Article published in:Phonological and Phonetic considerations of Lexical Processing
[The Mental Lexicon 8:3] 2013
► pp. 320–338
Phonological reduction in the first part of noun compounds
A case study of early child language
Regular plural nouns rarely appear as the first member of a compound noun in English under any circumstances, while irregular plurals are more likely under certain conditions. One explanation holds that this is a consequence of the fundamentally different ways in which regular and irregular plurals are stored and processed, while an alternative explanation suggests that it may be rooted in phonological differences between regular and irregular forms. If the first part of a compound is phonologically restricted, the restrictions may interact with lexical access in a way that disfavors regular plurals (especially given that plurals of any sort are of low frequency in the first part of a compound, so processing is far from ceiling). This paper provides evidence from a case study of one child that the first part of a compound can be phonologically restricted compared to nouns when they appear as independent words. The data address compounds whose first elements are monomorphemic nouns, rather than plurals, but document the existence of phonological restrictions within compounds for at least one child This existence proof strengthens the hypothesis that differences between regular and irregular forms may derive partly from differences in phonological structure.
Keywords: phonological development, phonological constraints, noun compounds, regular morphology
Published online: 07 April 2014
Berent, I., & Pinker, S.
( 2007 ). The dislike of regular plurals in compounds: Phonological or morphological . The Mental Lexicon , 2 , 129 – 181 .
Bernhardt, B. H., & Stemberger, J. P.
( 1998 ). Handbook of phonological development: From the perspective of constraint-based nonlinear phonology . San Diego : Academic Press .
Bleile, K. M.
( 1987 ). Regressions in the phonological development of two children . Unpublished doctoral dissertation , University of Iowa .
Boersma, P., & Hayes, B.
Browman, C. P., & Goldstein, L. M.
Buck-Gengler, C. J., Menn, L., & Healy, A.
Fromkin, V. A.
Gopnik, M., & Crago, M. B.
Gopnik, M., & Goad, H.
( 1997 ). What underlies inflectional error patterns in Genetic Dysphasia? Journal of Neurolinguistics , 10 , 109 – 137 .
Haskell, T. R., MacDonald, M. C., & Seidenberg, M. S.
( 1999 ). Phonetically-driven phonology: The role of optimality theory and inductive grounding . In M. Darnell, E. Moravscik, M. Noonan, F. Newmeyer, & K. Wheatly ( Eds. ), Functionalism and formalism in linguistics , vol. 1 ( pp. 243 – 285 ). Amsterdam : John Benjamins .
Kehoe, M., & Stoel-Gammon, C.
( 1997 ). Truncation patterns in English-speaking children’s word productions . Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research , 40 , 526 – 541 .
( 1982 ). From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology . In H. van der Hulst & N. Smith ( Eds. ), The structure of phonological representations , part 1 ( pp. 130 – 175 ). Dordrecht, Holland : Foris .
Klein, H. B., & Liu-Shea, M.
Menn, L., & Matthei, E.
( 1992 ). The “two-lexicon” approach of child phonology: Looking back, looking ahead . In C. A. Ferguson, L. Menn, & C. Stoel-Gammon ( Eds. ), Phonological development: Models, research, implications ( pp. 211 – 248 ). Timonium, MD : York Press .
Pinker, S., & Prince, A. S.
Pinker, S., & Ullman, M. T.
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P.
( 2004 ). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar . Oxford : Blackwell .
Ramscar, M., & Dye, M.
Storkel, H. L., Armbrüster, J., & Hogan, T. P.