Marina Tzakosta

CLUSTER PHONOTACTICS IN GREEK L1 AND L2

Abstract This study focuses on the production of consonant clusters in Greek L1 and L2 in all word positions, in stressed and unstressed syllables. A major scientific goal is to demonstrate that a consonant cluster may exhibit various production patterns during the same developmental phase of L1 acquisition and L2 learning. This results in language variation. Here, variation is analyzed under the scope of multiple parallel grammars according to which native speakers and learners of Greek may adopt a set of mechanisms that shape their production templates and take the form of grammars used in parallel. These grammars facilitate and circumscribe the order of acquisition. Consonant cluster acquisition provides additional evidence about the order of acquisition of single phonemes in Greek L1 and L2. 1. Introduction Cluster simplification is the major strategy characteristic of the acquisition of consonant clusters. Simplified clusters are governed by sonority and the Margin Hierarchy (Prince & Smolensky 1993). In other words, consonants, which are less marked regarding the sonority hierarchy, survive cluster simplification and surface in child productions. Cluster reduction is also ruled by coalescence and vowel epenthesis. These processes are reported for both normal and impaired child speech (see Barlow 1997, Gnanadesikan 2004, Ohala 1995, Pater and Barlow 2003, for English, Fikkert 1994, for Dutch, Lleo & Prinz 1996, for German and Spanish, Lukaszewicz 2000, for Polish). Representative examples of SLI child speech are given in (1) below.

Subject 2 (3;6) subject 25 (4;10) subject 13 (4;08) (1) twin → [tin] queen → [tin] brother→ [bøvo] pray → [pet] spoon → [bun] frog → [bOgi] blow → [bo] sleep → [sip] throw → [toU] fly→ [fu] sky→ [dai] grow → [go] stove → [dov]

(examples from Barlow 1997)

In other studies, it has been shown that the consonant closer to the nucleus may be the preserved member of the cluster. It has been reported that in Hebrew child speech the first member of the cluster is produced only in case the second is a liquid (Avivit 2001). Van der Pas (2004), on the other hand, has demonstrated that CONTIGUITY tends to be respected in stressed syllables in Dutch child speech.

Positional faithfulness is also proved to be involved in cluster reduction. Revithiadou & Tzakosta (2004) and Tzakosta (2004) have indicated that word-/cluster-initial segments may be preserved irrespective of their degree of markedness. This is exemplified in (2). (2) a. /Vli."ko/ → ["Vo] ‘sweet’ (D: 2;01.09) b. /kra."ta.o/ → ["ka.o] ‘hold-1sg’ (F: 1;11.15) c. /fri.Va."nu.la/ → ["fu.la] ‘cracker-DIM’ (D: 2;03.07) Finally, headedness seems to play an influential role, especially in CL clusters (Goad & Rose 2004, for English, Steele 2002, for French L2).

In /s/ clusters, /s/ is phonologically represented as an appendix/adjunct (Barlow 1997), a single unit, with a representation similar to that of affricates (Barlow 1997, Gierut 1999), or a head in /s/+sonorant clusters (Goad & Rose 2004). In the first two cases /s/ is reduced, whereas in the latter /s/ is successfully realized.

In the present study I draw on research findings from the phonological acquisition of Greek L1 (developmental production data from 4 children, B.T., D., Me., B.M., age range: 1;07-3;05) and Greek L2 production data from Turkish learners of Greek. L2 data are drawn from the project “Education of Muslim Pupils of Western Thrace, 2002-2004”. 13 pupils of elementary schools of Xanthi and Komotini, towns located in western Thrace, were recorded for the project (Head-coordinator Dr. S. Moschonas). I Investigate four major two-member cluster types: a) /s/ + obstruent, b) obstruent + /s/, c) /obstruent + liquid/, d) /obstruent + obstruent/ clusters. Emphasis is placed on intermediate stages of phonological acquisition during which intense linguistic progress as well extensive variation is attested in L1 and L2. The theoretical proposal falls within the framework of multiple parallel grammars, an acquisition approach developed within OT. The model will be presented in detail in section 3.

2. Greek L1 data The first detailed reports on the acquisition of Greek clusters are found in Kappa (2002) and Τζακώστα (1999). Both studies demonstrate that cluster reduction is the main repair strategy in their acquisition. More specifically, Kappa (2002) has shown that [obstruent + sonorant] and [fricative + plosive] clusters are reduced to the plosive. Moreover, she has highlighted the fact that homorganic clusters (e.g. /pm/, /tl/, /tn/, /sl/) do not surface.

Tzakosta (2005) examines positional and qualitative aspects of the acquisition of Greek clusters. The data show that children simplify clusters mainly to the least sonorous segment or to the initial segment due to positional faithfulness effects. This is exemplified in (3) below. (3) a. /kli."Dja/ → [k´.li."Dja] ‘keys’ (Me: 2;03.14) b. /o."bre.la/→ [o."be.la] ‘umbrella’ (D: 2;03.21) c. /"fru.ta/ → ["fu.ta] ‘fruits’ (BT:1;10) d. /fri.Va."Na/ → [fi.Va."Na] ‘biscotte’ (D: 2;06.29) However, apart from being simplified, clusters are also faithfully realized by the age of 1;10. CL clusters are the first to be faithfully realized, with /stop+liquid/ clusters emerging before /fricative+liquid/ ones. Cs and sC clusters follow. A plausible scenario for the frequent emergence of CL clusters in L1 is twofold: first, faithful clusters need to significantly differ in sonority. As a result, /stop + fricative/ and fricative + /s/ clusters exhibit zero tokens in word initial or word medial position, while /stop + stop/ clusters do not emerge in word-initial position at all. For exhaustive statistical results see Tzakosta (2005). Second, and according to Tzakosta’s (2005) statistical survey, CL clusters also exhibit the highest percentages in simplification strategies, with /s/ + stop and stop + /s/ following them. The fact that CL provide high percentages of faithful as well as reduced forms entails that children target such clusters simply because they are exposed to them more frequently.

Regarding the word position in which clusters are first acquired, Kirk & Demuth (2003) and Lleo & Prinz (1996) in their studies for English and German, respectively, argue that coda clusters are acquired before onset clusters due to phonological structure, morphology, and frequency effects. Tzakosta (2005) has shown that simplified clusters exhibit equal frequency rates in child Greek in both initial and medial syllables. A related issue in cluster preservation is the phonological representation of /s/ clusters. Tzakosta (2005) demonstrates that /s/ is preserved due to either markedness or syllabification. More specifically, /s/ is deleted if it is more marked compared to the second member of the cluster or because it is syllabified as a coda word-medially. This is supported by data where word medial coda segments are either deleted or undergo metathesis. /s/ + obstruent clusters are never faithfully produced in the discussed corpus of data, although they are partly produced when they are part of three-member clusters.

Regarding the influence of stress in cluster realization, the data do not provide much insight regarding faithful cluster production in stressed syllables. As shown in the examples in (4) below, clusters undergo repair strategies, irrespective of their position in the word, in stressed or unstressed syllables. Put differently, prominent positions do not force cluster preservation. (4) a. /"xte.na/→ ["te.na] ‘brush’ (B.T.: 1;11.10) b. /fte."ra/→[fe."la] ‘wings’ (D:2;02.24) c. /xti."pa.i/→ [V´.ti."ba.i] ‘hurt-3SG.PRES.’ (Me: 2;00.26) d. /o."xto

/→ [o."to] ‘eight’ (B.M.: 2;06.19) e. /"pe.fti/→ ["be.fi], ["pe.f´.ti] ‘fall-3SG.PRES.’ (B.M.: 2;07.09) Multiple output forms underline the fact that variation is systematic in Greek L1. Statistical tendencies demonstrate that variation is not random but depends on UG principles, phonological principles characteristic of the ambient language and input frequency effects. In the model adopted here, variation in L1 and L2 production is attributed to the parallel activation of multiple grammars, which are, in OT terms, the result of constraint permutation (see Tzakosta 2004 for detailed discussion). Multiple grammars succeed in providing a unified analysis of inter-/intra-child and adult language variation, something not clearly captured by other theoretical models. A theoretical prediction of the present study is that the model proposed for the acquisition of clusters in Greek L1 is theoretically adequate to account for the acquisition of clusters in Greek L2. 3. Phonological Development as activation of parallel of grammars Phonological development is defined as the process during which children gradually acquire the target language. Child linguistic progress is defined by means of developmental stages during which learners exhibit production uniformity. Phonological acquisition tends to be completed in three to six developmental stages (cf. Fikkert 1994, for Dutch, Demuth & Fee 1995, for English). Stages may be skipped in case children do not produce forms which are expected to emerge during specific stages (Demuth & Fee 1995).

Production homogeneity and gradual faithfulness to the native language shape developmental stages and prevent variable forms and regressions to earlier states of phonological development from emerging. Nevertheless, Taelman (2004), for Dutch L1, and Tzakosta (2004), for Greek L1, have reported extensive variation and regressions to earlier states of acquisition. This observation led Tzakosta (2004) to propose a revised model of acquisition, the Multiple Parallel Grammars Model (hereafter MPGM).

In this model, acquisition is governed by a set of co-emerging grammars that circumscribe child production. Multiple grammars shape distinct developmental paths1 that result in inter- and/or intra-child variation. Acquisition proceeds in three

1 For a different approach of developmental paths see Levelt & van de Vijver (2004).

major phases: In the first phase, markedness constraints are ranked above faithfulness constraints; this results in the emergence of only unmarked structures. In the intermediate phase, constraint permutation results in the generation of multiple grammars -among which the target grammar- all being available to the learner. During this second developmental phase, acquisition proceeds through filtering of unwanted grammars. Filtering is ruled by phonological principles of the ambient language, input frequency, and UG principles. Unwanted grammars are excluded from the children’s grammar inventory, either gradually or by means of regressions to earlier developmental states. During the final developmental phase, children are considered to have reached and acquired the target grammar. For the analysis of the discussed L1 data, Tzakosta (2005) adopted the constraints in (5). The same constraints are adopted here for the analysis of the L2 data. (5) Constraints (adjusted)

• *COMPLEX: CV syllables • M: Avoid sonorous segments in onset position • DEP: No insertion • IDENT: Be faithful to the featural composition of the target segment • #C/.C: Retain the initial segment of a word/ syllable • CONTIGUITY: Retain the member of the cluster which is adjacent to the

nucleus • IDENT (MAN1&PL2)/(MAN2&PL1): Retain either manner or place of

articulation of each member of the cluster (fusion) • AGREE-MAN/PL: agree in manner and/or place of articulation

Constraint permutation generates 3.628.800 grammars. This means that native speakers and learners of Greek are exposed and are allowed to adopt this number of grammars during the process of their phonological development. However, Greek children are reported to have adopted only a small subset of this set of grammars, those given in (6) (Tzakosta 2005). Of the grammars provided in (6), those in (6a)-(6e) correspond to forms that respect markedness, positional faithfulness and contiguity, grammars (6f) and (6g) are more advanced and require partial faithfulness to the target grammar, while grammar (6h) is the target grammar. Given that the set of parallel grammars is monitored by UG principles, phonological principles of the ambient language, and input frequency effects, the MPGM allows but at the same time restricts variation in production. In this study, I argue that L2 Turkish learners of Greek adopt an even smaller set of the grammars activated in Greek L1. More specifically, given that Turkish has simpler syllabic forms, Turkish learners of Greek need to adopt a subset of the grammars in (6). This will be discussed in the remainder of the paper. (6) a. *COMPLEX >> M, #C >> … >> F (deletion/markedness/PF) b. *COMPLEX >> F(IDENT), DEP >> … F (insertion) c. *COMPLEX >> M, DEP >> … >> F ( insertion/ markedness)

d. *COMPLEX >> CONTIGUITY >> … >> F (contiguity) e. *COMPLEX>>IDENT(MAN1&PL2)>>M>>…>>F (fusion) f. AGREE-MAN, AGREE-PL >> F >> *COMPLEX g. M, F >> *COMPLEX h. F >> M, *COMPLEX The MPGM is schematized in figure 1. The three circles indicate the network of multiple grammars of the second developmental phase. The central circle includes the grammars which are statistically more prevalent and, theoretically, more related to the target grammar. The peripheral circles include the statistically and theoretically less prominent grammars. Peripheral grammars are the first to be filtered out.

Figure 1: The Multiple grammars Model Initial State of the grammar (Gi)

M >> F

Intermediate states

Final state of the grammar (Gf)

.......... - Typologically/theoretically prominent

grammars

CORE GRAMMAR(S)

- statistically prominent grammars ……….

- peripheral grammars

(typologically and statistically the least

significant grammars)

- peripheral grammars

(typologically and statistically less significant than the core grammars)

F >> M

4. Greek L2 Data Before I move to the discussion of the L2 data, it is important to briefly present the system of phonotactic constraints of Turkish. Not only do Greek and Turkish, differ typologically, given that Turkish belongs to the Altaic language family, while Greek belongs to the Indoeuropean family, they also differ with respect to their phonological systems. More specifically, Greek syllables are more complex compared to Turkish. Turkish does not allow consonant clusters in either onset or coda position. Generally speaking, Turkish favors CVC syllables, which, in turn, presuppose the emergence of V, CV and VC syllables. Word-initially, V(C) syllables are more frequently attested. Word-medially, two-consonantal sequences are possible, but consonants are considered to be heterosyllabic. In other words, consonant sequences do not constitute consonant clusters in word-medial position. The fact that Turkish disallows the formation of consonant clusters lets me predict that L2 learners of Greek turn to cluster simplification strategies while learning the second language. This is attested in the L2 data provided in (7) and (8). Turkish learners of Greek simplify target clusters through consonant deletion (examples in (7)) or vowel epenthesis (examples in (8)). (7) a. /ma.kri."a/→[ma.ci."a] «far-ADV.» (Esra, 5th grade) b. /e.ti."ma.sti.ce/→[ti."ma.ti.ce] «get ready-3PAST.SG.» (Ksamdi, 2nd gr.) c. /"spi.tja/→ ["spi.ti.a] «σπίτια» (Hatis, 6th gr.) (8) a. /"ma.vra/ → ["ma.v´..ra] «black-ADJ.NOM.PL.» (Εsra, 5th gr.) b. /xo."dri/→ [xo.d´..ri] «fat-ADJ.NOM.SG.» (Εsra, 5th gr.) c. /"Den.dra/→ ["de.d´.ra] «tress» (Hatis, 6th gr.) As is evident from (7) and (8), Turkish pupils of the schools of Western Thrace simplify /obstruent + liquid/ as well as /s/ clusters, i.e. clusters to which learners of Greek are more frequently exposed. This occurs in all word positions, in stressed and unstressed syllables.2 However, it is worth noting that there are no data where clusters undergo fusion. In other words, Turkish learners of Greek adopt fewer simplification strategies and, consequently, a subset of the grammars employed by L1 speakers of Greek is activated. On the other hand, learners correctly produce the clusters mentioned above together with clusters consisting of obstruent segments. This happens because learners have, among other grammars, the target grammar at their disposal. Some examples are given in (9). (9) a. /"pro.va.to/→ ["pro.va.to] «sheep» (Emir, 1st gr.) b. /"tre.Ci/ → ["tre.Ci] «run-3PRES.SG.» (Emir, 1st gr.) c. /"kre.as/→ ["kre.as] «meet» (Anife, 6th gr.) d. /bri."zo.la/→ [bri."zo.la] «steak» (anife, 6th gr.) e. /tra."Vu.dja/→ [tra."Vu.di.a] «songs» (Anife, 6th gr.) f. /xro."non/→ ["xro.

no] «years-GEN.PL.» (Safetim, 2nd gr.) g. /"Vri.Vo.ra/ → ["Vri.Vo.ra] «fast» (Οκάν, 4th gr.)

2 For exhaustive statistical results see Tzakosta (in prep.).

h. /"Dro.mo/→ ["Dro.mo] «road-SG.ACC.» (Aitin, 1st gr.) i. /"an.Tro.pos/→ ["an.Tro.po] «man» (Hatidz, 6th gr.) j. /"vle.po/ → ["vle.po] «see-1PRES.SG.» (Okan, 4th gr.) k. /"pe.fti/→ ["pe.fti] «fall-3PRES.SG.» (Marve, 4th gr.) l. /"spi.ti/→ ["spi.ti] «house» (Hatidz, 6th gr.) m. /psa."li.Dja/ → [psa.":i.Di.a] «scissors» (Harun,, 2nd gr.) n. /psi."los/ → [psi."li] «tall-ADJ.NOM.MASC.» (Okan, 4thgr.) o. /"ksi.la/→ ["ksi.:a] «sticks» (Aitin, 1st, gr.) 5. Discussion and pedagogical issues The data presented in the previous section underline the fact that Turkish learners of Greek adopt an even smaller set of the grammars activated in Greek L1. The assumption behind this is that since L2 learners have already acquired the phonological system of their mother language and, consequently, have adopted a specific set of repair mechanisms during the acquisition process, they are expected to, at least, apply the same set of repair strategies during L2 phonological acquisition. Given that Turkish has simple syllabic structures, Turkish children need to make use of only a few repair mechanisms during the acquisition of the phonological system of Turkish. And since Turkish has simpler syllables compared to Greek, Turkish learners of Greek are expected to employ a subset of the grammars that children who acquire Greek as their native language use. In other words, the phonological principles governing the learners’ mother language restrict the possible developmental paths in Greek L2. Figure 2 schematizes the set of grammars used in Greek L1 and L2. The bigger ring contains the set of grammars native speakers of Greek make use of, while the smaller circle includes the subset of grammars used by L2 learners. The contact point of the two circles indicates that L2 learners adopt a subset of the grammars used by native speakers. The data presented above indicate that teachers of Greek as a second language need to take the linguistic background of the learners into serious consideration. In other words, the teacher needs to have deep knowledge of the phonological system of the learners’ native language in order to easier indicate similarities and differences between the phonological systems of the mother and the target language. This further implies that classes need to consist of learners of the same proficiency level and the same linguistic background. Moreover, teachers need to highlight the phonological/prosodic environments where certain structures are allowed in the ambient language through various exercises targeting distinct language problems. More specifically, teachers of Greek should provide their students with a series of structural as well as video-acoustic exercises in order to facilitate the acquisition of the phonological system of Greek. Structural exercises, on the one hand, need to take the form of language games, such as crosswords, in order to capture the students’ interest in the language. Furthermore, such exercises have the potential to highlight the correspondence between the language’s orthography and its phonological representation/phonetic realization. Video-acoustic exercises, on the other hand, can make the learning process quicker and more interesting. The use of multimedia and computers as well

use of the Internet contributes to the interactive exchange between students of different institutions. Figure 2: The set of activated L1 and L2 grammars

L1 GRAMMARS

*COMPLEX>>M, DEP>>…>>F *COMPLEX>>CONTIGUITY>>…>>F

*COMPLEX>>IDENT(MAN1&PL2)>>M>>…>>F AGREE-MAN, AGREE-PL>>F>>*COMPLEX M, F>>*COMPLEX

*COMPLEX >> M, #C >> … >> F *COMPLEX>>F(IDENT), DEP>>…F F >> M, *COMPLEX

L2 GRAMMARS

5. Conclusions L1 and L2 learners of Greek simplify target clusters to the least sonorous/unmarked segment or to the initial segment in word initial clusters due to positional faithfulness effects. Apart from being simplified, clusters are faithfully realized already by the age of 1;10 in L1 data. In /s/+consonant clusters, /s/ is preserved due to either markedness or syllabification effects. More specifically, /s/ is deleted if it is more marked compared to the other member of the cluster or because it is syllabified as a coda in word-medial positions. However, /s/+obstruent clusters are never faithfully produced in the L1 corpus of data, unlike L2 data. /s/ is attempted only when it is part of three-member clusters. Variation in L1 and L2 production data is not random but depends on UG principles, phonological principles of the ambient language, and input frequency and is attributed to the parallel activation of multiple grammars during the acquisition process. Such grammars are the result of constraint permutation and conform to various states of the adult grammar. Finally, it has been shown that L2 learners adopt only a subset of the developmental grammars that native speakers of Greek use. The simpler phonological structure of Turkish compared to Greek restricts the possible

developmental paths in Greek L2. A core proposal of the paper is that the MPGM succeeds in providing a unified analysis of child and adult L1 and L2 speech, something not clearly captured by other theoretical models. 6. References Avivit, B.-D. 2001. Language acquisition and phonological theory: Universal and

variable processes across children and across languages. Ms. Tel-Aviv University.

Barlow, J.A. 1997. A Constraint-based account of syllable onsets: evidence from developing systems. Ph.D. Dissertation. Indiana University.

Kirk, C. and K. Demuth. 2003. “Onset/Coda asymmetries in the acquisition of Clusters”. In Beachley, B., A. Brown and F. Conlin (eds.). Proceedings of the 27th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. 437-448.

Fikkert, P. 1994. On the acquisition of prosodic structure. Doctoral Dissertation, HIL/Leiden University. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.

Gnanadesikan, A. 2004 “Markedness and faithfulness constraints in child phonol-ogy”. In Kager, R., J. Pater, and W. Zonneveld (eds.). Constraints in phonological acquisition. Cambridge: C.U.P. 73-108.

Goad, H. and Y. Rose. 2004. “Input elaboration, head faithfulness and evidence for representation in the acquisition of Left-edge clusters in West Germanic”. In Kager, R., J. Pater and W. Zonneveld (eds.). Constraints in phonological acquisition. Cambridge: C.U.P. 109-157.

Kappa, I. 2002. “On the acquisition of syllabic structure in Greek”. J. of Greek Linguistics 3: 1-53.

Kornfilt, J. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge. Lleo, C. and M. Prinz. 1996. “Consonant clusters in child phonology and the

directionality of syllable structure assignment”. J. of Child Language 23: 31-56. Lukaszewicz, B. 2000. Phonological analysis of reduction and assimilation

processes in the acquisition of English and Polish. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Warsao.

Ohala, D. 1995. “Sonority driven cluster reduction”. In Clark, E. (ed.). Proceedings of the 27th Annual Child Language Research Forum. Sanford Linguistics Association. 217-226.

Pas van der, B. 2004. “Contiguity in phonological acquisition”. In Kampen van, J. and S. Baauw (eds.). Proceedings of GALA 2003. Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition. Vol. 2. LOT Occasional Series 3: 353-364.

Pater, J. and J. Barlow. 2003. “Constraint conflict in cluster reduction”. Journal of Child Language 30: 487-526.

Revithiadou, A. and M. Tzakosta. 2004. “Markedness hierarchies vs. positional faithfulness and the role of multiple grammars in the acquisition of Greek”. In Baauw, S. and J. van Kampen (eds.). Proceedings of GALA 2003. Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition. Vol. 2: LOT Occasional Series 3: 377-388.

Rose, Y. 2000. Headedness and Prosodic Licensing in the Acquisition of Phonology. Ph.D. Dissertation. McGill University.

Steelle, J. 2002. Representation and phonological licensing in the L2 acquisition of prosodic structure. Ph.D. Dissertation. McGill University.

Τζακώστα, Μ. 1999. Κατάκτηση της προσωδιακής δοµής στα Νέα Ελληνικά. Μεταπτυχιακή εργασία α΄ κύκλου. Ρέθυµνο. Πανεπιστήµιο Κρήτης.

Tzakosta, M. 2004. Multiple parallel grammars in the acquisition of stress in Greek L1. Ph.D. Dissertation. ULCL/HIL. LOT Dissertation Series 93.

Tzakosta, M. 2005. “Positional and qualitative asymmetries of consonant clusters in Greek L1”. Handout of talk delivered at the 17th International Conference of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. Thessaloniki: School of English, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

Tzakosta, M. in prep. Cluster Asymmetries in the speech of Turkish and Dutch learners of Greek. Ms. University of Patras.

Keywords: clusters, phonological processes, language variation, multiple parallel grammars, interlanguage, language teaching.

Bestandsnaam: Thessaloniki-2005 (text) Map: C:\Tzakosta\papers Tzakosta\papers Sjabloon: C:\Documents and Settings\M\Application

Data\Microsoft\Sjablonen\Normal.dot Titel: Onderwerp: Auteur: NEC Computers International Trefwoorden: Opmerkingen: Aanmaakdatum: 2/16/2006 11:24 Wijzigingsnummer: 2 Laatst opgeslagen op: 2/16/2006 11:24 Laatst opgeslagen door: NEC Computers International Totale bewerkingstijd: 1 minuut Laatst afgedrukt op: 2/16/2006 11:24 Vanaf laatste volledige afdruk Aantal pagina's: 12 Aantal woorden: 3,687 (ong.) Aantal tekens: 21,021 (ong.)