Volume 6prosodic Number 3 September 2002, 291 – 313 Complex structures in German and Spanish
291
The role of markedness in the acquisition of complex prosodic structures by German-Spanish bilinguals* Conxita Lleó University of Hamburg
Acknowledgments* The bilingual data presented in this paper were collected as part of the project “Prosodic constraints on the phonological and morphological development in bilingual acquisition,” carried out in the Research Center on M ultilingualism in H amburg under the direction of the author, supported by the German Science Foundation (DFG ); the monolingual data stem from the project PAIDUS, financed by the D F G and the DAAD (Acciones Integradas) in the nineties. I want to express my gratitude to these institutions, especially to the D FG, for their support. I would also like to thank the children and their parents, who took part in the project.
Abstract
Key words
A tendency to limit prosodic words (PW) to the size of a metrical foot has bilingual often been acknowledged in early stages of acquisition and truncation has phonological been shown to accomplish this size constraint. Interestingly, after the oneacquisition foot stage, children acquiring English or Dutch tend to enlarge their productions by one foot, whereas at least for children acquiring Spanish, a stage, in which German and PWs comprise a foot preceded by an unfooted syllable, immediately follows the one-foot stage. Early productions (between 1;5 and 2;2/ 2;4) of children Spanish acquiring G erman and Spanish in monolingual and bilingual conditions constitute the empirical basis for this paper. The monolingual cross-linguistic prosodic results show quantitative differences between the truncation of the Spanishconstraints and German-speaking children and different ways in which these two groups of children overcome the size restriction and acquire complex words. These differences are accounted for within Optimality Theory, couched in M etrical Phonology, by means of two different grammars, that is, two different constraint hierarchies. The emergence of these different grammars is relevant for the analysis of the transition to complex prosodic structures in bilinguals and for the analysis of the relationships between their two phonological modules. An interaction of the two languages is found, the outcome of which is mainly attributed to markedness.
1 Introduction Children acquiring different languages tend to reduce the length of words in their early productions. M onosyllables and disyllables stressed on the initial syllable (so-called trochees) are generally produced target-like as regards their number of syllables. But Address for correspondence
Institut für Romanistik, Universität Hamburg, Von-M elle-Park 6, Hamburg 20146, Germany; e-mail: <
[email protected]>. The International Journal of Bilingualism
292
C. Lleó
disyllables stressed on the final syllable (so-called iambs) tend to keep only the stressed syllable, and trisyllables as well as quadrisyllables, if present in the target language, lose part of their syllables in the productions of young children (Echols, 1993; G erken, 1996). Table 1 presents some examples for English (from Pater, 1997) and for G erman and Spanish (from the database of the project PAID U S1; the Spanish data partly appeared in Lleó, 1996, p. 221). As we see in Table 1, word length is reduced in the children’s productions. The reduction of word length, analyzed as truncation in generative terms, has been described by means of an early size constraint within Optimality Theory (OT ). That is, whereas G enerative Phonology proposed rules in order to describe a process such as the deletion of one or more syllables in the word, OT accounts for the outputs as a result of constraint ranking or constraint interaction. In this particular case, prosodic words (PW ) are equated with feet (F t), in the sense that the maximal length of a word amounts to a single foot 2 (D emuth & Fee, 1995; Kehoe, 1999/ 2000; Lleó & D emuth, 1999; Pater, 1997). Although as just stated, this is a general tendency among young children, it has been argued that it is stronger for children acquiring G ermanic languages than for those acquiring Romance languages (Lleó & Demuth, 1999; Paradis, Fonte, Petitclerc, & G enesee, 1996). F urthermore, after the one-foot stage, children acquiring English or D utch tend to enlarge their productions by one foot (D emuth & Fee, 1995), as in (1), or by certain internal unstressed syllables (Kehoe, 1999/ 2000), whereas at least for children acquiring Spanish, a stage, in which PWs comprise a foot preceded by an unfooted syllable, immediately follows the one-foot stage (D emuth, 2001; Lleó, 1997, 2001), as in (2). (1)
[[F t] [F t]]PW
(2)
[ s [F t]]PW
The usual analyses of truncation in terms of Alignment (all feet being aligned to the Left with the PW) are not sufficient to account for these different patterns of development. That is, the constraint A LIG N (F t, L, PW, L), as in Pater (1997), by requiring that all feet be aligned to the Left with a PW, limits the child’s prosodic structures to one single foot. This constraint, though, is violated by both prosodic structures (1) and (2), that appear in the subsequent stages of development: structure (1) for children acquiring a G ermanic language, as well as structure (2) for children acquiring Spanish. In structure (1) the second foot is not aligned to the Left with the PW, from which it is separated by the first foot, whereas in structure (2) it is a syllable that separates the single foot from the Left margin of the PW. If these two types of enlargement of the basic prosodic structure of the initial stage represent two different patterns of development for the two groups of children, it is important for the respective grammars to be able to distinguish them. The present analysis will distinguish the two grammars by means of an OT account.
1
PAID US was a crosslinguistic project, supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and carried out simultaneously in Hamburg and Madrid, to analyze the phonological and morphological development of monolingual German and Spanish children. See Lleó and Prinz (1996) for some details.
2
This terminology refers to Prosodic Phonology (Nespor & Vogel, 1986), from which we will be only using the lower constituents, beginning with the Syllable ( s ). The concepts relevant to the analysis will be briefly defined below.
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Complex prosodic structures in German and Spanish
293
Table 1 Exam ples of truncation in three child languages
a. Truncation in English child language (from Pater, 1997) gorilla spaghetti
tomorrow
[’go:w{]
Trevor (1;11,2)
[’wö:ga:]
Trevor (1;11,14)
[’dIbi]
Julia (1;9,7)
[’gEbi]
Julia (1;10,8)
[’skEbi]
Julia (1;11,19-2;3,8)
[’sketi]
Julia (2;0,29)
[’mowo]
Julia (1;7,16-2;0,17)
[’moro]
Trevor (1;8,12-2;1,14)
apart
[part]
Trevor (1;9,29)
Denise
[dis]
Trevor (1;1,17-2;2,15)
enough
[nöf]
Trevor (1;10,5-1;11,25)
b. Truncation in G erman child language (from the projects BIDS-PAID U S database) Fasan
‘pheasant’
/fa:’za:n/
[’zán]
Thomas (1;8,2)
kaputt
‘broken’
/ka’pUt/
[’pUth] [’gu:ts]
Britta (1;7,11)
[’puth]
Britta (1;10,9)
[’pO:t] [’put]
Britta (1;11,29)
[’puX]
M arion (1;10,5)
Karton
‘cardboard box’ /kar’tOÎ/
[’tOÎ]
Thomas (1;9,0)
Kakao
‘cocoa’
/ka’ka:o/
[’gOX] [’gO:X]
Johannes (1;8,1)
Banane
‘banana’
/ba’na:n@/
[’nAnI]
M arion (1;8,3)
[’nAnE] [’nAn@]
M arion (1;10,5)
[’ba:ne]
Johannes (1;8,1)
Geburtstag
‘birthday’
/g@’bu:á7tstak/
[’budzA] [’budas]
M arion (1;11,25)
Kartoffel
‘potato’
/kar’tOfl)/
[’tofEl]
Johannes (1;9,21)
M elone
‘melon’
/me’lo:n@/
[’jojo]
M arion (1;8,3)
c. Truncation in Spanish child language (from the project BID S-PAID U S database) conejo
‘rabbit’
/ko’nexo/
[’DeÒo]
M iguel (1;8,23)
pelota
‘ball’
/pe’lota/
[’bOdA]
M iguel (1;6,7)
[’lOda]
M iguel (1;10,18)
mariposa
‘butterfly’
/maQi’posa/
[’boza]
M iguel (1;8,23)
ardilla
‘squirrel’
/aQ’Diùa/
[’zijá] [’dihû]
José (1;7,27)
m
A lberto
‘name’
/al’ÂeQto/
[’ b{to] [’bEtou 7]
José (1;9,2)
espada
‘sword’
/es’paDa/
[’paDá:] [’padá] [’palá]
José (1;11,23)
The International Journal of Bilingualism
294
C. Lleó
It is thus important to show the different treatment given to polysyllabic words by children of different language groups, namely G erman and Spanish, and how the enlargement of the basic prosodic structure is undertaken by monolingual children acquiring G erman and Spanish, respectively. To show these differences will constitute the first aim of the paper, namely, to empirically substantiate the claims made by D emuth & Fee (1995) for English and D utch and by Lleó (1997) for Spanish. The former proposed the acquisition of two feet after the one-foot stage as a universal development, basing their evidence on D utch and English early acquisition, whereas the latter argued that on the basis of Spanish early acquisition, unfooted syllables should represent a possible developmental step after the one-foot stage. If these differences can be substantiated for the group of G erman children as opposed to the group of Spanish children, such results would constitute an optimal tool to measure the treatment of polysyllabic words by young G erman-Spanish bilingual children. That is, establishing a clear difference between the monolingual acquisition of G erman and that of Spanish would allow us to ask whether young G erman-Spanish bilinguals treat the two languages as the monolinguals do or whether there is influence of one of the languages on the other one. In that case, it would be important to ascertain which one of the languages influences the other one and why. Such an analysis could shed light on a long standing issue regarding bilingual acquisition. In the seventies and beginning of the eighties researchers working on bilingual acquisition tended to interpret the phonological data of the bilingual as exponents for a single or mixed system (Vihman, 1985; Vogel, 1975). Later on, other researchers pointed out that language mixing by young bilinguals does not necessarily mean that they go through a stage in which only a single system is available (G enesee, 1989; Ingram, 1981/ 82). N owadays, several researchers have clearly established the presence of two distinct systems (D euchar & Clark, 1996; Johnson & Lancaster, 1999; Schnitzer & K rasinsky, 1994, 1996). But the fact that two systems are acknowledged does not preclude that there might be interaction between them. Paradis & G enesee (1996, p. 3) propose that in bilingual acquisition the development of two languages can be autonomous or interdependent. The latter implies that there is “systemic influence of the grammar of one language on the grammar of the other language during acquisition.” Such interdependence can manifest itself as transfer, acceleration or delay. “Transfer consists of the incorporation of a grammatical property into one language from the other.” On the other hand, “acceleration means that a certain property emerges in the grammar earlier than would be the norm in monolingual acquisition.” Tracy (1995) and G awlitzekM aiwald & Tracy (1996) have found acceleration of one of the systems by means of a positive influence of one system onto the other, which they term “bilingual bootstrapping.” F inally, by “delay” Paradis & G enesee (1996, p. 4) refer to a possible slowing down of the “overall rate of acquisition” due to the “burden of acquiring two languages.” These issues will be examined on the basis of the truncation data in G erman and Spanish. The paper begins by presenting an analysis of truncation and the transition to complex words and to complex prosodic structures by monolingual children acquiring G erman and by monolingual children acquiring Spanish. The developmental difference between these two groups will be analyzed by different constraint hierarchies according to the tenets of Optimality Theory, couched in M etrical Phonology terms, and these data will constitute the tertium comparationis for the analysis of bilingual data. The paper The International Journal of Bilingualism
Complex prosodic structures in German and Spanish
295
then turns to the analysis of the prosodic structures and prosodic development by bilingual children acquiring G erman and Spanish simultaneously. The question of the emergence of two different grammars is crucial for the analysis of the bilingual data. D ifferent paths of the transition from truncation to complex prosodic structures can be used as diagnostics for (a) autonomy of the two phonological modules for bilinguals, and (b) possible phonological interactions between the two lexicons and the two phono-prosodic structures. Once a developmental quantitative difference has been established between monolingual German and monolingual Spanish children, if the development of one or of both languages of the bilinguals differs from that of the monolinguals, this difference will be interpreted as being caused by an interdependent development, in Paradis & G enesee’s (1996) terms. M oreover, if the two languages of the bilinguals resemble one another, in the sense that the quantitative difference is reduced, this will be interpreted as resulting from one language influencing the other one. Whether this influence corresponds to acceleration or to delay, will depend on the specific situation.
2 Monolingual data and analysis Early productions (between 1;3 and 2;2) of three children acquiring G erman and three children acquiring Spanish in monolingual conditions constitute the basis of analysis. The data belong to the monolingual project PAID U S and were collected naturalistically in the children’s homes; the G erman data were collected every two weeks during the first year, and once a month thereafter; the Spanish data were collected approximately once a month. All data were transcribed in H amburg by G erman- and Spanish-speaking transcribers. For the present analysis two aspects are relevant: number of syllables of the child’s utterance as compared to the number of syllables of the target and stress. There are sometimes difficulties in transcribing stress in utterances by young children, because they often produce the phonetic parameters of stress separately; that is, children often treat the phonetic correlates of stress (F0 , length, and intensity) differently than specified in the target language. Consequently, some doubtful utterances were digitized and acoustically analyzed. This way it was possible to distinguish (unstressed) unfooted syllables from (primarily or secondarily) stressed syllables possibly constituting a foot. If a syllable that had not been transcribed with stress had a reduced vowel, it could not constitute a foot; in the case that the vowel was unreduced, it could. Also, some doubtful cases, which in the transcription did not bear stress, were considered as stressed if some acoustic correlate, amplitude, duration or a higher F0, manifested itself to a high degree. Only spontaneous utterances were analyzed; that is, imitations or repetitions of adult utterances immediately preceding the child utterance were disregarded. Before going into the presentation and discussion of the data, a few terminological clarifications of the relevant constituents of Prosodic Phonology are in order. The smallest unit considered is the syllable ( s ), which for the purpose of this paper will not be further analyzed in its subcomponents. The following constituent over the syllable is the Foot (F t), understood as the “minimal bracketed unit” of metrical theory (H ayes, 1995, p. 40). Feet are disyllabic, with the most prominent syllable to the left (i.e., trochees) or with the prominent syllable to the right (i.e., iambi). They can also comprise one single syllable, in which case it is a heavy syllable, containing a long vowel, or it is closed by a consonant. The International Journal of Bilingualism
296
C. Lleó
The next higher constituents considered here are the Prosodic Word (PW ) and the Phonological Phrase (PPh ). The PW may correspond to the morphosyntactic word, but it does not need to. It can comprise a root and its suffixes, as defined by N espor and Vogel (1986) for Italian, and it can be provided with a clitic. Thus, for example, the N oun pelota ‘ball’ constitutes a PW, and so does the definite article la plus the N oun, as in la pelota ‘the ball’. The PPh does not necessarily coincide with a syntactic phrase, either, but it generally contains its head plus a preceding complement or a nonbranching following one, for example, muy bueno ‘very good’, come pan ‘(he / she) eats bread’ are PPhs in Spanish. (For more details see N espor & Vogel, 1986; Selkirk, 1978, 1986; and the by now abundant literature on Prosodic Phonology.) Table 2 Truncation of target unfooted syllables and percentages of production of com plex prosodic structures: unfooted syllables and two-feet by m onolingual Spanish children (José, María, Miguel) Spanish
Truncation of unfooted syllables % (out of target n)
AGE
Child productions n unfooted syllables
Jo s é
M a ría
M ig u el
1;3–1;4
–
33% (17)
1;5–1;6
22% (28)
1;7–1;8
two-feet
Jo s é
M a ri
M ig
Jo sé
M a ri
M ig
33% (3)
–
7
2
–
0
0
34% (32)
39% (18)
23
26
11
1
1
1
17% (23)
41% (29)
26% (34)
33
16
27
1
3
12
1;9–1;10
3% (175)
24% (82)
2% (54)
177
71
61
47
20
45
1;11–2;0
3% (229)
18% (45)
17% (42)
204
37
35
296
5
35
2;1–2;2
–
5% (65)
4% (69)
–
61
68
–
24
113
Table 3 Truncation of target unfooted syllables and percentages of production of com plex prosodic structures: unfooted syllables and two-feet by m onolingual Germ an children (Bernd, M arion, Thom as) German
Truncation of unfooted syllables % (out of target n)
AGE
Child productions n unfooted syllables
B e rn d
M a rio n
Thom as
B e rn
M a rn
Thom
1;3–1;4
–
100% (1)
–
–
0
1;5–1;6
100 % (2)
100% (1)
–
1
1;7–1;8
100% (2)
100% (3)
57% (7)
1;9–1;10
100% (1)
40% (15)
1;11–2;0
87% (15)
2;1–2;2
71% (17)
two-feet B ern d
M a rn
–
–
0
–
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
3
6
3
57% (7)
8
8
0
14
27
20
53% (19)
78% (8)
2
8
3
25
84
133
0% (2)
50% (2)
6
–
–
42
–
–
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Thom
Complex prosodic structures in German and Spanish
297
Tables 2 and 3 offer information about the treatment of an unstressed syllable preceding the stressed one in initial position by monolingual Spanish and G erman children. Such syllables are here analyzed as unfooted syllables, that is, not belonging to the foot, as in (2) above. Words with an unfooted syllable in initial position correspond to a) disyllables with the stress on the second syllable (so-called “iambs” in the metric tradition) and to b) trisyllables consisting in a left-headed foot (a trochee) preceded by the unstressed or unfooted syllable (called “amphibrachs” in traditional metrics)3. The numbers in the first column refer to percentages of truncation of unfooted syllables, with absolute numbers of target unfooted syllables in parentheses. The data correspond to three Spanish children (José, M aría, and M iguel) in Table 2 and to three G erman children (Bernd, M arion, and Thomas) in Table 3. The sum of iambic- and amphibrachic-shaped words of the target language gives the number of target unfooted syllables for each particular child, and these constitute the denominator for truncation, that is, deletion of the unfooted syllable. The following two columns refer to child utterances and show the number of unfooted syllables and two-feet utterances produced by each individual child. U nfooted syllables were calculated exclusively for monomorphemic lexical items, that is, referring to a syllable such as the first one in a noun like pelota ‘ball’, in case it is reproduced by the child. F iller syllables, often corresponding to protoarticles and articles, which in the Spanish children’s early productions are very numerous (see, for instance, Lleó, 2001) were not counted in these measurements. In some cases, especially in the Spanish data, the number of unfooted syllables produced by a child is higher than the number of target unfooted syllables. This is particularly due to target quadrisyllables stressed on the penultima being reduced to trisyllables by the child, as in for example, mariposa [ "maQi’posa] produced as [ pa’ bOta] (see below); this word has an unfooted syllable in the child’s but not in the adult’s pronunciation. The last column, showing the numbers of ‘two-feet’ uttered by each child, disregards whether they belong to single words or to combinations of words. In the case of the Spanish children, the words of the last column generally are monomorphemic quadrisyllables such as mariposa ‘butterfly’ or elefante ‘elephant’, and for the G erman children they generally correspond to morphologically complex words, often trisyllabic (either derived, comprised of prefix plus verb as for instance zumachen ‘close’ or ausziehen ‘put off ’) or to compounds, like Eisenbahn ‘train’. From Tables 2 and 3 it is obvious that a) Spanish children have many more target words with unfooted syllables in their vocabularies, and b) G er man children, besides having lower numbers of such words, have much higher rates of truncation or deletion of the unfooted syllables. The general difference in this respect between the two groups of children is summarized in F igure 1, which adds together the data for the three children in both languages and thus comparatively shows the different rates of truncation of unfooted syllables in the two language groups. The data exhibit a very different profile in the prosodic development of G erman and Spanish children. This difference is maintained during the whole time span for which data has been presented, that is, from 1;3 up to 2;2. 3
The pretonic syllable of “iambs” is also analyzed as unfooted, because the basic foot in Spanish as well as in German is the trochee, that is, with the stressed syllable to the left. This places a syllable preceding the stressed one outside the foot. Alternatively pretonic syllables could be treated as “degenerate feet”; we will not pursue this treatment, because it raises several theoretical problems (see Hayes, 1995, p. 86ff). The International Journal of Bilingualism
298
C. Lleó
Figure 1 Percentages of unfooted syllable truncation by Spanish and G erm an m onolinguals
The rate of truncation of unfooted syllables in G erman is at all points (with one small exception) higher than 50%; in Spanish, after the first point at 1;3, it hardly reaches 30% and after 1;8 it is gradually reduced to very low values. As regards two-feet utterances, considered in general, as in the last columns of Tables 2 and 3, all children, Spanish as well as G erman, begin simultaneously, at about 1;10, to produce substantial numbers of them. This means that the difference between the two groups of children does not lie in the onset of two-feet utterances, but in the fact that at the point two-feet utterances emerge, Spanish children have already produced many unfooted syllables, whereas German children have only produced single feet. In spite of these differences in truncation rates, it is certainly not the case that G erman children do not produce or attempt long words. The trisyllabic words attempted by the G erman children generally correspond to the complex words mentioned above, either derived as zumachen ‘open’ or compounded as Eisenbahn ‘train’, which comprise two feet, the first foot being primarily stressed and the second one secondarily stressed in the target language. These have been analyzed separately in Table 4, which shows the numbers of such target words (called “dactyls” in the table) attempted by each particular G erman child in parentheses and the percentages of truncation applied. Truncation rates are very high at first, and are substantially reduced at 1;10 in Bernd’s productions, at 1;11 in Thomas’and at 2;0 in Marion’s. Tables 2 through 4 make clear that at the beginning both groups tend to get rid of the material that exceeds a single foot: all children tend to limit their productions to one foot. Very soon their productions are enlarged, but in different ways: Between 1;7 and 1;8 the G erman group begins to produce a second foot, whereas the Spanish group, as soon as 1;3 or at 1;5 at the latest begins to produce the additional unfooted syllable to the left of the single foot. Because feet in the Spanish children’s productions generally comprise The International Journal of Bilingualism
Complex prosodic structures in German and Spanish
299
Table 4 Target dactylic structures and their truncation (percentages) by m onolingual Germ an children German AGE
Truncation of dactyls % (out of target n) B e rn d
1;3-1;4
M ario n
–
1;5-1;6
100%
–
Th om as (9)
–
75%
(4)
100%
(1)
1;7-1;8
67%
(6)
70%
(10)
91%
(22)
1;9-1;10
10%
(10)
69%
(16)
83%
(18)
1;11-2;0
23%
(13)
24%
(29)
17%
(41)
2;1-2;2
12%
(33)
10%
(20)
12%
(60)
two syllables, the additional syllable cannot be fitted into feet — these must be binary according to the assumptions of M etrical Phonology— and must thus be directly attached to the PW. Such a representation, as in (2) above, is marked, because it violates the Strict Layer H ypothesis (N espor & Vogel, 1986, p. 7ff). According to this constraint on prosodic structure, a prosodic constituent should dominate only constituents of the next level down in the prosodic hierarchy. This constraint is here violated, because PW is directly dominating a syllable, although the next level down after PW is the foot. N otice that two-foot structures are not marked from the perspective of Prosodic Phonology, because they just introduce an additional foot, both feet being immediately dominated by the next higher constituent, the PW. From an OT perspective, the G erman children’s productions violate constraint (3) and Spanish children’s productions violate constraints (4) and (5); that is, the grammars of the initial stage contain all three constraints in a nondominated position, but they are subsequently demoted, constraint (3) in G erman and constraint (4) and (5) in Spanish. (3) A LIGN (F t, R , PW, R ): the right edge of all F t must be aligned with the right edge of PW (4) A LIGN (PW, L, F t, L): all PWs must have their left edge aligned with a F t (5) PARSE -s :
syllables must be parsed into feet
Constraint (3) requires that all feet be aligned to the right with a prosodic word, thus limiting the number of feet to one per prosodic word, whereas constraint (4) requires that all prosodic words begin with a foot, thus excluding unfooted pretonic syllables. N otice that constraint (4) does not prohibit the appearance of more than one foot per PW; the presence of two feet does not prevent the PW from being aligned with one of them. Two comments are noteworthy. These constraints were originally introduced and discussed by M cCarthy & Prince (1994, p. 12ff) in relation to G arawa. Pater (1997, p. 207) has used A LIG N (F t, L, PW, L) for child language and notices that “A LIG N R IG H T would do as well.” M y preference for A LIGN R IGHT over A LIGN L EFT for constraint (3) is that A LIGN L EFT is violated by both later outputs, the G erman comprised of two feet as well as the Spanish comprised of one foot preceded by an unfooted syllable; this means that A LIG N (F t, L, PW, L), requiring all feet to be aligned to the left with the prosodic word, cannot show the two different developments, the G erman one characterized by two-feet productions The International Journal of Bilingualism
300
C. Lleó
and the Spanish one by unfooted syllables. On the other hand, both constraints (3) and (4) have been claimed to be part of the grammar of G erman, the former by F éry (1999)4 and the latter by Alber (1998). A further relevant constraint worth mentioning is H EAD M AX , which requires that the stressed segment of the target word (foot and syllable) be the bearer of stress in the child’s production 5: (6) H EAD -M AX : The (primarily) stressed foot / syllable of the Input must be maintained with its stress in the Output This constraint predicts that a target word composed of two feet, which undergoes truncation will lose the unstressed or secondarily stressed foot and that the primarily stressed one will be maintained, that is, in accordance with this constraint the target Spanish word mariposa ‘butterfly’ maintains the second foot (’posa)F t and the target G erman word zumachen ‘close’ becomes (’zu)F t . Other faithfulness constraints, that is, constraints requiring identity between input and output, are relevant for the analysis. I will just refer to constraint (7), banning the deletion of syllables: (7) M AX -IO: An Input syllable has a correspondent in the Output Tableaux (1) and (2) illustrate the effects of this set of constraints in the two languages for the initial stage, that is, when truncation is taking place. N otice that at this stage PARSE -s must dominate constraints (3) and (4) in both languages; otherwise, this latter constraint could be fulfilled at the expense of leaving syllables unparsed.6 The constraint hierarchy at this initial stage is thus: F T BIN , PAR SE -s » A LIG N (F t, R ,PW, R ), A LIG N (PW, L, F t, L) » M AX -IO. The Tableaux follow the usual OT formalism: asterisks indicate violations of the relevant constraints and a fatal violation is indicated by the exclamation mark. Violations of certain constraints, such as A LIG N and M AX -IO, are measured in terms of syllables. In the output candidates square brackets indicate PWs and parentheses indicate F t. Tableau (1) for Spanish conejo ‘rabbit’ / ko ’ nexo /
FTBIN
PARSE-s
ALIGN(Ft,R,PW,R)
ALIGN(PW,L,Ft,L)
[(’nexo)]
MAX-IO s
[ko(’nexo)] [ne]
HEAD-MAX
*! *!
s s s
4
Although F éry (1999) refers to McCarthy & Prince’s Generalized Alignment, who discussed ALIG N R IG HT in the sense of constraint (3), she seems to interpret the constraint in a less restrictive sense, as ALIG N (PW, R, F T, R ). For the reasons discussed here, the align constraint that is needed in child language at the earliest stage is the most restrictive one.
5
This type of constraint was originally proposed by Alderete (1995). Pater (1997, p. 223) proposes STRESS-FAITH , which serves a comparable purpose; Goad & Rose (in press) have reelaborated it also in the context of acquisition, and Piñeros (2000, p. 298) in the context of truncation in Spanish.
6
A similar point is made by McCarthy & Prince (1994, p. 17), who notice that “noniterative foot-parsing can be obtained from a low ranking of PARSE-SYLL”, and by Pater (1997, p. 212): “to allow iterative footing, PARSE-SYLL must dominate ALIG N L EF T ” (here A LIG N R IGHT ).
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Complex prosodic structures in German and Spanish
301
Tableau (2) for Spanish mariposa ‘butterfly’ /"m aQi’posa /
FTBIN
PARSE-s
ALIGN(Ft,R,PW,R)
ALIGN(PW,L,Ft,L)
HEAD-MAX
[(’posa)]
MAX-IO s s
[(’maQi)]
*!
[ma(’posa)]
*!
[("maQ i)(’posa)]
s
s s s
*!
Tableau (3) for G erm an kaputt ‘broken’
/ka’put/
FTBIN
PARSE-s
ALIGN(Ft,R,PW,R)
ALIGN(PW,L,Ft,L)
HEAD-MAX
[(pUt)]
MAX-IO s
[ka’(pUt)]
*!
s
[(’kapUt)]
*!
Tableau (4) for G erm an zumachen ‘close’
/’tsu:"m ax nµ /
FTBIN
PARSE-s
ALIGN(Ft,R,PW,R)
ALIGN(PW,L,Ft,L)
HEAD-MAX
[(tsu:)]
s s
[(’tsu:)("maxnµ )]
*!
[(’tsu:)( "max)]
*!
[(’maxnµ )]
MAX-IO
s
*!
s
All four productions shown in tableaux (1) to (4) of the Spanish target words, conejo and mariposa, and of the G erman target words, kaputt and zumachen, correspond to the earliest stages, in which the candidates without the offending material, a syllable or a foot, are preferred over the satisfaction of M AX -IO; that is, unfaithful forms are preferred. In the case of Spanish conejo and G erman kaputt, the offending material is the initial syllable, whereas in the case of Spanish mariposa and G erman zumachen, the offending material is a whole foot, the initial one, not aligned to the right with the PW as required by A LIGN R IG H T . As indicated above, the reason why the second foot of mariposa is selected in Tableau (2) and the first one of zumachen in Tableau (4) lies in the satisfaction of the constraint H EAD -M AX , which predicts that the head foot is maintained. In the next stage, Spanish conejo is pronounced target-like as regards the number of syllables, but mariposa is generally produced with three syllables, for example, [ pa’bOta] by José (1;9,2). These utterances are analyzed in Tableaux (1a) and (2a) respectively, which show that A LIGN LEFT has been demoted under M AX. On the other hand, in German, dactyls are produced with two feet from rather early on, whereas unfooted syllables of iambicand amphibrachic-shaped words are still truncated for some months. Table 4 indicates a relatively high degree of truncation of dactyls, because syllable truncation has been included in that table, as well, not only foot truncation. The truncation of whole feet, though, does not last long; it is greatly reduced at the 1;9 – 1;10 point for Bernd and at the 1;11 – 2;0 point for M arion and Thomas. In words like zumachen, aufmachen, anziehen, ausziehen, and so forth, it is generally not the second foot that is truncated, but only the last syllable or the syllabic consonant that constitutes the head of the last syllable. A constraint against syllabic consonants is thus active here; it must outrank A LIG N R IG HT . The International Journal of Bilingualism
302
C. Lleó
I adopt Prince & Smolensky’s (1993, p. 134ff) analysis by means of the sonority scale: vowels are allowed as syllable heads or Peaks in the earliest stages of acquisition, but consonants are not. This is expressed by constraint (8): (8) *C ON S / P EAK : consonants should not be parsed as a syllable Peak (i.e., associated to N uc) The analyses for the production of G erman kaputt and zumachen are shown in tableaux (3a) and (4a), respectively. Tableau (1a) for Spanish conejo ‘rabbit’: subsequent stage
/ ko’nexo/
FTBIN
ALIGN(Ft,R,PW,R)
HEAD-MAX
[(’nexo)] [ko(’nexo)] [(ne)]
MAX-IO
PARSE-s
ALIGN(PW,L,Ft,L)
s !
* *!
s
s s
Tableau (2a) for Spanish mariposa ‘butterfly’: subsequent stage
/ "m aQi’posa/
FTBIN
ALIGN(Ft,R,PW,R)
[(’posa)] [("m aQi)(’posa)]
HEAD-MAX
MAX-IO
PARSE-s
ALIGN(PW,L,Ft,L)
s s !
*!
[ri(’posa)] [m a(’posa)]
*!
s
* *
HEAD-MAX
MAX-IO
s
s s
Tableau (3a) for G erm an kaputt ‘broken’: subsequent stage
/ ka’put/
FTBIN
PARSE-S
ALIGN(PW,L,Ft,L)
[(p u t]
ALIGN(Ft,R,PW,R)
s
[ka’(p u t)] [(’kap u t)]
*!
s
*!
Tableau (4a) for G erm an zumachen ‘close’: subsequent stage
/ ’tsu:"m axnµ/
FTBIN
PARSE-s
ALIGN(PW,L,Ft,L) HEAD-MAX *CONS /PEAK
[tsu:] [’tsu:" maxnµ ] [’tsu:" max]
MAX-IO
ALIGN(Ft,R,PW,R)
s s !
*!
Ft s
Ft
Tableaux (1a) and (2a) illustrate that the constraint hierarchy for Spanish children at this second stage is A LIG N (F t, R , P W, R ) M AX -IO » A LIG N (PW, L, F t, L), whereas tableaux (3a) and (4a) show that for G erman children the hierarchy is rather A LIG N (PW, L, F t, L) » M AX -IO » A LIG N (F t, R , P W, R ). That is, whereas Spanish children introduce unfooted syllables very soon, G erman children omit them, which is reflected in their grammars by means of the different status of the two A LIGN constraints in the hierarchies of constraints. Spanish children in the stage following the production of a single foot per word, are able to violate the constraint that requires that each PW be aligned to the left with a foot, showing that the constraint A LIGN (PW, L, F t, L) is outranked by M AX -IO. The International Journal of Bilingualism
Complex prosodic structures in German and Spanish
303
In the grammar of the G erman children it is the constraint A LIG N (F t, R , P W, R ) that has been demoted under M AX -IO, whereas the constraint A LIG N (PW, L, F t, L) continues to be undominated. This hierarchy leads to the omission of unfooted syllables and at the same time allows the production of two-feet structures, because the G erman children’s grammars require alignment between PW and foot to the left, but do not require that all feet be aligned to the right with the PW.
3 Bilingual data and analysis The bilingual data come from the bilingual project “Prosodic constraints on the phonological and morphological development in bilingual acquisition,”carried out in the Research Center on M ultilingualism at the U niversity of H amburg. This project comprises four longitudinal studies of children (Jens, Nils, Simon, and Matias), acquiring German and Spanish simultaneously. The data are being collected in a naturalistic fashion in the children’s homes, with two researchers present. The two languages are recorded in separate sessions by two different research teams; often the parent that is a native speaker of the language being recorded is also present at the session and plays or talks to the child. For the present analysis the data of three children — Jens, N ils, and Simon — have been considered, because one of the children (M atias) began later than the other children to participate in the project, and is substantially younger. In all three cases the mother is Spanish-speaking and the father is German. At home the parents follow the rule of “une personne, une langue” (Ronjat, 1913) when addressing the child, that is, each parent addresses the child in his/ her native language. Being in a G erman speaking community (H amburg), G erman is generally used as the common language by the parents, especially in the presence of non-Spanish speaking friends or family. Only in the case of Simon the parents report communicating in Spanish with each other. Jens and Simon spent the three first years of their lives at home with their mothers, with a fairly large exposure to the Spanish language. N ils began to attend a G erman day care center when he became 1;5, and since then his use of Spanish has been diminishing. It can thus be said that the exposure to and use of Spanish mainly takes place at home, and it has been larger for Jens and Simon than for N ils. All children spend a few weeks in the country of their mothers each year, which amount to a maximum of 8 to 10 weeks in the case of Simon and to a minimum of three to four weeks in the case of N ils. Table 5 selectively presents for the Spanish of the bilingual children (Jens, N ils and Simon) the same type of data we have seen for the Spanish monolinguals: The first columns include information on truncation of unfooted syllables in percentages and numbers of target unfooted syllables in parentheses. The last columns show the numbers of complex prosodic structures produced by the three children: a foot preceded by an unfooted syllable, as well as two-feet utterances; the latter, children’s complex prosodic structures, are given in raw numbers. Table 6 presents information on Jens, N ils, and Simon’s G erman productions: percentages of dactylic truncation, number of target dactylic words attempted, in parenthesis, and production of two-feet utterances. The information on truncation of unfooted syllables in G erman has not been included in the table, because the amounts of target unfooted syllables were so minimal that no reasonable percentages could be calculated. The few target words (containing unfooted syllables) that were attempted by the bilingual children were mainly truncated, as in the case of the G erman monolinguals. The International Journal of Bilingualism
304
C. Lleó
Table 5 Truncation of target unfooted syllables and percentages of production of com plex prosodic structures: unfooted syllables and two-feet by bilingual children (Nils, Jens and Sim on) in Spanish Spanish
Truncation of unfooted syllables % (out of target n)
AGE
Child productions n unfooted syllables
Je n s
N ils
S im o n
1;6
–
83% (12)
1;7
0% (11)
55% (11)
1;8
0%
(2)
1;9
two-feet
Je n s
N ils
S im
Jen s
N ils
S im
100% (2)
0
2
0
0
0
0
100% (16)
1
5
1
0
2
1
88% (26)
55% (11)
0
3
9
0
6
1
21% (14)
81% (32)
80% (10)
3
7
2
1
7
2
1;10
36% (14)
50% (44)
76% (50)
9
24
10
1
26
7
1;11
22% (32)
48% (73)
78% (36)
24
38
14
7
41
13
2;0
30% (40)
33% (46)
65% (17)
29
35
15
38
58
7
8% (74)
26% (19)
5
70
14
9
49
15
4% (22)
12% (26)
0
21
23
3
19
21
–
–
–
–
–
–
2;1 2;2 2;3
0%
(9)
– 7% (27)
–
–
Table 6 Percentages of truncation of target dactylic structures and percentages of two-feet productions by bilingual children (Nils, Jens and Sim on) in G erm an Spanish
Truncation of dactyls
Child productions
% (out of target n)
two-feet n
AGE
Je n s
N ils
S im o n
Je n s
N ils
S im o n
1;6
–
–
–
–
5
2
1;7
–
–
–
–
3
2
1;8
–
–
–
–
13
5
1;9
–
(4)
–
–
61
–
1;10
–
6% (35)
–
–
58
3
1;11
–
17% (18)
2;0
0% (16)
2;1
0% (3)
2;2
25%
(3)
8
109
11
21% (14)
33
51
86
47% (15)
20%
(5)
14
86
40
–
10% (29)
44% (16)
1
137
26
2;3
0% (3)
–
–
25
–
–
2;4
–
–
–
47
–
–
0%
(5)
33%
F igure 2 and F igure 3 plot the individual data of the bilingual children, Jens, N ils, and Simon, in comparison to the respective monolingual groups: F igure 2 for unfooted syllable truncation in Spanish and F igure 3 for dactyl truncation in G erman. A comparison of these data with the monolingual Spanish as well as with the monolingual G erman data show that the three children — Jens, N ils, and Simon — stay longer at the one-foot stage than the monolingual children: their rates of truncation are high and their rates of complex prosodic structures are relatively low. This is especially true for Jens, who in general began talking a few months later than the other children, and his The International Journal of Bilingualism
Complex prosodic structures in German and Spanish
305
Figure 2 Percentages of unfooted syllable truncation by bilinguals in Spanish
Figure 3 Percentages of dactyl truncation by bilinguals in G erm an
utterances were very reduced in numbers; this is the reason why his data were calculated for two more months (until 2;4) than in the case of the other children. As regards unfooted syllables in Spanish, they are attempted later by the bilinguals than by the monolinguals, The International Journal of Bilingualism
306
C. Lleó
their numbers grow at a slower pace and their rate of truncation resembles the high rate of truncation of the G erman monolinguals rather than that of the Spanish monolinguals. Only Jens has percentages of truncation that resemble the Spanish monolinguals; but notice that he begins to try unfooted syllables not earlier than at 1;7. The first unfooted syllables in his utterances constitute the first syllable of iambs; he does not attempt amphibrachs until 1;9. Interestingly, between 1;7 and 1;8, Jens does not truncate the unstressed syllable preceding the stressed one in a disyllable, but changes the position of stress into the initial syllable; thus, although he does not truncate, he produces almost no unfooted syllables. The high rates of unfooted syllable truncation in the Spanish productions of the other bilingual children are maintained during the whole time-span, still amounting at 2;0 to 33% in the case of N ils and to 65% in the case of Simon. N otice that at this same age the monolingual children had percentages lower than 20%, and in the case of José even less than 10% (cf. Table 2). Table 6 shows that in G erman the bilingual children retain the tendency to produce single feet, especially within PWs, longer than the monolingual children: Jens produced almost no dactylic words, except for the 2;0 point. N ils’s first target dactylic words were produced at 1;9 and Simon’s at 1;11; in all cases dactyls were introduced in the children’s lexica some months later than in those of the monolinguals. Whereas the monolingual children’s productive vocabularies contain some dactyls beginning at 1;7 or 1;8, bilingual children begin to attempt them not earlier than 1;11 or 2;0. The rate of truncation for dactyls is rather low in the case of N ils, though, soon joining the values of the monolingual G erman group.In the case of Simon, his truncation rate also joints that of the monolinguals at point 2;0, and Jens, in fact, does not truncate dactyls, although he exhibits very limited numbers of relevant utterances. To notice is that truncation of dactyls exhibits some variation: N ils’and Simon’s values substantially raise at 2;1 and 2;2, respectively, although they do not go beyond 50%. Two-feet production in Spanish as well as in G erman is comparable to that of the monolingual groups. Interestingly, Jens, who generally produced few complex prosodic structures (very few unfooted syllables and few dactyls), produces comparatively many two-feet utterances.
5 General Discussion Summarizing our findings, we can say that the monolingual data have shown similar results among the children within each language group, but clearly different results across groups: Spanish children’s input contains higher numbers of iambs and amphibrachs, and accordingly, such prosodic structures appear in their vocabularies earlier than in the G erman children’s vocabularies. These target words with unfooted syllables are produced targetlike relatively early, truncation ceasing to operate very soon in Spanish. This has been interpreted as the effect of demotion of the constraint A LIGN (PW, L, F t, L) and PARSEs below M AX . G erman children have much more limited numbers of target words with initial unfooted syllables in their vocabularies and they truncate these syllables more persistently, showing that their grammars keep the latter constraint in a dominant position for a longer period of time. What could be the explanation for this difference in the grammars of the two groups? Spanish has a clear preference for penultimate stress, amounting to about 80% of the Spanish vocabulary as opposed to ultimate and antepenultimate stress, which reach The International Journal of Bilingualism
Complex prosodic structures in German and Spanish
307
together the remaining 20% (Sosa, 1999, p. 58f.). At the level of the PW, Spanish has very large amounts of trisyllabic words with penultimate stress (paroxytones), whereas trisyllabic words with antepenultimate stress (proparixytones) are exceptional. This means that the above mentioned constraint, A LIG N L EF T, which requires that the left side of the word aligns with a foot, is not dominant in Spanish. This subordinate position of the A LIGN L EF T constraint is also clear if we take into account the sequences of article plus noun. The Spanish lexicon is full of nouns composed of trochees, that is, disyllables with the head to the left, and these are richly represented in young children’s vocabularies. F urthermore, articles (especially definite articles) in Spanish have the prosodic status of proclitic syllables, and can thus be analyzed as belonging to the PW. N ouns combine with articles very often, and the combinations of an unfooted syllable plus a noun are numerous (see Lleó, 2001). Young G erman children’s lexicons have few lexical items with initial unfooted syllables, that is, iambs and paroxytone trisyllables or amphibrachs. This implies that violating the A LIGN L EF T constraint does not lead to crucial progress at the level of the PW. On the other hand, at the level of the N P, G erman prosodic structures are very different from the Spanish ones: Articles constitute feet on their own in G erman (see Lleó, 1997, 2001; Lleó & D emuth, 1999). Still more important than this is the fact that such a constraint is dominant in the adult grammar of G erman, as shown by stress assignment. Long words always receive a secondary stress on the initial syllable (Alber, 1998), even at the cost of stressing a light syllable followed by a heavy one, which thus remains unstressed, as in Dè.ter.mi.nís.mus ‘determinism’, Kà.lei.do.skóp ‘kaleidoscope’ or È.man.zi.pa.tión ‘emancipation’. As Alber (1998) argues, this shows that a constraint like A LIG N (PW, L, F t, L) dominates WSP (weight-to-stress principle), by which heavy syllables should be prominent, that is, bear stress (Prince & Smolensky, 1993). On the other hand, the production of target words constituted of two feet requires the demotion of the other alignment constraint, A LIG N (F T , R , PW, R ). This constraint, so highly ranked in early grammars must be demoted in both languages, G erman and Spanish, since both contain long words comprising two feet. But the crucial fact is that at the level of the PW the need for its demotion is better supported by the G erman than by the Spanish language. Target trisyllables are very different in the two languages: If we disregard monomorphemic multisyllabic words, which are not very numerous in the G erman children’s vocabularies, G erman multimorphemic trisyllables carry stress on the initial syllable, whereas most Spanish trisyllables are of the W ’SW prosodic type, and they are monomorphemic. That is, the normal case in Spanish multisyllables is paroxytone stress, and this implies alignment of the PW with the head foot of the word to the right. In G erman multisyllabic compounds and derived words (mainly derived verbs with a prefix) stress appears on the left margin, which requires alignment of the PW with the head foot of the word to the left. In order to be able to produce multisyllabic words in a fa ithful way (i.e., target-like) G erman children must demote A LIGN (F t, R , PW, R ) and Spanish children must demote A LIGN (PW, L, F t, L). Let us now turn to the bilingual results. The data presented in this paper show that the prosodic structures of the early vocabularies of the three bilingual children are simpler than those of the monolingual children, both in G erman and in Spanish. This is especially the case for Jens and Simon. Some bilingual children appear to prefer disyllables, mainly trochees, and monosyllables for a longer time than monolinguals. The introduction of multisyllabic words in their vocabularies takes place later than in the vocabularies of monoThe International Journal of Bilingualism
308
C. Lleó
linguals; and their productions of multisyllabic words are characterized by truncation (i.e., simplification) for a longer time span than the simplifications and truncations undertaken by monolinguals. This means that the prosodic structures of bilingual children undergo a certain delay (to use Paradis & G enesee’s 1996 terminology), in the sense that unmarked structures last longer and more complex structures are acquired later. This is clearly the case for lexical items containing unfooted syllables in Spanish, such as iambs and amphibrachic trisyllables: Their targetlike production experiences a few months of delay. As F igure 2 shows, the level of negligible truncation, which is reached at 1;9 by the monolingual group, is reached by the bilinguals a few months later, at 2;2 by N ils, and still later by Simon; Jens reaches it at 2;1. On the other hand, in the case of dactylic productions, although they enter the children’s lexicons almost six months later, the children’s utterances soon keep up with the amount of complexity of the monolingual children’s productions; that is, from the very moment of their introduction, they are produced with almost the same low rate of truncation applied by the monolingual G erman children at that time point, although with some noticeable fluctuations after that, in the case of N ils and Simon. M oreover, in the production of two feet in G erman, there is no delay either within complex words or at the level of prosodic phrases. In those cases in which there is delay, this is overcome in a few months, so that at about the end of the second year of age, bilinguals reach the same level of acquisition as that of monolinguals. It should be noticed that the comparison between the monolingual and bilingual data has been made by matching the two groups of children on the basis of age. Another alternative might be to match them on the basis of M LU or certain other measurements (see G enesee, N icoladis, & Paradis, 1995). A first approximation in terms of M LU shows that there is no clear correspondence between this measurement, originally conceived for comparing morphological and syntactic development, and prosodic development, at least not in terms of the two phenomena we are observing here, unfooted syllables and twofeet productions. The data show that in fact for some children there is a closer correspondence than for other children. Among the Spanish monolinguals, José has a fast prosodic development, in the sense that he produces long words very soon: at 1;9 he only truncates 5% of unfooted syllables and produces many unfooted syllables (104 in one session), although his M LU is hardly over 1,0, it only reaches 1,07 at the age of 1;9 and 1,2 at the age of 1;10; a value over 2,0 is reached at the next month, 1;11. M iguel’s prosodic development in relation to unfooted syllables is relatively fast, too: he reaches the very low mark of 2% of truncation at 1;10 and his productions contain many unfooted syllables (61 in one session), his M LU reaching 1,81 at this age; but he exhibits an M LU higher than 2,0 at the age of 2;2 for the first time. M aría has a comparatively slower prosodic development. H er percentage of unfooted syllable truncation is finally reduced to 5% at 2;1, but her M LU reaches only 1,53 at this age, reaching the mark over 2,0 at the age of 2;4. This shows that there is no one to one correspondence between prosodic development and M LU : in the case of José and M iguel, prosodic development reaches high values in spite of a very limited M LU, for M aría, both developments seem to go slower hand in hand. At most, it can be claimed that prosodic development and M LU are roughly correlated in that the child with a slower prosodic development has lower M LU by two years. As far as the G er man monolinguals, a substantial reduction of dactylic truncation (11%) is reached by M arion at 2;0, although she only has an M LU of 1,34 and by Thomas at 1;11, The International Journal of Bilingualism
Complex prosodic structures in German and Spanish
309
also with a relatively low M LU of 1,50. Bernd’s 11% truncation is reached later, at 2;2, at which point his M LU is still very low, 1,16. Again, there is no close correspondence between prosodic development and M LU, at most a rough correlation as above in that the child with a slower prosodic development has the lowest M LU by two years. LópezOrnat (in press) has proposed number of syllables per utterance as a measurement of development. Such a measurement is very much language-dependent, and it is not obvious that it can be used in a crosslinguistic context. We should certainly try to discover other measurements for matching children. In the mean time, though, given the lack of correspondence between standard measures, like M LU, and prosodic development, we will consider a comparison on the basis of age as valid. N otice that in the comparison between the monolinguals and the bilinguals it cannot be argued that the monolingual groups comprise children, who develop, in general, at fa ster rates. Both monolingual groups contain a mixture of faster and slower children. As mentioned above, one of the Spanish monolinguals, M aría, and one the German monolinguals, Bernd, displayed slower prosodic developments than the other children in their respective groups. What is the explanation for the delay that takes place in certain areas? It should be clear that our data do not show delay indiscriminately. In fact, in a study of coda production, which is an area in which G erman and Spanish monolingual children differ, Kehoe, Trujillo & Lleó (2001) and Lleó, Kuchenbrandt, Kehoe, & Trujillo (submitted) have shown that bilingual children have a higher rate of coda production in Spanish than Spanish monolingual children do. In fact, those studies make clear that the rate of coda production in the Spanish of the bilinguals is very high and rather resembles the high rate of German monolinguals. This can be interpreted as acceleration (in Paradis & G enesee’s, 1996 terminology) or as bilingual bootstrapping (in Tracy’s, 1995, and in G awlitzek-Maiwald & Tracy, 1996). The most plausible explanation can be found in (a) the markedness of the phenomenon and (b) the amount of positive evidence offered by the target language. Those areas that are marked take generally longer to be acquired. N evertheless, if the evidence in a target language is very strong, the child acquires that phenomenon, in spite of its markedness, earlier than expected. This is the case as regards coda acquisition in G erman. It has been noticed by several authors (G rijzenhout & Joppen, 1999), that G erman children produce coda consonants very early. The reason for this does not only lie in the numerical richness of codas in G erman. Codas are used in the target language to comply with foot and syllable binarity, that is, they often provide the necessary second unit (beside the vowel) to complete the rhyme. G erman-Spanish bilinguals have access to a great frequency of codas in G erman, to which the Spanish codas are added. The latter are not so numerous, but they come to enlarge the total number. This has a beneficial effect from G erman to Spanish, given the essential role of codas in the grammar of G erman, and no negative effect in the other direction, that is, no negative influence of Spanish into G erman. In the case of unfooted syllable production we have a different situation. At the level of the PW, the initial level in child production, Spanish offers some positive data, in the form of some iambs and trisyllables, but the evidence for them is not abundant, and it is somewhat diluted, because in their G erman vocabulary there are few unfooted syllables. The positive evidence for them does not reach the threshold that would lead the child to demoting A LIG N (PW, L, F t, L). F inally, in the case of two-feet productions, the The International Journal of Bilingualism
310
C. Lleó
evidence is certainly very strong, because combinations of two feet into phrases are very numerous, although they correspond to a later period, after the one-word stage. At the lexical level, that is, the level of the PW, the need for having two feet is much more compelling in G erman than in Spanish, which only offers a few quadrisyllabic nouns and few oxytone and proparoxytone trisyllables. The introduction of dactyls in the children’s G erman lexicons coincides with the introduction of two feet in the grammar of G erman, and they enter the vocabulary later than the Spanish paroxytonic trisyllables, which are present almost from the beginning. Interestingly, Kehoe, Trujillo, & Lleó (2001) found another area in which a certain delay tended to appear for most bilingual children: acquisition of VOT. It is well-known that G erman voiced stops have a VOT value approaching null and voiceless stops have positive values and aspiration, whereas Spanish voiceless stops have near null VOT values and voiced stops are prevoiced. M ost G erman-Spanish bilinguals in that study needed a longer time than monolinguals to make a voicing distinction, and their values tended to cluster around null for a longer time, as well. This delay is parallel to the delay found here as regards prosodic structures. Acquisition of marked or complex phenomena, as for instance positive or negative VOT values, unfooted syllables, and so forth, requires sufficient quantitative evidence. Thus, marked phenomena that only appear in one of the languages, and only in a limited fashion there, or phenomena scarcely represented in either language are diluted in their quantitative strength, and they need more time to be acquired by the bilingual child. As the child grows older, evidence becomes stronger and there is a certain potentiation of the data of both languages, delay generally giving way to a development indistinguishable from the monolingual one, as in the acquisition of twofeet structures. In terms of the questions posed in the introduction about (a ) autonomy of the two phonological systems and (b) possible phonological interactions between the phonoprosodic structures of the two lexicons, the answer is doubly positive. That is, both languages develop autonomously, in a fashion parallel to that of the monolingual children learning each respective language. The bilingual children reach a stage of their grammars, in which A LIG N R IG H T is demoted under M AX -IO for G erman and A LIG N L EF T is demoted under M AX -IO for Spanish (later on, both will have to be demoted in both languages, anyhow). But this process takes longer than in monolingual acquisition. This means that there is an interaction between the two systems: Their Spanish productions of complex prosodic structures reach the level of truncation more typical for G erman than for Spanish children. On the other hand, this slight delay is very short: By the time twofeet words are introduced in their G erman lexica, these words are produced in a manner hardly distinct from that of G erman monolinguals.
6 Conclusion This paper has given empirical substance to claims that have previously been made on the basis of a few examples. It has been shown that after the one-foot stage, Spanish monolingual children enlarge their lexicons and prosodic structures by introducing an unfooted syllable before the single foot. G erman children, on the other hand, go over to the production of two feet, albeit a few months later. These different courses of development have been The International Journal of Bilingualism
Complex prosodic structures in German and Spanish
311
analyzed by different grammars, that is, different constraint hierarchies. The difference has been attributed to the evidence offered by the target languages, which also show an outranking or a dominated position for the same constraints that children favor or demote in their grammars, respectively. Bilingual data in this area of prosodic development has shown a certain delay of a few months in overcoming the initial stage, that is, in enlarging the first prosodic structures, especially as regards the production of unfooted syllables, but not as regards two-feet productions. The reasons for this delay should be looked for in the markedness of a certain phenomenon, such as unfooted syllables, as well as in a quantitative appraisal of the evidence offered by the target languages and in the structural role of the phenomenon in the grammar of at least one of the languages. Bilingual children develop the prosodic structures of their languages in a parallel fashion as monolingual children do. N evertheless, the two developing languages interact, giving rise to acceleration and to delay. In case of the acquisition of marked phenomena, a certain delay can take place, if the evidence of the bilingual’s other language does not positively contribute to its acquisition.
References ALBER , B. (1998). Stress preservation in G erman loan words. In W. Kehrein & R . Wiese (Eds.), Phonology and morphology of the Germanic languages (pp. 113 – 141). Tübingen: N iemeyer. ALD ER ETE, J. (1995). Faithfulness to prosodic heads. M anuscript: U niversity of M assachusetts, Amherst. ROA - 253 - 0498. DEM UTH, K . (2001). Prosodic constraints on morphological development. In J. Weissenborn & B. H öhle (Eds.), Approaches to bootstrapping: Phonological, syntactic and neurophysiological aspects of early language acquisition (pp. 3 – 21). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DEM UTH, K ., & F EE, J. (1995). M inimal prosodic words in early phonological development. M anuscript: U niversity of British Columbia and Brown U niversity. DEUCH AR , M ., & CLAR K , A. (1996). Early bilingual acquisition of the voicing contrast in English and Spanish. Journal of Phonetics, 24, 351– 365. ECH OLS, C. H . (1993). A perceptually-based model of children’s earliest productions. Cognition, 46, 245– 296. F ÉRY, C. (1999). German word stress in optimality theory. ROA - 301- 0399 FIKK ERT, P. (1994). The acquisition of prosodic structure. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. GAWLITZEK -M AIWALD, I., & TR ACY, R . (1996). Bilingual bootstrapping. L inguistics, 34, 901– 926. GENESEE, F. (1989). Early bilingual development: One language or two? Journal of Child L anguage, 16, 161– 179. GENESEE, F., N ICOLAD IS, E., & PAR AD IS, J. (1995). Language differentiation in early bilingual development. Journal of Child language, 22, 611 – 631. GERK EN, L. A. (1996). Prosodic structure in young children’s language production. L anguage, 72, 683– 712. GOAD, H ., & ROSE, Y. (in press). Input elaboration, head faithfulness and evidence for representation in the acquisition of left-edge clusters in West G ermanic. In R . Kager, J. V. Pater & W. Zonneveld (Eds.), Fixing priorities: Constraints in phonological acquisition. Cambridge, U.K .: Cambridge U niversity Press. GR IJZEN H OU T, J., & JOPPEN, S. (1999). First steps of German phonology: A case study. ROA 304 - 0399. HAYES, B. (1995). M etrical stress theory. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. The International Journal of Bilingualism
312
C. Lleó
IN GR AM , D. (1981/ 82). The emerging phonological system of an Italian - English bilingual child. Journal of Italian L inguistics, 2, 95 – 113. JOH NSON, C. E., & LAN CASTER , P. (1999). The development of more than one phonology: A case study of a N orwegian-English bilingual child. T he International Journal of Bilingualism, 2, 265 – 300. K EH OE, M . (1999/ 2000). Truncation without shape constraints. L anguage A cquisition: A Journal of Developmental L inguistics, 8, 23 – 67. K EH OE, M ., TRU JILLO, C., & LLEÓ, C. (2001). Bilingual phonological acquisition: An analysis of syllable structure and VOT. In K. F. Cantone & M .-O. H inzelin (Eds.), Proceedings of the colloquium on structure, acquisition and change of grammars: Phonological and syntactic aspects (pp. 38 – 54). U niversität H amburg: Arbeiten zur M ehrsprachigkeit, 27. LLEÓ, C. (1996). To spread or not to spread: D ifferent styles in the acquisition of Spanish phonology. In B. Bernhardt, J. G ilbert & D. Ingram (Eds.), Proceedings of the UBC International Conference on Phonological A cquisition (pp. 215– 228). Somerville: Cascadilla Press. LLEÓ, C. (1997). F iller syllables, proto-articles and early prosodic constraints in Spanish and G erman. In A. Sorace, C. H eycock & R . Shillcock (Eds.), Proceedings of the GA L A ’97 conference on L anguage A cquisition (pp. 251– 256). U niversity of Edinburgh. LLEÓ, C. (2001). The interface of phonology and syntax: The emergence of the article in the early acquisition of Spanish and G erman. In J. Weissenborn & B. H öhle (Eds.), A pproaches to bootstrapping: Phonological, syntactic and neurophysiological aspects of early language acquisition (pp. 23 – 44). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. LLEÓ, C., & D EM U TH , K . (1999). Prosodic constraints on the emergence of grammatical morphemes: Crosslinguistic evidence from G ermanic and Romance languages. In A. G reenhill, H . Littlefield & Ch. Tano (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Boston University Conference on L anguage Development (pp. 407– 418). Somerville, M A: Cascadilla Press. LLEÓ, C., K U CH EN BR AND T, I., K EH OE, M ., & TRU JILLO, C. (submitted). Syllable final consonants in Spanish and G erman monolingual and bilingual acquisition. LLEÓ, C., & PR IN Z, M . (1996). Consonant clusters in child phonology and the directionality of syllable structure assignment. Journal of Child L anguage, 23, 31 – 56. LOPEZ-O RN AT, S. (in press). L earning earliest grammar: Evidence on grammar variation in speech before 22 months. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. M cCARTH Y, J., & PR IN CE, A. S. (1994). Generalized alignment. ROA - 7. N ESPOR , M ., & VOG EL, I. (1986). Prosodic phonology. D ordrecht: Foris. PAR AD IS, J., F ON TE , I., PE TITC LERC, S., & G EN ESE E, F. (1996). Ph onological differentiation in bilingual two year olds: Evidence from word truncation. In A. Stringfellow, D. Cahana-Amitay, E. H ughes, & A. Zukowski (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th A nnual Boston University Conference on L anguage Development. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. PAR AD IS, J., & G EN ESEE, F. (1996). Syntactic acquisition in bilingual children: Autonomous or interdependent? S tudies in S econd L anguage A cquisition, 18, 1 – 25. PATER , J. (1997). M inimal violation and phonological development. L anguage A cquisition, 6, 201– 253. PIÑ EROS, C.-E. (2000). Foot-sensitive word minimization in Spanish. Probus, 12, 291 – 324. PR IN CE, A. S., & SM OLEN SK Y, P. (1993). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. M anuscript: Rutgers U niversity and U niversity of Colorado. RON JAT, J. (1913). L e développement du langage observé chez un enfant bilingue. Paris: Champion. SCH N ITZER , M . L., & K RASIN SK I, E. (1994). The development of segmental phonological production in a bilingual child. Journal of Child L anguage, 21, 585– 622. The International Journal of Bilingualism
Complex prosodic structures in German and Spanish
313
SCH N ITZER , M . L., & K R ASIN SK I, E. (1996). The development of segmental phonological production in a bilingual child: A contrasting second case. Journal of Child L anguage, 23, 547– 571. SELK IR K, E. (1978). On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. In T. Fretheim (Ed.), Nordic prosody II (pp. 111 – 140). Trondheim: TAPI R . SELK IR K, E. (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 371– 405. SOSA, J. M . (1999). L a entonación del español. M adrid: Cátedra. TR ACY, R . (1995). Child languages in contact: Bilingual language acquisition ( English/ German) in early childhood. M anuscript: U niversität Tübingen. VIH M AN, M . M . (1985). Language differentiation by the bilingual infant. Journal of Child L anguage, 12, 297 – 324. VOG EL, I. (1975). One system or two: An analysis of a two-year-old Romanian-English bilingual’s phonology. Papers and Reports on Child L anguage Development, 9, 43 – 62.
The International Journal of Bilingualism
