|
Acquisition of phonology and representations| old_uid | 13940 |
|---|
| title | Acquisition of phonology and representations |
|---|
| start_date | 2014/05/12 |
|---|
| schedule | 10h-12h |
|---|
| online | no |
|---|
| location_info | salle 159 |
|---|
| summary | Anderson (1985) rightly presents the history of phonology as alternating between concepts
focused on representational formulations on the one hand and procedural phonological
propositions on t
he other.
Acquisition studies have always followed this pendulum
movement, as aptly emphasized by Fikkert (2007).
But the formal possibilities offered by
autosegmental theory have not been sufficiently explored in acquisition studies, although they
are emp
loyed in a number of works (Menn 1978; Macken 1992, 1995). The surge of the
Optimality Theory (OT)
framework in psycholinguistics
have accelerated the abandonment of
the autosegmental framework, with its representational concerns and its formal potential,
before it could, in my opinion, “reveal
”
as much as possible about the data and the hypotheses
of phonological processing and acquisition. The geometry produced through this
autosegmental formal logic, which involves the autonomy of the levels of represent
ation and
enables them to function on different planes, offers an extremely effective and elegant
account of numerous phenomena characterizing child productions, that can thus be considered
as underspecified representations: metathesis, consonantal harmony
, the simplification of the
phonemic inventory and the acquisition of syllabic structure. In particular, it can highlight the
existence of a common structural logic in productions of highly dissimilar appearance or ones
that show no relation to each other.
Thus, these models fulfill the conditions expected of a
model worthy of the name: simplification and abstraction, explanatory adequacy with respect
to the data considered in all its phenomenological complexity (particularly enabling the
formation of satis
factory generalizations) and an observable predictive power on the basis of
existing data.
The communication will adress those issues on the basis of French data
(longitudinal data of 6 children from 1,7 to 2,8
; transversal data of older children). |
|---|
| responsibles | Soare, Ferret |
|---|
| |
|