulation. Continuants emerge relatively late and much less frequently than the stops. The simplification is also clear evidence. Evidence from English, Dutch, Japanese, Portuguese, German show that [-CONT] seems to constitute the unmarked manner of articulation.

English and modern Greek behave similarly as far as the order of acquiring approximant fricatives (/r/>>/l/>>/j/) and voicing are concerned. Voice contrasts emerge relatively early in American English (Davis 1995) as well as in Greek. Evidence is small, but solid.

The order of acquiring manner features in Modern Greek is the following VOICELESS STOPS >> VOICED STOPS >> VOICED FRICATIVES >> LIQUIDS/ NASALS/ GLIDES >> VOICELESS FRICATIVES Our assumptions derive from just one subject and basing general claims on results from single subject cases is rather risky. Nevertheless, cross-linguistic evidence, as well as our study as preliminary as it might be, show that there must be a universal harmonic pattern favoring stops over fricatives and voiced over voiceless segments. We do not exclude the possibility of children acquiring fricatives first, but we suppose that cases like these are really rare.

Finally, we have adopted the optimality theoretic model, since we believe it best accounts for the universal character of linguistic phenomena as well as their cross-linguistic variation. We also indicated the reasons why underspecification should not be considered the appropriate model to account for language acquisition phenomena, basically because of the contradiction between theory and linguistic evidence. Consequently, we have claimed that

MARINA TZAKOSTA 14

consonant harmony is better accounted for in terms of melody copy rather than spreading. Acknowledgements Thanks to J. van de Weijer and the audience of HILP5 for useful comments and discussion. Also P. Fikkert and I. Kappa for their remarks on an earlier version of this paper. References Barlow, Jessica A. and Judith A. Gierut (1999). Optimality Theory in Phonological

Acquisition. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 42: 1482-1498. Beers, Mieke (1996). Acquisition of Dutch Phonological contrasts within the framework of

feature geometry theory. In B. Bernhardt, J. Gilbert & D. Ingram (eds.), Proceedings of the UBC International Conference on Phonological Acquisition. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. 28-41.

Clements, George Nick (1985). The Geometry of Phonological Features. Phonology Yearbook 2: 223-250.

Costa, João and Maria João Freitas (1998). V and CV as Unmarked Structures: Evidence from the acquisition of Portuguese. Paper presented at the Conference on The Syllable: Typology and Theory. Tubingen.

Davis, Katharine (1995). Phonetic and Phonological Contrasts in the acquisition of voicing: voice onset time production in Hindi and English. J. of Child Language 22: 275-305.

Dinnsen, Danniel (1996a). Context-Sensitive Underspecification and the Acquisition Of Phonemic Contrasts. J. of Child Language 23: 57-79.

Dinnsen, Danniel (1996b). Context effects in the acquisition of fricatives. In B. Bernhardt, J. Gilbert & D. Ingram (eds.), Proceedings of the UBC International Conference on Phonological Development. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. 136-148.

Dinnsen, Danniel (1998). On the Organization and Specification of Manner Features. J. of Linguistics 34: 1-25.

Dinnsen, Danniel & Jessica A. Barlow (1998). On the Characterization of a chain shift in normal and delayed phonological acquisition. J. of Child Language 25: 61-94.

Drachman, Gaberell (1978). Child language and language change: a conjecture and Some refutations. In J. Fisiak (ed.), Recent Developments in Historical Phonology. The Hague: Mouton. 123-144.

Edwards, Mary Louise (1996). Word position effects in the production of fricatives. In B. Bernhardt, J. Gilbert & D. Ingram (eds.), Proceedings of the UBC International Conference on Phonological Acquisition. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. 149-158.

Fikkert, Paula (1994a). On the Acquisition of Prosodic Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden: Leiden University/ HIL.

Fikkert, Paula (1994b). On the Acquisition of rhyme structure in Dutch. In R. Bok-Bennema & C. Cremers (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 37-48.

Gierut, Judith A (1996a). An Experimental test of Phonemic Cyclicity. J. of Child Language 23: 81-102.

Gierut, Judith A. (1996b). Categorization and Feature Specification in Phonological cquisition. J. of Child Language 23: 395-415.

ΑCQUISITION OF MANNER FEATURES 15

Goad, Heather (1996). Consonant Harmony in Child Language: Evidence against Coronal Underspecification. In B. Bernhardt, J. Gilbert & D. Ingram (eds.), Proceedings of the UBC International Conference on Phonological Acquisition. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. 187-200.

Goad, Heather (1997). Consonant Harmony in Child Language: An Optimality-Theoretic Account. In S.J. Hannahs & M. Young-Scholten (eds.), Focus on Phonological Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 113-142.

Grijzenhout, Jannet & Sandra Joppen (2000). First Steps in the acquisition of German Consonants: minimal constraint demotion. ROA-400.

Grijzenhout, Jannet & S. Joppen-Hellwig (2000). The Lack of Onsets in German Child Phonology. To appear in I. Lasser (ed.), The Process of Language Acquisition. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag.

Hayes, Bruce (1999). Phonological Acquisition in Optimality Theory: The early Stages. ROA-327.

Heijkoop, Anita C (1997). Underspecification and Contrast: Consonant Harmony in Early Phonological Acquisition. In A. Sorace, C. Heycock & R. Shilcock (eds.), Proceedings of the GALA ’97 Conference on Language Acquisition.University of Edinburgh. U.K. 235-239.

Ingram, David (1978). The Syllable in Phonological Development. In Α. Βell & J. B. Hooper (eds.), Syllables and Segments. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company. 143-155.

Ingram, David (1996). Some observation on feature assignment. In Β. Bernhardt, J. Gilbert & D. Ingram (eds.), Proceedings of the UBC International Conference on Phonological Acquisition. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. 53-61.

Jakobson, Roman (1941/1971). Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze. In R.. Jakobson: Selected Writings 1: Phonological Studies. The Hague: Mouton.

Kappa, Ioanna (1999). Consonant Harmony in Phonological Development. Paper presented at GALA 1999. Potsdam.

Kappa, Ioanna (2000). On the acquisition of fricatives in Modern Greek. In K. Nikolaidis & M. Mattheoudaki (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. Festschrift for Prof. Kakuriotis. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. 197-205.

Lass, Roger (1984). Phonology: An Introduction to Basic Concepts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lombardi, Linda (2000). Second Language data and Constraints on Manner: Substitutions for the English interdentals. ROA-418.

McCarthy, John (1988). Feature Geometry and Dependency: A Review. Phonetica 43: 84-108.

Paradis, Carole & Jean-François Prunet (1989). On Coronal Transparency. Phonology 6: 317-348.

Paradis, Carole and Jean-François Prunet (1991). Introduction: Asymetry and Visibility in Consonant Articulations. In C. Paradis & J.-F. Prunet (eds.), Phonetics and Phonology. The Special Status of Coronals. Internal and External Evidence. Vol. 2. San Diego: Academic Press. 1-28.

Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky (1993). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction In Generative Grammar. Ms., Rutgers University and University of Colorado.

MARINA TZAKOSTA 16

Rice, Keren and Peter Avery (1991). On the Relationship between Laterality and Coronality. In C. Paradis & J.-F. Prunet (eds.), Phonetics and Phonology. The Special Status of Coronals. Internal and External Evidence. Vol. 2. San Diego: Academic Press. 101-124.

Scott, Susan, D. (1996). Child Language and Optimality Theory: The case of Consonant Harmony. In A. Stringfellow, D. Cahana-Amitay, E. Hughes & A. Zukowski (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Vol. 1. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. 682-693.

Selkirk, Elisabeth (1984). Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Shaw, Patricia (1991). Consonant Harmony Systems: The Special Status of Coronal Harmony. In C. Paradis & J.-F. Prunet (eds.), Phonetics and Phonology. The Special Status of Coronals. Internal and External Evidence. Vol. 2. Academic Press. 125-157.

Smolensky, Paul, Lisa Davidson and Peter Jusczyk. 2000. The Initial and Final States: Theoretical Implications and Experimental Explorations of Richness of The Base. ROA-435.

Stemberger, Joseph Paul and Carol Stoel-Gammon (1991). The Underspecification of Coronals: Evidence from language acquisition and performance errors. In C. Paradis & J.-F. Prunet (eds.), Phonetics and Phonology. The Special Status of Coronals. Internal and External Evidence. Vol. 2. Academic Press. 181-199.

Stoel-Gammon, Carol & Joseph Paul Stemberger (1994). Consonant Harmony and Phonological Underspecification in Child Speech. In M. Yavas (ed.), First and Second Language Phonology. San Diego: Singular Publishing Company, INC. 63-80.

Tesar, Bruce (1998). An Iterative Strategy for Language Learning. Lingua 104. 131-145. Tesar, Bruce and Paul Smolensky (1993). The Learnability of Optimality Theory: An

Algorithm and Some Basic Complexity Results. Cognitive Science Department. University of Colorado, Boulder. ROA-2.

Tesar, Bruce and Paul Smolensky (1998a). Learnability in Optimality Theory. LI. 29.2. 229-268.

Tesar, Bruce and Paul Smolensky (1998b). Learning Optimality Theoretic Grammars. Lingua 106. 161-196.

Tzakosta, Marina (1999). The Acquisition of Prosodic Structure in Modern Greek. M.A. thesis. Rethymnon: University of Crete.

Tzakosta, Marina (in prep.). Voicing contrasts in the acquisition of Modern Greek. Ueda, Isao (1996). Segmental acquisition and feature specification in Japanese. In B.

Bernhardt, J. Gilbert & D. Ingram (eds.), Proceedings of the UBC International Conference on Phonological Acquisition. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. 15-27.

Velten, H. V. (1943). The growth of phonemic and lexical patterns in infant speech. Language 19: 281-292.