Conflicting phonologically based and phonetically based
constraints in the analysis of /l/-substitutions
Dicky Gilbers
Abstract:
In this paper first language acquisition data, in particular attested realizations of /l/, are analyzed in Optimality Theory as
a conflict between different types of phonologically based and phonetically based constraints. In the analysis
correspondence (faithfulness) constraints, which ensure lexical diversity, interfere with markedness constraints that
prefer unmarked output structures. Phonetically based constraints that evaluate the harmonic value of e.g. perceptive and
articulatory markedness are potentially conflicting mutually and potentially conflicting with phonologically based
constraints that evaluate e.g. positional markedness. The different constraints reflect diverse hierarchies of markedness
and systematic distances of segments and clusters. It is claimed that an adequate account of the data can be obtained
neither by a purely phonologically based analysis nor by a purely functional, phonetically based, analysis. Therefore,
insights from both disciplines are to be combined into one comprehensive account. Optimality Theory seems to be a nice
tool to bridge the gap between phonetic and phonological drives, since this theory enables us to formalize the various
influences on the child’s outputs as potentially conflicting or conspiring soft constraints on well formedness.
Key words: Optimality theory, phonological acquisition, phonology-phonetics interface, phonetically based constraints,
phonologically based constraints
1.
Introduction and motivation of the framework1
In this paper I will consider the possible realizations of the target /l/ obtained from a case study in which the child Steven
Ronnie Kenney Ian (September 25 1991) has been video-taped monthly from age 0;1 until 4;0. The corpus contains
spontaneous utterances as well as data obtained from repetition tasks. The data show that /l/ is realized as [, , , , ,
] and by no other substitute segments. In (1) a representative sample of the data is given.
(1)
1
age:
target:
(1;6)
(1;6)
(2;1)
(2;2)
(2;2)
(2;4)
(2;9)
(3;10)
lalala...
hallo
klok
lief
lekkers
slapen
slurf
geel
realization:
singing
‘hello’
‘clock’
‘sweet’
‘sweets’
‘to sleep’
‘trunk’
‘yellow’
//
//
//2
//
//
//
//
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Thanks to Klarien van der Linde, Roberto Bolognesi, Wouter Jansen, Dirk-Bart den Ouden and Paul Boersma for their comments on an earlier draft
of this paper. This acknowledgement does not imply that they all agree with all the thoughts put forward in this paper. Combining phonologicallybased accounts with phonetically-based ones is like playing jazz rock. Never try to convince the purists.
2 In this paper I assume that underlying forms in a child grammar are based on perceived forms and that these underlying forms may differ from adult
forms of the same words. This assumption is based on attested ‘incorrect’ realizations such as [] for the plural paarden ‘horses’ []
(Steven (3;0)). Therefore, the target/underlying form of paard and lief are, respectively, // and // instead of // and //. For further
motivation of this assumption, see, Tesar (1998), Tesar & Smolensky (1996) and van der Linde (2001).
2
The ideal analysis, of course, enables us to account for exactly these substitutions and -what is equally important- no
other. It will be claimed that the different realizations are caused by different influences on the child’s pronunciation.
Constraint-based approaches to phonology, such as Harmony Theory (Smolensky, 1986), Computational Phonology
(Bird, 1995), Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky, 1993) (henceforth: OT), seem to be very promising for modeling
the diverse influences. Standard OT, for example, is an output-oriented framework in which representational well
formedness determines the assignment of phonological structure. The most well-formed output of a set of an in principle
infinite number of candidate outputs will be the actual output in this theory in which Universal Grammar is conceived as
a set of unordered, potentially conflicting, constraints on well formedness. These constraints apply simultaneously to
representations of structures and they are soft, which means violable. In OT, learning a language comes down to
resolving conflicts on well formedness by ranking the constraints in a strict dominance hierarchy.
At the first stages of phonological development, markedness constraints, which prefer unmarked structures, will
dominate correspondence (faithfulness) constraints. The latter constraints relate elements of different strings, for
example the input and the output string of segments; they ensure that not too many lexical distinctions are wiped out by
the markedness constraints (McCarthy & Prince, 1995, Burzio 1995/1998). At the end of development correspondence
will be undominated. In other words, the child has to learn to demote markedness constraints in favor of correspondence
constraints in order to acquire the phonology of its mother tongue (cf. van der Linde, 2001). In this paper I will try to
identify the different markedness and correspondence constraints that play a role in the possible realizations of /l/.
One of the obvious merits of OT can be found in the conspiracy of constraints of different families. Since evaluation
of possible candidate outputs proceeds in parallel, constraints of different families interact. The surplus value of OT has
to be found exactly in these possible interactions of potentially conflicting or conspiring soft constraints.
Although controversial, another potential merit of OT is that the ranking of constraints not only predicts the optimal
grammatical output, but also the nearly optimal alternatives. After demotion or promotion of a certain constraint, a
nearly optimal output might become the optimal one. In this way, OT enables us to account for variation (cf. Gilbers &
de Hoop, 1998) and to predict the possible realizations of certain target words in subsequent stages of first language
acquisition.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 is addressed to the question why /l/ is such a difficult segment for
children. Section 3 deals with the possible glide substitutions for /l/. Subsequently, /l/-[h] substitutions are discussed in
section 4. The bidirectionality of [l]-[n] substitutions is the topic of section 5. Based on the phonologically based and
phonetically based constraints, as introduced in these sections, the OT analysis follows in section 6. Finally, the
perspectives of this analysis will be discussed in the final section.
2.
The difficulty of /l/
At the age of (1;6), Steven realizes hallo ‘hello’ // as []. From a phonetic point of view, the lateral manner of
articulation of the liquid /l/ makes this segment more difficult to realize than, for example, a stop such as /t/. The
production of /l/ is problematic because it involves a difficult articulatory gesture requiring a contraction of the
transverse tongue muscle. Thus, we could assume that an OT-constraint *LATERAL dominating a correspondence
constraint MAX-IOlateral will be the ideal phonetic account for pronunciations such as [] for hallo.
At the same day, however, he is perfectly capable of producing [l] as exemplified by his singing of the chorus of the
song Speedy Gonzalez (Pat Boone, 1962) (cf. (1)). Obviously, there is no physical/articulatory restriction on the
realization of [l]. Of course, singing is a different task than communication and therefore the different outputs in singing
can be explained by assuming a different OT-ranking. This ranking for OT, in which MAX-IOlateral dominates
*LATERAL, can be explained by the sensitivity of the ranking of articulatory constraints by the amount of extra
processing (syntax, lexical retrieval) required in speech production as compared to the less demanding task of singing.
Yet, children also show variable outputs for the same word in the same task: hallo may be realized as [] or
[] at the same day (cf. also Beers, 1995, p.153: hallo realized as  or []). At this stage of acquisition it
seems that [l] and [j,w] were allophonic variations of one segment /l/. Moreover, until the age of four, Steven still had
trouble with the pronunciation of /l/ in syllable final position as exemplified by his homophonous realizations of the
words for Dutch geel ‘yellow’ // and geeuw ‘yawn’ // as []. At this stage, he did not have any difficulties with
the realization of /l/ in onset position anymore, which indicates that positional markedness plays an important role in the
3
acquisition. The question is then what makes the liquid /l/ so difficult to realize from a phonological point of view, since
the target segment is often substituted.
The sonority hierarchy as introduced by Jespersen (1904) may provide for a phonological account of the difficulty
of /l/. It reflects stages of transition between real consonants, stops such as /p/, and real vowels, such as /a/. Stops are the
least sonorous segments and vowels are the most sonorant with fricatives, nasals, liquids and glides, respectively, as the
intermediate gradations between stops and vowels. The child trying to produce the liquid has to choose the correct
realization of a segment which is neither a real vowel nor a real consonant. At the initial stages of acquisition, children
prefer combinations of stops and vowels; they prefer the real consonants and vowels.3 This observed preference could be
formulated as a markedness constraint SONORITY MARKEDNESS (SONMARK), which states that the least marked segments are
vowels and obstruents and the most marked segments are the liquids, those segments that combine vowel characteristics with
consonant characteristics. This constraint is in fact a family of constraints: *liquids >> *glides; *nasals >> *obstruents;
*vowels. If the constraint is split up, other constraints can intervene between the members of the constraint, but the
sequence of the individual members cannot be altered (cf. Prince & Smolensky, 1993, Kenstowicz, 1994). Notice that
this disfavour of liquids as outputs does not mean that liquids are inferior in every syllable position. As will be shown in
the remainder of this paper, positional markedness interferes with segmental markedness.
Obviously, it is possible to provide an OT-account of the difficulty of /l/ phonologically as well as phonetically.
This should not be considered to be problematic, because different types of constraints do not always conflict in OT. It is
also possible that constraints strengthen each other in the choice of an optimal output candidate. The preferences of this
SONMARK constraint are strengthened by the preference of *LATERAL or by the preference of a general functional
constraint LENITION, which forces a weakening of the overall strength of a sound (cf. Kirchner, 1998). This latter
constraint accounts for the fact that liquids can be realized as glides, but normally not vice versa. Both constraints
prohibit [l] as output. If SONMARK is dominant, the choice of the substitute segment depends on the preferences of the
various MINIMAL DISTANCE correspondence constraints. If SONMARK is ranked low in the OT-hierarchy, the child will
be able to realize the target /l/.
3.
Liquid-glide substitutions
If the child is not able to realize a segment correctly, the substitution segment is expected to be a minimal deviation from
the target segment. For example, boot ‘boat’ could be realized as [pot], but not as [lot], since the target /b/ and the output
[l] differ in too many dimensions. If boot would be realized as [lot], this would probably be due to influences from the
context, for instance from an adjacent consonant [l] in the same phrase. McCarthy (1988) claims that a common process
“(...) is accomplished by an elementary operation of the theory.” An uncommon process is far more complex to state. See
also Blumstein (1991) who states that “linguistic theory makes implicit assumptions and predictions about possible
relations among the sounds of a language (...). Phoneme substitutions should occur more commonly among sounds
sharing a number of feature dimensions, for example /p/ - /b/ versus /t/ - /w/. Moreover, sound substitutions should be
characterized more commonly by single feature changes than by several feature changes.” In general, the correspondence
constraint MINIMAL DISTANCE IO states that the distance between the input segment and the output segment is minimal.
Ideally, both the input segment and the output segment are the same (satisfaction of MAXIO). If, however, this optimal
correspondent is not available, given the influence of a dominating (markedness) constraint, such as SONMARK, then the
optimal segment will be the output segment that is least different from the input segment.
None of the attested substitutions for /l/, however, can be described as a minimal change from the target based
on the traditional articulatory defined phonological features in generative phonology (cf. Gilbers & van der Linde, 1993,
Bastiaanse et al, 1994). For example, consider /l/-[w] substitution, as in the realization [wif] for lief /lif/ ‘sweet’ (Steven
(2;2)), in (1). Notice that most of the features are changed. Even if there is the assumption that some of these features
may be underspecified (cf. Archangeli, 1984, 1988; Pulleyblank, 1988), the target and the realization differ largely in
place, manner and major class features. Obviously, the substitution cannot be accounted for as a minimal deviation from
the target based on articulatorily defined features.
3 Bolognesi (1998, 364) describes the stage of reduplicated consonant babbling as a stage in which children produce binary maximally alternating
syllables, such as [ or In his theory, all language is based on rhythmic behaviour, binarity. He, therefore, rejects the sonority
sequencing principle of syllable structure (cf. Kenstowicz (1994), which is fundamental for the analysis put forward in this paper.
4
(2)

/l/
[w]
+ son
+ cons
+ cont
+ lat
- lab
+ ant
+ cor
- high
- back
- round
+ son
- cons
+ cont
- lat
+ lab
- ant
- cor
+ high
+ back
+ round
From an acoustic point of view, however, liquid-glide alternations can be described as minimal changes. The
main cue to distinguish between liquids and glides and other consonants is the duration of the formant transitions
(Liberman et al, 1956, Recasens, 1996). Therefore, the constraint MINIMAL DISTANCE INPUT OUTPUT Duration (length)
Transitions (MINDISTLT) is introduced. It states that the more the length of the formant transitions of an output candidate
resembles the length of the formant transitions of the target segment, the better the candidate is. In the case of an input /l/ this
constraint forces output candidates to be either a liquid or a glide.
The differences between the individual glides and liquids can be related to their relative second and third
formant locus frequencies. Ainsworth and Paliwal (1984) found that in a perceptual-identification experiment sounds
having a mid F2 locus frequency were classified as [r], if they had a low F3 locus frequency and as [l] if they had a high
F3 locus frequency. The sounds were identified as [w] if they had a low F2 locus frequency and as [j] if they had a high
F2 locus frequency.4
(3)
Typical set of responses obtained from listening to glide/liquid-vowel synthetic stimuli
(after Ainsworth & Paliwal, 1984 (simplified))
3160 Hz

F3 locus freq.

1540 Hz
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
760 Hz
w
w
w
w
r

l
l
r
r
r
l
l
r
r
r
l
l
r
r
r
l
l
l
j
r
F2 locus freq .
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j

j
j
j
j
j
2380 Hz
The introduction of an acoustically based correspondence constraint enables us to describe a liquid-glide
substitution as a minimal change from the target: MINIMAL DISTANCE INPUT OUTPUT Second Formant Value
(MINDISTF2). If an acoustic correspondence constraint, MINDISTF2 is directly dominated by SONMARK;LENITION, it
forces target liquids to be realized as glides. Similarly, we can introduce Minimal Distance between Input and Output
with respect to Third Formant Value (MINDISTF3) in order to account for /l/-/r/ alternations, as in Steven’s realization of
klok as [] in (1). The next section is addressed to another attested instantiation of lenition, in which /l/ is realized as
[h].
4
In this experiment a set of responses was obtained from listening to synthetic stimuli of liquid/glide vowel combinations in which the F2 and F3
locus frequency was manipulated.
5
4.
Liquid-[h] substitutions
Wie zoet is krijgt lekkers, wie stout is de roe ‘who behaves well, will get sweets, but who behaves badly will be whipped
(with a birch)’ is a line from a well-known Dutch ‘Sinterklaas’ song. Steven (2;2) realizes both the initial liquids in lekkers
‘sweets’ and roe ‘birch’ as an [h]: [hand, respectively. In this case, the lenition process can be accounted for as
deletion or delinking of the supralaryngeal features. In other words, if /l/ is realized as [h], a different influence must be at
force than in the case of gliding.
This is where the constraint *STRUCTUREsupralaryngeal comes in. This functional constraint (ease of articulation)
is part of the split up constraint *STRUCTURE: *STRUCTUREsupralaryngeal, which includes *STRUCTUREplace of
articulation and *STRUCTUREmanner of articulation, and *STRUCTURElaryngeal. The assumption here is that a child is first
able to make glottal sounds, before it is able to use the filter component of its speech organ. Therefore, the constraint
*STRUCTUREsupralaryngeal dominates *STRUCTURElaryngeal. From a phonological point of view, the effect of articulation
ease is reflected in the delinking of supralaryngeal features in a feature geometry. The geometry in (4) is based on Clements
(1985), McCarthy (1988), Halle (1992) and Beers (1995).
(4) Feature geometry
root node
(incl. major class features)
laryngeal node
supralaryngeal node
glottal
place node
[lab]
[cor]
soft palate
[dor]
[vce] [sp gl] [c gl] [round] [ant] [dist] [high] [low] [back] [nas]
[cont] [lat] [rho] [stri]
In this geometry, features are organized around the articulators, for example the larynx and the velum (soft palate).
Some of the features can be grouped into higher-order structure, such as [cor] into place. Other features, such as [cont], are
independent.5
5.
Liquid-nasal substitutions
The most interesting case is the liquid-nasal alternation as in the /l/-[n] substitution in slurf ‘trunk’ // realized as
[] (Steven (2;9)), because the data also show examples in which target /n/ is realized as [l]: snoep ‘candy’
/snup/ realized as [slup] (Steven (2;7)). A complicating factor is that this bidirectionality in the substitution data only
occurs if the nasal or liquid is the second part of a cluster. In an onset singleton /n/ is never realized as [l]. A similar
5
Notice that the representation of [lat] and [rho] is somewhat problematic for the lenition account presented in this section. If *STRUCSL must force
the target /l/ to be realized as [h], it is strange that ‘delinking’ of the supralaryngeal node does not affect the feature [lat], which means that the
optimal output candidate will still be [+lat]. Many different Feature Geometries are proposed in the phonological literature (cf. Clements, 1985,
McCarthy, 1988, Pulleyblank, 1988, to name but a few). McCarthy (1988), for instance, proposes a Feature Geometry in which [lat] is dependent on
the supralaryngeal node and thereby this geometry should be preferred for the analyzis of /l/-[h] substitution in this paper. I will choose for the model
in (4), however, since this geometry is organized around the articulators, which advances the interaction of phonology and phonetics. It might be
clear, that (4) does not yet represent the ideal Feature Geometry, since it is based on the traditional articulatory based features. In this paper, I take the
line that many features used in phonology should be acoustically driven (cf. also Coleman, 1998; Boersma, 1998).
6
pattern can be found in the first language acquisition data presented in van der Linde (2001), Fikkert (1994), Levelt
(1994).
Just as in the case of liquid-glide alternations, we have to find out what the resemblance between /l/ and /n/ is, since
these sounds are also very dissimilar from an articulatory point of view. Coleman (1998) claims that /l/ and /n/ constitute a
natural class in having spectral zero’s. Kent et al (1996) also claim that /l/ and /n/ coincide in having (additional) spectral
zero’s between the F2 and F3 in comparison with the other segments. These spectral zeros are frequencies of sound energy
loss. During the production of [l], a pocket of air remains on top of the tongue and this serves as an anti-formant producing
side branch, comparable to the air in the mouth cavity during the production of nasals; /l/ articulation bifurcates the vocal
tract (as nasal articulations do) and introduces zeros into the transfer function. Although the articulation of /l/ is rather
different from that of /n/, the acoustic consequences of the different kinds of bifurcation are rather similar spectra for [l] and
[n]: most of the energy is in the low frequencies, with damped higher formants (i.e. the formants have low intensity and wide
bandwidths) and frequencies of energy minima resulting from anti-formants (Kent et al, 1996). In (5), the acoustic
resemblance between [ala] and [ana] is illustrated. The dark areas indicate increased energy: the formants, whereas the white
areas in between indicate energy loss: the spectral zeros.
(5) a. Spectrogram of [ala]
b. Spectrogram of [ana]
7
Therefore, in OT-terms, an acoustically based correspondence constraint will be introduced in which the
difference between /l/ and /n/ is a minimal one given this minimal difference in formant positions and anti-formants:
MAX INPUT OUTPUT/(PARSE) SPECTRAL ZERO’S (MAXIOSP0), which evaluates the presence of spectral zero’s in [l] and
[n].6 Notice that the spectral zero’s are not an acoustic characteristic of the liquid /r/, which might explain the absence
(or at least rareness) of /r/-[n] substitutions.
Not only does MAXIOSP0 potentially conflict with SONMARK, but also with the correspondence constraint
MINDISTF2 which was introduced in the previous section. In this way, satisfying or violating different acoustically based
constraints may explain why sometimes a child substitutes /l/ for [n], whereas the substitution segment in other cases
turns out to be [j] or [w]. In OT terms, the optimal output depends on the position of MAXIOSP0 with respect to
MINDISTF2 in the constraint hierarchy given the stage of acquisition the child is in. Thus, MAXIOSP0 enables us to
account for /l/-[n] as well as /n/-[l] substitutions, since this constraint only evaluates the presence of (additional) spectral
zero’s. Since both [l] and [n] exhibit spectral zeros between F2 and F3, a main characteristic that distinguishes [l] and [n]
from all other sounds, this constraint does not prefer one segment to the other.
As mentioned above, however, the bidirectionality of these substitutions is only attested in clusters, not in onset
singletons. An explanation of this asymmetry has to be found in the interaction of the above-mentioned acoustically
based constraints with a phonologically based constraint on the phonotactics of the language. Consider the syllable
template in (6). In this syllable template (Gilbers, 1992, based on Cairns and Feinstein, 1982 and Van Zonneveld, 1988)
vertical lines indicate head constituents and slanting lines indicate dependent constituents. Thus, the rhyme is more
important than the onset and within the rhyme the nucleus is more important than the coda. The least marked position of
the syllable is the peak and the most marked positions are the embedded satellite positions and the extra-syllabic
positions: appendix and pre-margin. In the original model subcategorization rules indicated what segments could occupy
the distinguished positions. For example, only sonorant consonants were allowed in satellite position and only vowels in
the peak position. In OT, however, all constraints are violable. Indeed, /a/ is the best possible peak segment, but if there
is no better candidate available even a fricative /x/ can be the head of a syllable, as exemplified in Berber, which exhibits
syllables such as tx as in tx.znt ‘you stored’ (Prince & Smolensky, 1993).
(6) Syllable template
syllable
(pre-margin)
onset
rhyme
margin
nucleus
margin core satellite
peak
satellite
coda
(appendix)
In the margin core position only [n] substitutes for /l/ are encountered, but no [l] substitutes for /n/. In order to
account for this asymmetry a phonological constraint HSAT is introduced, which is related to markedness constraints such as
HONS and HNUC (cf. Prince & Smolensky, 1993). HNUC states that the best nuclear segment is an open vowel /a/, whereas
the worst nuclear segment is /t/. HONS states that the best onset segment is /t/ and the worst /a/.
HSAT evaluates the harmonic value of the segment in satellite position. It evaluates liquids as the most optimal
satellite segments, better than nasals and glides, whereas obstruents and vowels are even forbidden in this position in the
6
Kent (p.c.) claims that there are more similarities between [l] and [n], for example the pattern of F1 (cf. Stevens, 1998). Notice that correspondence
constraints based on these additional similarities are not in conflict with MAXIOSP0, since they would only strengthen the preference of [n] as
substitute for /l/ or v.v. Of course, there is also an acoustic difference between [l] and [n]: the average spacing of the formants is wider in laterals than
in nasals. This is because the primary resonant tube is longer in nasals than it is in laterals (spacing for nasals 800 Hz, for laterals 1000 Hz, Kent et al,
1996). In conclusion, however, we will claim that substitutions of [n] for /l/ and [l] for /n/ are due to the acoustic similarity of the two sounds and,
especially, the presence of anti-formants.
8
original model (in OT terms: the worst possible candidates). The claim that liquids are better satellite segments than nasals
can be underpinned on typological grounds. If a language has e.g. /kn/ clusters, it also has /kl/ clusters, but not the other way
around. For example, Dutch has both /kl/ and /kn/ clusters (klop ‘knock’; knop ‘button’), but English has /kl/ clusters (clock)
and no /kn/ clusters (knock pronounced as [nk]), at least not anymore. HSAT is the constraint that reflects this preference.
Another argument for the preference for liquids in satellite position can be found in the Obligatory Contour Principle,
which prefers a distance in sonority between adjacent segments in the syllable: [pla] is more optimal than [pna] or [pja]
(cf. also Fikkert, 1994).
Notice that this phonologically based constraint HSAT is completely in conflict with the previously introduced
SONMARK. HSAT prefers /l/ to /n/ in a satellite, whereas SONMARK always prefers /n/ to /l/. So, the order SONMARK >>
HSAT enables us to describe the realization [] for slurf, given MAXIOSP0’S dominating the other
correspondence constraints, whereas the dominance order HSAT >> SONMARK prefers [l] to [n] in satellite position
ensuring the description of snoep realized as [slup].
The evaluation of HSAT is of course vacuous in all positions other than the satellite, which explains the
unidirectionality of the substitutions in margin core position and the variation of /l/ and /n/ in satellite position. If there is
no cluster in the input, the position of HSAT with respect to SonMark is completely irrelevant and [n] will always be
preferred to [l], forced by the lenition constraint.
In sum, we may conclude that for an adequate analysis of /l/-/n/ alternations and their different behavior with
respect to the direction of substitution in different positions, there must be an interaction of phonologically based and
phonetically based constraints. In the next section, the OT analyses of the /l/-substitutions will be presented in tableaux.
6. The tableaux
6.1 Liquid-glide and liquid-glottal substitutions
Before the OT accounts can be presented, a few more constraints have to be introduced. At the initial stages of acquisition,
children tend to simplify clusters: broek ‘trousers’ realized as [buk]. The OT constraints that formalize this effect are called
*COMPLEX and HONS. Obviously, in the description of the subsequent stage in which children do realize clusters, *COMPLEX
is dominated by a correspondence constraint. This constraint must evaluate a cluster as more optimal than a single
consonant, if the input exhibits a cluster. This constraint will be MAXIO (cf. section 3) if the input and output form coincide
completely. However, in the data studied here we find examples in which e.g. the realization [buk] for broek is not
directly succeeded by the realization [bruk]. For the description of the realization of broek at intermediate stages, e.g.
[bwuk], the correspondence constraint MAXIOroot of the MAXIO family (cf. McCarthy & Prince, 1995) plays a role. It
ensures that the target segment is not completely deleted. This constraint is based on the representation of segments as a
feature geometry (cf. (4)). It indicates that an output candidate that has as many root nodes as the input is more optimal
than an output in which an input segment is deleted. In other words, MAXIO is split up in a series of ranked constraints.
In a feature geometry, it ensures that at least the root node of the segment is present.
Given this dominant MAXIOroot, conflicting markedness and correspondence constraints will accomplish the
choice of the segment that is actually realized. For the account of the divergence in the data in (1), one has to decide
which of the possible substitution segments is the optimal one, given a similar deviance from the target segment that is
ruled out by a dominating constraint. For example, if one has to decide between the candidate outputs [bwuk] and [bjuk],
the decision cannot be based upon the distance in F2 value between /r/ and [w] or /r/ and [j]. The distance may be equal,
only the direction is different. In this particular case, we expect the substitution to go in the direction of [w] in stead of
[j] given the context of the target segment /r/. CONTEXT is needed to decide between [bwuk] and [bjuk] and because [w]
is more similar to the [b] in place of articulation than [j] is, CONTEXT may prefer [bwuk] as the optimal output.
Furthermore, the presence of [u] is of course also a trigger for its consonantal alter ego [w].
In the tableau in (7) we see a dominant correspondence constraint MAXIOroot. Some of the constraints that
were introduced are randomly ranked, which enables us to account for the variety in the substitution data. Some of the
constraints are correspondence constraints: MAXIOroot, MINDISTLT and CONTEXT. Others are markedness constraints:
*COMPLEX, SONMARK, HSAT plus the lenition constraint *STRUCTUREsupralaryngeal. Within these families the acoustically
based constraints as MINDISTLT and MINDIOSP0, can be distinguished from the phonotactically/phonologically based
constraints, such as SONMARK and HSAT. Furthermore, SONMARK is split up in SONMARK*liquid >>
SONMARK*glide/nasal >> SONMARK*vowel/obstruent, where other constraints may intervene between the split up
9
members of SONMARK. The ultimate ranking for the description of the sonority substitutions in (1) will be: MAXIOroot >>
MINDISTLT ; MINDISTSP0 ; SONMARK*liquid ; HSAT ; *STRUCTUREsupralaryngeal >> CONTEXT >> *COMPLEX >>
SONMARK*glide/nasal, ETC.
In the following OT-tableaux these constraints interact, in this way exemplifying the conspiracy of different
influences on first language acquisition. Exactly this kind of conspiracy shows the obvious merits of the theoretical
framework of Optimality Theory. No other current theoretical framework enables us to intervene the phonological with the
phonetic restrictions on possible outputs.
(7) Ultimate ranking: MAXIOroot >> MINDISTLT ; MINDISTSP0 ; SONMARK*liquid
*STRUCTUREsupralaryngeal >> CONTEXT >> *COMPLEX >> SONMARK*glide >> ETC.
constraints
input /l/
candidates
MAXIO MINDIST MINDIST SONMARK
LT
SP0
Root
*liquid
HSAT
*STRUCTURE
supralaryngeal
CONTEXT
*COMPLEX SONMARK
*glide
;
HSAT
;
ETC
Output [r]
Output [l]
Output [j]
Output [w]
Output [n]
Output [t]
Output [h]
Etc.
In (7) MINDISTLT, MINDISTSP0, SONMARK*liquid, HSAT and *STRUCTUREsupralaryngeal are not ranked
(indicated by the dotted lines). The different possible rankings of these constraints enable us to account for the different
possible realizations of /l/: [w j n h l] in the data presented here.7 Furthermore, the possible rankings exclude conceivable
substitutions that are not encountered in the data. For example, /lif/ is never realized as [bif] or [kif].
In (8) the ranking for onsets is presented. Candidate [if] for /lif/ is ruled out on the dominant MAXIOroot. Thus,
there must be an onset segment. Furthermore, MINDISTLT forces the output to be a liquid or a glide, given the target /l/.
SONMARK*liquids excludes liquids as output, which only leaves glides as possible outputs. CONTEXT then chooses [w] as
the optimal output for the target /l/ at this stage of acquisition. Probably, some kind of consonant harmony is of influence
that wants the labiodental in the coda to coincide with a labial in the onset.8 The other constraints are irrelevant. They are
incorporated in the tableau in order to make it possible to compare this realization of /l/ as [w] with the other realizations of
/l/ in the tableau in (7) and in the subsequent tableaux.
Here, we abstract from the possible [r] substitution for /l/, as in klok ‘clock’ /klk/ realized as [kk] (Steven (2;1)), which is based on MINDISTF3
(cf. section 3). In earlier stages of acquisition, /l/ and /r/ are probably identical underlyingly (cf. also /j/ and /w/ or voiced and voiceless stops).
8 In this case, a substitution of /l/ by [j] could also be expected. Levelt (1994) claims that consonant harmony is triggered by the vowel. The place of
articulation of the intervening vowel affects the consonant. In case of a vowel /i/ -as is the case in this example-, Levelt would probably expect the
coronal /j/ as the substitute segment instead of the labial [w] (Levelt, 1994: 80). We may conclude, of course, that CONTEXT is also a family of
constraints. It depends on the relative ranking of CONSONANT HARMONY and VOWEL-CONSONANT HARMONY, two constraints that can be functionally
defined as ease of articulation, whether /lif/ will be realized as [wif] or [jif].
7
10
(8) Liquid-glide substitutions in onset singletons
constraints
/lif /
candidates
MAXIO MINDIST SONMARK
LT
Root
*liquid
[rif]
*!
[lif]
*!
[jif]
[wif]
MINDIST HSAT
SP0
*STRUCTURE
*
vac
*
vac
*
*
vac
*
j-f!
*
*
vac
*
w-f
*
vac
*
*
[nif]
*!
[tif]
*!
*
vac
[hif]
*!
*
vac
vac
vac
[if]
*!
vac
vac
CONTEXT
supralaryngeal
*COMPLEX SONMARK
*glide
ETC
vac
In (9), the ranking for onset clusters is shown. The ranking for the realizations of [] for // ‘trousers’ and
[] for // ‘sleep’ is the same as for single onsets. Again, CONTEXT decides that in /bruk/ [w] is more optimal
than [j], given the labiality of [b], whereas [j] is preferred in the realization of /slan/ based upon the place of articulation
of the sibilant [s]. The alveolar sibilant [s] (cf. the palatal sibilant ]) is more similar to palatal [j] than to labial [w]).
(9) Liquid-glide substitutions in onset clusters
a. /bruk/  [bwuk]
constraints
/bruk/
candidates
MAXIO MINDIST SONMARK
LT
Root
*liquid
MINDIST HSAT
SP0
*STRUCTURE
supralaryngeal
*COMPLEX SONMARK
*glide
CONTEXT
[bruk]
*!
vac
br
*
*
[bluk]
*!
vac
bl
*
*
[bwuk]
vac
bw
*
bwu
*
*
[bjuk]
vac
bj
*
bju!
*
*
[bnuk]
*!
vac
bn
*
*
[btuk]
*!
vac
bt
*
*
[bhuk]
*!
vac
bh
vac
vac
[buk]
*!
vac
vac
*
vac
ETC
11
b. /slapn/  [ sjap]
constraints
/slapn/
candidates
MAXIO MINDIST SONMARK
LT
Root
*liquid
[srap]
*!
[slap]
*!
MINDIST HSAT
SP0
*STRUCTURE
supralaryngeal
*COMPLEX SONMARK
*glide
*
sr
*
*
sl
*
*
CONTEXT
[ sjap]
*
sj
*
sj
*
*
[swap]
*
sw
*
sw!
*
*
sn
*
*
*
*
[snap]
*!
[stap]
*!
*
st
[shap]
*!
*
sh
vac
vac
[sap]
*!
vac
vac
ETC
*
vac
In case of liquid-[h] substitutions, the dominance order of the constraints ought to be changed. If
*STRUCTUREsupralaryngeal is the highest ranked constraint of the randomly ranked constraints directly under MAXIOroot,
then the target liquids will be realized as [h]. (10) shows the simplified tableau.
(10)
Liquid-[h] substitutions in onsets
constraints
/l / MAXIO *STRUCTURE
Root
supralaryngeal
candidates
[r]
*
[l]
*
[j]
*
[w]
*
[n]
*
[t]
*
ETC
[h]
[
*!
vac
Notice that the data presented in this paper are obtained from a case study. For identifying the ‘real’ weight of
the randomly ranked constraints, more data are required in order to statistically underpin the preferred order of the
constraints. Regarding our account of segment substitutions, we must conclude that the idea of unordered constraints does
do justice to the actual realizations, since there are various substitute segments for the target /l/ (cf. the data in (1)). In such
an analysis, however, there is no way to describe the observation that in general children more often substitute a liquid by a
glide than by a nasal. This state of affairs seems to point towards the idea of constraint rankings as ‘loaded dice’ (cf. van der
Linde, 2001). In this hypothesis, the ranking is random, but with an inclination towards a certain default ranking.
The gliding process and the glotalization process can be seen as lenition processes in which the articulation is
executed in a more or less sloppy way: /l/ may be realized as [j] or [w] or [h], but it is never the other way around. No
12
data were attested in which, for example, /h/ was realized as [l], without the obvious influence of the context. Therefore,
the relevant constraints for liquid-glide/[h] substitution can be regarded as functional ones indicating ease of articulation
(cf. Boersma, 1998). In the next section we will consider liquid-nasal alternations.
6.2 Liquid-nasal substitutions
In this section, I will focus on the observation that the liquid-nasal alternations in satellite position are bidirectional,
whereas the data only show /l/-[n] substitutions and no /n/-[l] substitutions if the liquid or nasal is the only consonant in
the onset. In section 5, it was claimed that the acoustically based correspondence constraint MAXSP0 forces the output
segment to be [l] or [n] if the input is /l/ or /n/. Thus, if this acoustically based correspondence constraint is the
dominant one of the unranked constraints in (7), it forces the output to be [l] or [n], given a target /l/ or /n/.
Now it depends on the position of the phonologically based markedness constraint HSAT with respect to
SONMARK*liquid, or a conspiring functional lenition constraint, what the optimal output will be. If HSAT >>
SONMARK*liquid (as in (11b)), [l] will be preferred in the output, but if SONMARK*liquid >> HSAT (as in (11a)), [n] will
be the optimal output segment.
(11) Liquid-nasal substitutions in onset clusters
a. /l/  [n]
constraints
/slrf/
candidates
MAXIO MINDIST SONMARK
SP0
Root
*liquid
*!
[srrf]
[slrf]
HSAT
*
sr
*!
sl
[sjrf]
*!
sj
[swrf]
*!
sw
 [snrf]
sn
[strf]
*!
st
[shrf]
*!
sh
[srf]
*!
vac
vac
vac
ETC
13
b. /n/  [l]
constraints
/snup/
candidates
MAXIO MINDIST HSAT
SP0
Root
[srup]
*!
[slup]
*
sl
*
*!
sj
[swup]
*!
sw
sn!
[stup]
*!
st
[shup]
*!
sh
vac
vac
[sup]
ETC
*liquid
sr
[sjup]
[snup]
SONMARK
*!
vac
Contrary to SONMARK*liquid, which always prefers a nasal to a liquid, HSAT prefers liquids in satellite position,
but not in the margin core position (cf. the syllable template in (6)). The evaluation of segments in other positions than the
satellite is of course vacuous for HSAT. In other words, no matter how HSAT and SONMARK*liquid are ranked mutually, as
in (11a) or as in (11b), the optimal output will always exhibit a nasal if the target is an onset singleton, as shown in (12) for
the target lekkers ‘sweets’ realized as [n] (Kees (2;1) in van der Linde, 2001).
(12)
Nasal-liquid substitutions in onset singletons
a. SONMARK*liquid >> HSAT
constraints
INDIST SONMARK HSAT
/lk/ MAXIO M
SP0
Root
*liquid
candidates
*!
[rk]
[lk]
*
vac
*!
vac
[jk]
*!
vac
[wk]
*!
vac
 [nk]
vac
[tk]
*!
vac
[hk]
*!
vac
[k]
*!
vac
vac
vac
ETC
14
b. HSAT >> SONMARK*liquid
constraints
constraints
/lk/
/n/
candidates
candidates
MAXIO MINDIST HSAT
SP0
Root
*!
SONMARK
vac
*
vac
*!
[rk]
[rk]
[lk]
[lk]
[jk]
[jk]
*!
vac
[wk]
[wk]
*!
vac
 [nk]
 [nk]
[tk]
[tk]
*!
vac
[hk]
[hk]
*!
vac
[k]
[k]
vac
vac
ETC
*liquid
vac
*!
vac
The conclusion is that an analysis in which phonetically based constraints interact with phonologically based
constraints, enables us to account for the bidirectionality of the substitution data in satellite position and for the
unidirectionality of the substitution data in the margin core position of the syllable.
6.
Concluding remarks and perspective
In the previous sections, we have seen that in the account of sonority substitutions different kind of markedness and
correspondence constraints are involved. We saw that acoustically based constraints, such as MINDISTSP0, interact with
phonologically based constraints such as HSAT. Neither an analysis based upon functional/phonetic constraints solely nor an
analysis based upon structural/phonological constraints solely will enable us to account for all the possible substitutions and
the differences in possible substitution directions that our data exhibit. First language acquisition data are to be analysed as
the interaction of different kinds of markedness and different kinds of correspondence constraints. These various constraints
can either strengthen each others choices or they can be in conflict. Therefore, Optimality Theory is an ideal theory for the
analysis of this kind of data, because the theory is suited for accounts in which conspiracies of different influences are
involved and the child learning its first language has to encouter various problems varying from articulatory immaturity to
language-specific phonotactic restrictions.
Some remarks have to be made on the account presented in this paper. For example, if segmental markedness is
based upon sonority (cf. the SONMARK constraint), it enables us to indicate correctly, that most children start with stop - full
vowel combinations at their babbling stage and that liquids are marked segments appearing late in the course of acquisition.
Steven, however, sooner acquired /r/ than continuant obstruents: fricatives. This fact is probably due to another influence on
the child's outputs: a markedness constraint that is related to the degree of constriction. Such an articulatory based constraint
classifies stops as the strongest consonants, stronger than taps or flaps and trills, as exemplified in many lenition processes,
such as flapping in American English that has lenition forms such as [] for city (in comparison with [] in British
English). The weakest consonants, given this markedness hierarchy, are fricatives and approximants. We are in need of such
a constriction constraint in order to account for the observation that Steven's fricatives appear later than, for example, /r/.
Furthermore, we have abstracted from the influence of frequency throughout this paper. Van Berkel et al (1965)
(in: Van den Broecke, 1976) did some research on the frequency of Dutch phonemes based upon 50.000 words exhibiting
58.500 phonemes. We cannot preclude the possibility that the number of times a child hears a certain segment is an
influence on his realisation of that segment. With respect to the segments being the topic of this paper, Van Berkel et al
(1965) found out that /n/ is the most frequent consonant in Dutch (9,84%), followed by, respectively, /r/ (5,63%), /l/
(3,14%), /w/ (1,84%) and /j/ (0,45%).
15
In future research, all influences on the child's outputs have to be formulated as (potentially conflicting)
phonetically and phonologically based constraints. The mutual strength of these constraints has to be statistically
underpinned based upon a much larger corpus of data than presented in this case study. The purpose of this paper is to show
that phonological information is as much needed as phonetic information in order to provide an adequate account of all /l/
substitutions in first language acquisition data.
References
Ainsworth, W.A. & Paliwal K.K. (1984) ‘Correlation between the production and perception of the English glides /w,r,l,j/’
Journal of Phonetics 12, 237-243.
Archangeli, D. (1984) Underspecification in Yawelmani phonology and morphology. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Archangeli, D. (1988) ‘Aspects of underspecification theory’ Phonology 5, 183-207.
Bastiaanse, R., Gilbers, D.G. & Linde, K.J. van der (1994) ‘Sonority substitutions in Broca’s and conduction aphasia’
Journal of Neurolinguistics 8, 247-255.
Beers, M. (1995). The phonology of normally developing and language-impaired children. Studies in language and
language use 20, Dordrecht: ICG Printing.
Berkel, J.A.Th.M., Brandt Corstius, H., Mokken, R.J. & Van Wijngaarden, A. (1965), Formal properties of newspaper
Dutch. Mathematical Centre Tracts 12, Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam.
Bird, S. (1995) Computational Phonology: a constraint-based approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Blumstein, S.E. (1991) Phonological aspects of aphasia. In: M.T. Sarno (ed.) Acquired Aphasia. Academic Press, San
Diego.
Boersma, P.P.G. (1998) Functional Phonology: formalizing the interaction between articulatory and perceptual drives.
Holland Academic Graphics, The Hague.
Bolognesi, R. (1998), The phonology of Campidanian Sardinian, a unitary account of a self-organizing structure. HIL
Dissertations 38.
Broecke, M.P.R. Van den, Hierarchies and rank orders in distinctive features, Assen: Van Gorcum & comp..B.V.
Burzio, L. (1995) The Rise of Optimality Theory. Glot International 1(6), 3-7.
Burzio, L. (1998) Multiple Correspondence. In: Lingua 104, 79-109
Cairns, C. & Feinstein, M. (1982) Markedness and the theory of syllable structure. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 193-226.
Clements, G.N. (1985) The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook II, 225-252.
Coleman, J. (1998) Cognitive reality and the phonological lexicon: a review. Journal of Neurolinguistics 11, 295-320.
Fikkert, P. (1994) On the acquisition of prosodic structure. Dissertation, University of Leiden. HIL Dissertations 6.
Gilbers, D.G. (1992) Phonological Networks, a theory of segment representation. Dissertation, University of Groningen.
Gilbers, D.G. & De Hoop, H. (1998) Conflicting constraints: an introduction to Optimality Theory. In: Lingua 104, 1-12.
Gilbers, D.G. & Linde, K.J. van der (1993) ‘Slippin’ and slidin’ on the sonority scale’ In: E.V. Clark (ed.) The Proceedings
of the 25th Annual Child Language Research. CSLI Stanford.
Halle, M. (1992) Phonological features. In: W. Bright (ed.) International encyclopedia of linguistics, vol. 3. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Jespersen, O. (1904) Lehrbuch der Phonetik, Leipzig and Berlin: B.G.Teubner.
Kenstowicz, M. (1994) Sonority-driven stress. MIT (ms.).
Kent, R.D., Dembowski, J. & Lass, N.J. (1996) ‘The acoustic characteristics of American English’ In: N.J. Lass (ed.)
Principles of Experimental Phonetics. Mosby, St. Louis.
Kirchner, R.M. (1998) An effort-based approach to consonant lenition. Dissertation, UCLA.
Levelt, C.C. (1994). On the acquisition of place. HIL Dissertations in Linguistics 8, Dordrecht: ICG Printing.
Liberman, A.M., Delattre, P.C., Gerstman, L.J. & Cooper F.S. (1956) ‘Tempo of frequency change as a cue for
distinguishing classes of speech sounds’ Journal of Experimental Psychology 52, 127-137.
Linde, K.J. van der (2001) Sonority Substitutions. Dissertation, University of Groningen.
McCarthy, J. (1988) ‘Feature geometry and dependency: a review’ Phonetica 43, 84-108.
McCarthy, J. & Prince, A. (1995) ‘Faithfullness and reduplicative identity’ In: J. Beckman et al (eds.) UMOP 18: Papers in
Optimality Theory. GSLA, Amherst, MA.
16
Prince, A. & Smolensky, P. (1993) Optimality theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Rutgers University and
University of Colorado at Boulder (ms.).
Pulleyblank, D. (1988) Vocalic underspecification in Yoruba. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 233-270
Recasens, D. (1996) ‘An articulatory-perceptual account of vocalization and elision of dark /l/ in the Romance languages’
Language and Speech 39, 63-89.
Smolensky, P., 1986. Information Processing in Dynamical Systems: Foundations of Harmony Theory. In: D.E.
Rumelhart, J. McClelland, and the PDP Research Group, Parallel Distributed Processing. Explorations in
the Microstructure of Cognition. Volume 1: Foundations. Cambridge, MA: MIT-Press.
Stevens, K. (1998) Acoustic Phonetics, Cambridge, MA: MIT-Press.
Tesar, B. (1998). An iterative strategy for language learning. Lingua 104, 131-145.
Tesar, B. & Smolensky, P. (1996). The learnability of Optimality Theory: an algorithm and some basic complexity
results. Technical Report, Cognitive Science Department Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore Md. & RUCCS,
Rutgers University, New Brunswick NJ.
Zonneveld, R.M. Van (1988) Two Level Phonology: Structural Stability and Segmental Variation in Dutch Child Language,
in: F. Van Besien (ed.) First Language Acquisition, ABLA papers no. 12, University of Antwerpen, 129-162.