Natural Phonology by Hussain H Mayuuf/2013

UNIVERSITY OF BABYLON

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION FOR HUMAN SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH

THE THEORY OF

NATURAL PHONOLOGY

IN NUTSHELL

A Presentation for a Course in Phonetics and Phonology,

Ph.D. Programme, 2012-2013

First Semester

By

Hussain Hameed Mayouf

Supervised By

Prof. Fareed H. Al-Hindawi, Ph.D.

December, 4th, 2012

1. Introduction

Instead of the fairly unified theory based on Chomsky Halle's (1968) SPE which dominated phonological practice until comparatively recently, there has been a vast increase in competing models of phonology (Autosegmental phonology, Metrical phonology, CV phonology, Dependency phonology, etc.). All these models can be described as non-linear by opposition to standard generative phonology where a phonological representation is simply depicted as a linear arrangement of segments (even though each of these segments is composed of simultaneously occurring features) and where phonological rules operate on such strings (they delete, insert, or permute segments, or change their feature values).

Non-linear phonology is assumed to avert linear representation of the phonological structure of a word, and tends, instead to tackle it in terms of a series of segments horizontally; each in turn being analyzed in tablets of (+/-) columns of features. Thus, such an approach to phonology is characterized by shedding more emphasis on representations and constraints rather than on rules and processes.

The latter point highlights two remarks: first, that such an approach fails to handle features extending over domains greater than an individual segment; and second, that the structural relation between one matrix and another is not clearly represented.

2. Natural Generative Phonology (NGP)

NGP is one of the models that appeared in the wake of generative models of phonology. It emerged in the 1980's and early 1980's from number of papers by Venneman and then expounded by Hooper in 1976. NGP requires that phonological

rules and representations bear a direct relation to surface linguistic forms.

Hooper (1976: xi) purports that NGP is based in part on transformational generative phonology. She highlights that the major difference concerns the abstractness of phonological representation and rules. In NGP, the derivation of morphophonemic's would be described directly as a function of morphological and lexical categories; whereas in generative phonology it is described as the result of the abstract phonological representations and ordered rules.

3. Natural phonology (NP)

NP is a theory devised by David Stampe at the 1980's proposing genetically inhibited set of phonetically natural processes as a specific language is required. Natural Phonology has always advocated (cf. Donegan and Stampe, 1979; Dressler, 1996; Dziubalaska-kolaszyk, 2001) the holistic view on language, both in the sense of analyzing language structures (against ‘splendid isolation’ of any structure) as well as in the sense of seeing language as part of the universe. The latter means that the same principles of explanation apply to language and to other aspects of life, and thus they are derivable from the most general laws of human interaction with nature. In Natural Phonology the principles are cognitive, phonetic, psychological, sociological, etc.

Natural Phonology (NP henceforth) is a theory of phonological structure, acquisition and change originated by David Stampe (1969 and 1973) and developed by David Stampe and Patricia Donegan (1979).

Natural phonology (NP) views the phonology of a language as a system of subconscious mental processes that in real time mediate between intended but unpronounceable lexical forms of utterances and pronounceable surface forms. In production, the prosody maps lexical items in morphological and syntactic structures onto a real time rhythmic score. The scored sequence is submitted first to fortition processes that enhance the perceptibility of its rhythmic divisions (such as feet and syllables) and its phonemes, and then to lenition processes that enhance the pronounceability of the sequences of sounds within their rhythmic domains.

The theory operates with phonological processes, which constitute natural responses of the human vocal and perceptual systems to the difficulties encountered in the production and perception of speech. For instance, it is more difficult to produce a voiced stop than a voiceless one, as well as a voiced velar stop than an alveolar one, while a bilabial one is the easiest of the three. Phonological processes are thus phonetically motivated. They are universal, since all humans exhibit the same potential to respond to the difficulties of speech. A child learns to inhibit some of those natural responses in order to arrive at a language-specific phonology.

Importantly, “the universality of processes does not mean that they apply in all languages – only that they are motivated in all speakers” (Donegan, 2002: 64). NP explains by referring to the tension between two conflicting criteria (ease of production vs. clarity of perception). There is also a conflict between paradigmatic (segmental) and syntagmatic (sequential) difficulty.

Processes perform substitutions in order to adapt the speaker's phonological intentions to his/her phonetic capacities

as well as enable the listener to decode the intentions from the flow of speech. They are thus either context-sensitive, assimilatory substitutions (lenitions), or context-free, dissimilatory ones (fortitions). Higher order prosodic processes map segmental material on rhythmic patterns prior to the operation of articulatorily and perceptually driven substitutions.

Stampe (1973) insists on a strict distinction between phonology and morphonology: morphonological rules do not have any synchronic phonetic motivation and have to be learned by children in first language acquisition.

A phoneme in NP is an underlying intention shared by the speaker and the listener. The shared knowledge of intentions guarantees communication between the speaker and the listener within a given language, even if the actually pronounced forms diverge substantially from what is intended, for example, in casual speech. In other words, phonemes are fully specified, pronounceable percepts.

"Naturally pronounceable" in NP means "derivable by means of phonological processes". Processes manifest themselves in all types of phonological behaviour of language users: in normal performance, in child language, in second language acquisition, in aphasia and other types of disorders, in casual speech, in emphatic speech, in slips, errors, language games, whispered and silent speech, as well as in the changing phonological behaviour resulting in sound change. Processes account for all these types of behaviour and more: they also account for implicational universals by substituting the implying sound by

the implied one. The task of NP, then, is a constant search for processes in the languages of the world.

To sum up, and according to Nathan and Donegan (2011: 1) phonological processes are phonetically motivated and universal, but their application is limited through language learning. As the inhibitions on processes change, pronunciations and speaker abilities change, leading to changes in learners’ perceptions and representations. Natural Phonology accounts for the traditional notions of splits, mergers, rephonemicizations, chains, and typological changes through changes in these inhibitions.

3.1 The Evolution

As all theories, Natural Phonology has evolved and changed over the years since its inception in the 1960s and 1970s. The type of explanation offered by NP originated in a variety of phonetic and phonological studies of the 19th and 20th century (Maddieson, 2006: 80-100). Its basic thesis was that phonological systems are phonetically motivated. NP was proposed as an alternative to both structural and generative approaches to phonology current at the time. The theory grew into a large explanatory framework of Natural Linguistics due to the works of Wolfgang U. Dressler (Dressler, 1985: 29-50) and followers.

Modern Natural Phonology (MNP) has many facets, and although the main tenet has remained valid, its interpretations may vary. Still more importantly, MNP has a much wider perspective, reaching far into the areas of external evidence and relying on a solid functional and semiotic foundation. It is no longer true to say that “natural phonology (...) lacks any a priori methodology or formalization” (Donegan and Stampe, 1979: 168).

Roca and Johanson (1999: 695) remark that NP is "spontaneously present in children in the absence of influence from marked input from the language of the environment". Crystal (1997: 297) describes the natural processes of NP as follows:

Natural processes are a set of universal

obligatory inviolable rules which govern the

phonology of a language. They are said to be

"natural" because they are phonetically plau-

sible, in terms of the properties of the vocal

tract, as evidenced by their tendency to appear

similarly in a wide range of language.

Stampe (1979: 1) looks at phonological processes as mental operations that apply in speech to substitute for a class of sounds or sound sequences presenting a specific common difficulty to the speech capacity of the individual, an alternative class identical but lacking the difficult property. This indication seems to incorporate the basic thesis of the theory that "the living sound patterns of languages, in their development in each individual as well as their evolution over the centuries, are governed by forces implicit in human vocalization and perception"(Donegan and Stampe, 1979: 126).

Donegan and Stampe (1979: 127) advocate the idea that this theory is natural in that it is a natural reflection of the needs, capacities and world of its users rather than a merely conventional institution. NP is intended to explain its subject

matter to show that it follows naturally from the nature of things.

Donegan and Stampe (1979: 178) stress the idea that NP properly excludes the topic of unmotivated and morphologically motivated alternations which have often been lumped together with natural alternations in Generative Phonology (GN). Clark and Yallop (1995: 404) argue that Stampe appears to turn GP on its head for "what we thought of as processes are motivated by the nature of production and perception".

3.2 Processes

Natural phonologists have used the term 'process' to refer to a natural phonetic constraint, i.e., a constraint which simplifies articulation. Schane (1973:116) states that the natural phonological processes of NP are in line with natural segment types. For example, a rule which nasalizes vowels preceding nasal consonants is more expected than one nasalizing vowels in word-final position and a rule which inserts a vowel between two consonants is more natural than one inserting a consonant in the environment.

Sommerstein (1977: 233) purports that natural processes are modified in four ways:

1. Some natural processes are suppressed as in the process that makes all English consonants occlusive (-a speech sound that involves a closure of the vocal tract), which would permit only stops and nasals.

2. Some natural processes are limited by the addition or tightening of contextual restrictions.

3. Some natural processes become subject to ordering constraints which limit their applicability as genuine ordering constraints do.

4. The addition of learnt rules.

Sommerstein (Ibid: 135) assumes that learnt rules may be optional, but this optionality is not related to speech and style of speech and they never apply to constrain the shape of lexical representations. Learnt rules can be suspended by conscious effort; thus, in the case of velar softening, a form like electri[k]ity is not hard to pronounce.

Donegan and Stampe (1979: 136-44) conceptualize the basic tenets of NP in terms of four main items:

1. Processes do apply in ways that follow from their nature. Three types are elicited here: i) Prosodic processes, ii) Fortition processes and iii) Lenition processes.

Prosodic processes is concerned with mapping words, phrases and sentences onto prosodic structures and patterns of rhythm and intonation; all other processes like stress, length, tone and syllabicity are determined by prosodic mapping which may be described as an operation in real-time speech processing.

Fortition processes enhance clarity in that they intensify the salient features of individual segments and/or their contrast with adjacent segments (as in dissimilation). They make the segments they affect more pronounceable as well as more perceptible, that is why they are called strengthening processes (e.g., devoicing of obstruents), adjusting the timing of movements so as to have the effect of inserting a new sound (sense [sens] becomes

[sents]) or making a non-syllabic consonant syllabic (prayed [preid] → [pṛeid]).

Lenition processes, on the other side, enhance fluency. They are termed weak processes since they make segments and sequences of segments easier to pronounce by decreasing the articulatory 'distance' between features of the segment itself or its adjacent segment. For example, weakening a sound: making a stop into a fricative between vowels; decreasing the contrast of a sound with a neighboring sound: assimilation, harmony; adjusting the timing of movements so as to have the effect of deleting a sound: cents [sents]→[sens]; or of making a syllabic consonant non-syllabic: parade [pṛeid] → [preid].

It is claimed that fortitions increase intelligibility for the hearer, but that they often have the concomitant effect of easing pronounceability; lenitions, on the other hand, have this latter effect as their exclusive goal. The effect of fortitions become salient in slower, more formal speech style, while lenitions are more likely to operate in faster, more colloquial styles (Bruck et al. 1974 and Stampe, 1979).

Katamba (1989: 114) has reproduced a commonly accepted phonological strength hierarchy (> indicates a step towards a 'weaker' pronunciation):

(a) VOICELESS > VOICED

(b) STOP > AFFRICATE > FRICATIVE > APPROXIMANT > ZERO

2. Processes represent responses to phonetic difficulties. It follows that a certain difficult representation undergoes a substitution.

3. Processes operate on "natural classes" of segments.

4. All natural classes cannot be explained as a matter of cognitive simplicity in the question of a rule provided that there are certain constraints to be taken into consideration.

The following are examples of processes:

a) Consonant clusters are reduced to single segments; fly [flai] becomes [fai].

b) Ustressed syllables are deleted; potato [p'teitou] becomes ['teitou].

c) Voiced stops (e.g., [b], [d] are made voiceless ([p], [t]) since the airflow required by voicing is interrupted by the fact of complete closure of the vocal tract.

d) Consonants produced with the tongue body (e.g., [k], [g] become articulated with the tongue blade [t], [d] respectively).

3.3 Processes and Rules

Processes are "of the speaker"; Rules are "of the language".

Nathan and Donegan (2011: 1) purport that the distinction of ‘process’ vs. ‘rule’ is an old one, related to Baudouin’s (1972/1895) distinction between divergence vs. correlation, Sapir’s (1921, 1925) mechanical vs. grammatical processes, Bloomfield’s (1933) and Wells’ (1947) automatic vs. nonautomatic alternations, and Jakobson (1968) and Bazell’s

(1955) motivated and unmotivated alternations. In some important respects, this correlates quite closely with the traditional Neogrammarian contrast of sound law vs. analogy.

Some processes may govern phonological alternations. However, not all alternations arise from the operation of processes. Thus, in English, when "electric" takes the suffix "-ity" its final /k/ becomes /s/ (velar softening), when "serene" takes the suffix "-ity", the long [i:] becomes short [e] (tri-syllabic laxing). The principles governing these alternations are called "Rules''. These rules typically operate in selective fashion (not all /k/ phonemes become /s/ when followed by written 'i' or 'e'), they are sensitive to grammatical considerations, and may tolerate exceptions ("obese' [ əu'bi:s] retains long [i:] in "obesity [əʊbiːsəti]), even though tri-syllabic laxing would be expected to occur).

Processes operate across the board with no exceptions, rules typically apply within grammatically words. Rules need to be learnt, processes are unlearnt (Bruck et al. 1974 and Stampe, 1979).

In this NP approach, a sharp distinction is drawn between rules and processes. The term RULE is used to refer to phonetically wholly or partially unmotivated alternations which are governed by the conventions of a particular language. PROCESSES are alternations which are regulated by universal phonetic or functional factors. Unlike processes, rules are idiosyncratic properties of particular languages and do not form part of humankind's common phonological inheritance. Natural processes are more common than idiosyncratic rules. Donegan and Stampe (1979:127) claim that natural phonology 'follows naturally from the nature of things' because essentially phonological patterning is not merely a matter of convention.

In Luganda, for instance, we find /p / alternating sometimes with |j] and sometimes with [w], which is extraordinary. It is very odd for a bilabial voiceless stop to have palatal and labio-velar approximants as its allophones. Allophones of the same phoneme ought to be phonetically similar; these sounds have very little in common.

The fact that [p, j, w] are in complementary distribution is strange. But we can easily write a rule stating their distribution:

/p / becomes:

(i) [j] when followed by [i] and not preceded by a nasal;

(ii) [w] when followed by any other vowel provided it is not preceded by a nasal;

(iii) where it is preceded by a nasal, it is realised as [p] regardless of the vowel that follows it.

p > ph > h > j or w (depending on the following vowel)

4. Phonemes are not Features

In natural phonology, phonemes are speech sounds–recurring units of perception, representation and intention(Nathan and Donegan, 2011: 7). Phonemes are sounds as perceived, this means that they are auditory/motor images of sounds per se [ pə'sei ], not abstract specifications for sounds. Thus, contrary to what is usually believed in most (but not all) generative phonologies, phonemes are not ‘merely’ lists of features. And particularly, they are not underspecified lists of features. It is important to how NP works [sic] that phonemes are real (although mental) sounds, fully specified. What makes

them phonemes, rather than just records of how speakers actually speak, is the existence of processes. Phonemes are very rarely pronounced as stored, but instead are modified either to fit their environments (lenitions) or in contrast to their environments (fortitions). Phonemes are specific mental targets, so that we could imagine pronouncing a phoneme such as /i/, whereas a specification such as [V, +hi, -back] is not pronounceable, and hence, not what NP means by a phoneme, because the feature list lacks specifications for nasality, tenseness, length and so on. A Natural Phonology phoneme is fully specified for all possible features—it’s just that when it is actually pronounced in context it doesn’t necessarily come out that way.

It is this particularly intricate, and detailed view of how speech perception and production works that determines NP’s view of the phoneme. Stampe (1969) argued that perception is not mere recording of external events, but rather, at least for the perception of human action, is a perception of the intention of the other.

Stampe (1969, 1987) presented arguments that the alphabet of the phonology and the grammatical rules is the inventory of phonemes of a language; he had discovered a way of accounting for the existence of phoneme inventories purely in terms of the interaction of context-free (usually fortitive) and context-sensitive (usually lenitive) processes. Fortitions enhance the phonetic features of individual segments, and they may result in fewer categories, constraining the phoneme inventory:

(1a) [V +pal ] → [+high] maximizes palatality (and bars /e ɛ æ a/).

(1b) [+cont] → [−nas] maximizes quality (bars nasal vowels etc.).

(1c)[−son, −cont] → [−voi] maximizes obstruency (and bars /b d g/)

Lenitions optimize sequences and, unless they happen to neutralize an opposition, they multiply the variety of output sounds. For example:

(2a) [V] → [−high] /__ [−high] creates [e o] in some contexts.

(2b) [+son] → [+nasal] / [+nasal] creates nasal vowels in some contexts.

(2c) [ ] → [+voi] / [+voi] __ [+voi] creates [b d ɡ] in some environments.

Lenitions (Donegan and Stampe, 2009: 14) include assimilation as well as ‘weakenings’ of various sorts. They reduce the magnitude or number of articulatory gestures and may relax the timing requirements of the gestural score.

If both opposing processes (1a, 2a), or (1b, 2b), or (1c, 2c) apply, then:

(3a) */e/ is ruled out of the phoneme inventory, and [e] before a uvular is perceived and remembered as /i/. That is, [e] is an allophone of /i/.

(3b) Nasalized vowels are allophones of their plain counterparts.

(3c) */b/ is ruled out of the phoneme inventory, and [b] between vowels is perceived and remembered as /p/. That is, [b] is an allophone of /p/.

5. Markedness and Naturalness

Markedness is one aspect of distinctive feature theory that seems to have more direct clinical applicability and can be found in later theoretical constructs is the concept of naturalness

and markedness. They can be seen as two ends of a continuum. Naturalness designates:

1) the relative simplicity of a sound production

2) its high frequency of occurrence in languages

3) earlier acquisition.

So, more natural sounds are those that are considered easier to produce and occur in many languages. Markedness, on the other hand, refers to sounds that are relatively more difficult to produce and are found less frequently in languages: for example, [b] is unmarked (natural), while [ʧ] is marked.

The concept of markedness was first elaborated by Prague School, and today it plays a central role in generative phonology.

The opposition between marked and unmarked is often defined as follows:

Marked UnmarkedLess natural More complex More specific Less common Unexpected Not basic Less stable Appears in few grammars Later in language acquisition Subject to neutralization Early loss in language deficit Implies unmarked feature Harder to articulate Perceptually more salient

More natural Simpler More general More common Expected Basic Stable Appears in more grammars Earlier in language acquisition Neutralization targets Late loss in language deficit Implied by marked feature Easier to articulate Perceptually less salient

From the markedness point of view, sounds are described in the following way:

- voiceless obstruents = unmarked in comparison with voiced - obstruents vs. sonorants - stops vs. fricatives - fricatives vs. affricates - anterior Cs vs. non-anterior Cs - Cs without secondary articulation vs. Cs with it - front unrounded Vs and back rounded vs. front rounded and back unrounded Vs - oral Vs vs. nasalized Vs

5.1 Consonants and Obstruents

Stops:

- found in 100% of languages

- 99% of languages have stops in three places of articulation: bilabial, dental/alveolar, and velar (exceptions: Hawaiian – no dental/alveolar stops; Aleut, Cherokee, Oneida and Tlingit – no bilabial stops)

Voicing: most basic type of stop is the voiceless unaspirated, then voiced unaspirated.

Voicing and place of articulation:

Bilabial stops do not necessarily follow the implication voiced>voiceless: a language can have a /b/ without having a /p/. A system like this is thus not unusual:

t k

b d

On the other hand, it is very difficult to find a language with the reverse trend, having /p/ and /g/ without having /k/ and /b/:

P t

d g

This is related to voicing aerodynamics.

Stops are also found in retroflex, palatal, uvular, and glottal places of articulation.

The existence of these stops presupposes the existence of stops in the common three places of articulation. The abrupt release that is required for a stop articulation is not easy in the palatal/ palato-alveolar place. This is due to the dome-shaped configuration of the upper surface of the palate, and as a result, languages more commonly have affricates, instead of stops, in this place of articulation.

Language acquisition: 3 year olds - correct production of stops = more than 90%

Pathology: adults with cerebral palsy - correct production of stops = more than 80%

Fricatives:

More than 90% of languages have at least one fricative. The most frequent are sibilant fricatives /s/, then /f/ and /ʃ/. The voiced/voiceless contrast in fricatives is likely to be seen in systems with four or more fricatives: /f, v, s, and z/

Non-sibilant fricatives (bilabial and interdental) favour voicing (> salient): among 32 languages that have bilabial fricatives, 24 have /β/ without /ɸ/, and among 21 languages that have interdental fricatives, 12 have /ð/ without /θ/.

Language acquisition: fricatives are not acquired early by children and undergo the process of stopping in early stages. But when they start coming into a child’s system, /f/ is produced more correctly than /s/.

Summary for obstruents:

Voiceless are more common than voiced

Preference for the place of articulation varies:

Stops Fricatives Affricates

dental/ alveolar dental/ alveolar palatal

labial labial dental/ alveolar

velar palatal labial

palatal velar velar

uvular uvular

For example:

Aleut Danish

t k q p t k

g b d g

ʧ

s ʃ x f s ʃ

ð v ð ɣ

Norwegian Rumanian

p t ʈ k p t k

b d ɖ g b d g

ts ʧ

ʤ

f s ʃ ç f s ʃ

v z ʒ

Rumanian = most common pattern:

- six stops in three most common places of articulation, paired in voicing

- affricates – palatal and alveolar

- six fricatives in the three most favored places of articulation, paired in voicing

Danish and Norwegian:

- stops – Norwegian adds retroflex stops to its inventory

- fricatives: the six fricatives of Danish are not all paired in voicing; Norwegian – no voiced counterparts to its four voiceless fricatives

5.2 Sonorants

All sonorants are unmarkedly voiced:

Nasals: languages have at least one nasal dental/ alveolar sound /n/. In fact, the more typical pattern is to have more than one nasal. After dental/ alveolar place of articulation, the priority goes to bilabial, then velar, palatal, retroflex and uvular.

Liquids: laterals and r-sounds.

Laterals – dental/ alveolar place of articulation

r-sounds – trills, taps/flaps = dental alveolar; approximants = retroflex

Glides: /j/, then /w/

6. Conclusion and Summary

Wojcik (1981: 644) postulates that Natural phonology represents a new approach not only to phonology, but also to the entire linguistic system. Most linguists who read Stampe's work have trouble understanding it, because it represents a different conception of language from the ones they are familiar with.

Natural phonology (Stampe, 1969) incorporates features of naturalness theories and it was designed to explain the development of the child’s phonological system. This theory postulates that patterns of speech are governed by an innate, universal set of phonological features and processes. These universal natural processes are operating as children use and organize their phonological systems. All children begin with innate speech patterns but must progress to the language-

specific system that characterizes their native language: a child’s innate phonological system is continuously revised in the direction of the adult phonological system. Disordered phonology is seen as an inability to realize this.

A phoneme in NP is an underlying intention shared by the speaker and the listener. The shared knowledge of intentions guarantees communication between the speaker and the listener within a given language, even if the actually pronounced forms diverge substantially from what is intended

Phonological processes that are common in the speech development of children across languages = natural processes:

1) syllable structure processes = sound changes that affect the structure of the syllable:

ƒ - cluster reduction (spoon [pun])

ƒ - reduplication (water [wawa])

ƒ - weak syllable deletion (banana [nænə])

- final consonant deletion (head [hɛ]) �

2) substitution and simplification processes (street [stwit], key [ti], thumb [tʌm] or [sʌm], noon [dud])

3) assimilation processes (dog [gɑg], yellow [lɛlow])

Natural phonology differs from other phonological theories in the following points: the meaning and use of the term

‘underlying form’ is different. Within generative grammar, UR are abstract entities, they represent assumed points of reference that are necessary for the explanation of the many possible surface forms. In Natural Phonology, UR is the adult norm that is the intended goal for children’s production efforts.

According to Natural Phonology, phonological processes are steps in the gradual articulatory adjustment of children’s speech to the adult norm. This implies a chronology of phonological processes, specific ages at which the process could be operating and when it should be suppressed.

Children with phonological disorders use phonological processes somewhat differently than normally developing children. They show age-inappropriate processes as well as processes that are not acceptable for the adult language they are learning:

1) persisting normal processes (reduplication, final consonant deletion at the age of 4)

2) chronological mismatch (pronounces [s, z] but substitutes [t] for [k])

3) systematic sound preference (one phonetic realization for several phonemes: substitution of [d] for [s, z, ʃ, ʒ, ʧ, ʤ])

4) unusual processes (individual cases)

5) variable use of processes (pronunciation of sounds in some cases and their simplification in others - unpredictability: soup [tup], sun [tʌn] but soap [sowp], saw [sɑ]; or several variants for one phoneme: cake [teit], wagon [waden], bake [bei], Maggie

[maʔi]). The variable use of processes may be expected in the speech of children with phonological disorders.

Phonological processes are the central aspect of natural phonology. They have been extensively used to describe disordered speech patterns and to select treatment goals.

The speech of children with disordered phonological systems show differences in kind and use of phonological processes when compared to the speech of children with normally developing systems.

References

Bruck, Anthony. Robert A. Fox and Michael W La Galy. (Ed.) Natural Phonology. 1974. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Clark, J. and C. Yallop (1995) An Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology.

Crystal, D. (1997). A Dictionary of English Language and Linguistics.

Donegan, P. (1978) 1985. On the Natural Phonology of vowels. New York: Garland.

Donegan, P., Stampe, D. (1979). The study of Natural Phonology. In: Dinnsen, D.A. (ed.). Current Approaches to Phonological Theory. Bloomington: IUP, 126-173.

Donegan, P. (2002). Phonological processes and phonetic rules. In: Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K., Weckwerth, J. (eds.). Future Challenges for Natural Linguistics . Muenchen: Lincom Europa, 57-82.

Dressler, W.U. (1985). Explaining Natural Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 1, 29-50.

Dressler, W.U. (1996). Principles of naturalness in phonology and across components. In: Hurch, B., Rhodes, R. (eds.). Natural Phonology: The State of the Art. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 41-52.

Dressler, W. U. (1999). What is Natural in Natural Morphology (NM)? Prague Linguistic Circle Papers 3, 135-144.

Dressler, W.U., Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K. (2006). Proposing morphonotactics. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 73, 1-19. http://www.univie.ac.at/linguistics/publikationen/wlg/732006/DresslerWLG73.pdf

Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K. (2001). Phonotactic constraints are preferences. In: Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K. (ed.). Constraints and Preferences . Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 134. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 69-100.

Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K. (2001). (ed.), Constraints and Preferences. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 134. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K. (2002). Beats-and-Binding Phonology. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Katamba, F. (1989). An Introduction to phonology. Addison Wesley Longman Publishing, New York.

Maddieson, I. (1999). In search of universals. Proc. 14th ICPhS San Francisco, vol.3, 2521-2528.

Maddieson, I. (2006). In search of universals. In: Mairal, R., Gil, J. (eds.). Linguistic Universals. Cambridge University Press, 80-100.

Nathan, G and P. Donegan (2011). Natural Phonology and Sound Change

Schane, S. (1973). Generative Phonology. Prentice-Hall: New Jersey.

Sommerstein, A. (1977) Modern Phonology. Arnold.

Stampe, D. (1969). The acquisition of phonetic representation. CLS 5, 443-453.

Stampe, D. (1973). A Dissertation on Natural Phonology. Bloomington: IULC.

Stampe, D. (1979). “Prosodies as intersecting rhythmic and feature constraints on natural phonological processes”. Invited talk, University of London.

Wojcik, Richard 1981. "Natural phonology and generative phonology". In: D. Goyvaerts (ed.) Phonology in the 1980s. Ghent: Story-Scientia, 635-647.