Babatsouli (2019) A Phonological Assessment Test For Child Greek

Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics
ISSN: 0269-9206 (Print) 1464-5076 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/iclp20
A phonological assessment test for child Greek
Elena Babatsouli
To cite this article: Elena Babatsouli (2019): A phonological assessment test for child Greek,
Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, DOI: 10.1080/02699206.2019.1569164
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02699206.2019.1569164
View supplementary material
Published online: 18 Feb 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=iclp20
CLINICAL LINGUISTICS & PHONETICS
https://doi.org/10.1080/02699206.2019.1569164
A phonological assessment test for child Greek

Elena Babatsouli
Institute of Monolingual and Bilingual Speech, Chania, Greece
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article advances a clinical tool for assessing typical and atypical Received 19 November 2018
phonological development in children speaking standard Modern Greek Revised 4 January 2019
or Hellenic (ISO 639.1, el). The proposed tool develops a comprehensive Accepted 9 January 2019
test that is archetypical of the standard idiom and of predominant KEYWORDS
dialectal variations and seeks to be readily available for logopedics Child; phonological
and language researchers of child Greek anywhere. By utilising the assessment; delayed/
constraint-based nonlinear theoretical framework, this Greek battery disordered; typical; Greek
complements a larger study that utilises equivalent methodology in
the evaluation of phonological acquisition of monolingual children
with typical and protracted phonological development across several
languages. As an example, the efficacy of the tool is tested by adminis-
tering it to a monolingual Greek-speaking girl, aged 4;8, whose speech
shows evidence of delay on different phonological levels when com-
pared to known monolingual norms/data. The ultimate aim is
a standardised test to help establish reliable quantitative norms/stages
in child Greek development, as a benchmark for assessment and inter-
vention of phonological delay and disorder.
Introduction
This study proposes an assessment tool of child phonological development in standard
Modern Greek (el) (ISO 639.1, 2018), including predominant dialect characteristics, hereon
Greek. The proposed procedures aim at evaluating the typically and atypically developing
Greek speech of mono/multilingual children between 2;6 and 9;0 years, being representative
of targeted Greek phonotactics and utilising the methodology of a larger crosslinguistic
project (e.g. Bernhardt & Stemberger, 2017). Based on the Oxford English Dictionary (OED)
definition, ‘test’ is ‘a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability
of something, especially before it is taken into widespread use’ (https://en.oxforddiction
aries.com/definition/test). On these grounds, the study develops a test (the procedures) to be
used in future cross-sectional phonological research on child developmental Greek and
provides an illustration of how it is implemented. The reasons that have necessitated the
establishment of such an assessment tool, the guiding theoretical underpinnings utilised as
well as related review on Greek phonology and child phonological development/assessment,
are described in the introduction. This is followed by a detailed description of the proposed
test and its accompanying pilot implementation. This article continues with an analysis of
the data and concludes with a deliberation on the efficacy of the proposed tool and future
directions.
CONTACT Elena Babatsouli ebabatsouli@ismbs.eu Institute of Monolingual and Bilingual Speech, Kalathas,
Akrotiriou, Chania 73100, Greece
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.
© 2019 Taylor & Francis
2 E. BABATSOULI
The constraint-based nonlinear child phonological development/assessment

Evaluation of phonological performance during development has customarily relied on theory.
A generic theme in child phonological development concerns linearity (e.g. Chomsky & Halle,
1968; Prince & Smolensky, 2004) and nonlinearity, with nonlinearity signifying complexity that
is multi-planar rather than linear/sequential (e.g. Bernhardt & Stemberger, 1998; Mohanan,
1992; Rice & Avery, 1995). Nonlinear phonological models rely on the tenet that autonomous
phonological units (segments-syllable-foot-prosodic word) have underlying hierarchical repre-
sentations, not directly observable, though related on different tiers from the phrase level (top) to
features (bottom; e.g. Bérubé, Bernhardt, & Stemberger, 2015; Chen, Bernhardt, & Stemberger,
2016). Each hierarchical level is independent while also linked with several other levels in
a geometrical hierarchy. The constraint-based nonlinear model acknowledges the lack of ‘a
fully elaborated theory of learning of constraint rankings by young children’ (Bernhardt &
Stemberger, 1998, p. 261–263), arguing that constraints rely on representational analyses along-
side concurrent changes ‘as learning proceeds’ (258).
On the understanding that child phonology is rooted in not-fully transparent phenomena
in physiology, perception, and cognitive processing, Bernhardt and Stemberger have been
conducting a crosslinguistic project on the assessment of typical/protracted child phonological
development. The project utilises a common methodology crosslinguistically in terms of
sample characteristics, word list types, data collection procedures, transcription conventions,
and data entry/analysis procedures, also accounting for major within-language dialectal
discrepancies (e.g. Bernhardt & Stemberger, 2017; Bernhardt et al., forthcoming; Chen
et al., 2016). Given challenges such as the availability of participants, time, and financial
resources, the following languages are currently researched in the crosslinguistic project:
Arabic (Kuwaiti), Asian (Japanese, Mandarin, and Tagalog), Farsi, First Nations/Canada
(Ojibwe/Anishinaabemowin), Germanic (English, German, Icelandic, and Swedish),
Romance (European Portuguese, Canadian, and standard French, Chilean and Granada
Spanish), and South Slavic (Bulgarian, Slovenian). This article adds Greek to this list, adopting
the ‘nonlinear’ stance as the theoretical framework for identifying the underlying representa-
tions intended to be evaluated with the proposed test and for the analysis of actual data. An
account of Greek phonology characteristics and distribution data is provided next.
Greek phonology
Segments and clusters
Modern Greek is founded on a combination of linguistic influences from ancient Greek
(AG; 800 BC–600 AD), koine (300 BC–300 AD), katharevousa (1800–1976), demotiki
(1818–), scholarly blueprints, loans, and dialects that make for a hard to pinpoint fluidity.
Thus, its phonology has a dynamic character that mixes separate phonological systems in
terms of segmental inventory, phonotactics, and usage distributions (Setatos, 1974, in
Greek).
Greek has a segmental inventory of 20 consonantal phonemes: /p b f v t d s z θ ð ʦ ʣ m n l ɾ
k g x γ/, 10 consonantal allophones: [c ɟ ç ʝ ɱ (ɱp ɱb ɱf ɱv) ŋ (ŋk ŋg ŋx ŋγ) ɲ ʎ r ɹ], and a typical
five vowel system: /i e a o u/→[i ԑ ɐ o u] that includes two falling diphthongs: aɪ [ɐi~ɐj] and oɪ
[oi~oj] and five rising diphthongs /ii ie io iu ia/ that are along with /i e/ the context of
palatalisation (→[CPALii, CPALiԑ, CPALio, CPALiu, CPALiɐ]) of preceding /k x g γ n l/ in
CLINICAL LINGUISTICS & PHONETICS 3
allophonic complementary distribution. Among the allophones, ɾ→[r ɹ] is in free non-

obligatory allophony and the rest in obligatory complementary distribution. The phonological
structure of Greek segments is outlined in the Scan Form (pp. 5, 9, 10), provided as
supplementary material, where all permitted consonant clusters and vowel combinations in
stressed and unstressed syllables are also shown. Double consonants are found in Greek
orthography (e.g. εμμονή /ԑmoni/ ‘obsession’), but geminates only exist in certain Greek
varieties (e.g. Cypriot, south-eastern Aegean). The phonetics of Greek is increasingly repre-
sented in research (e.g. Nicolaidis, 2001; Nirgianaki, 2014; see Arvaniti, 2007; Botinis, 2011, for
reviews/analyses).
The most common phonological processes productive in Greek are shown in Table 1;
the majority are obligatory. Among these, palatalisation, for example, /k g x/→[c ɟ ç]
when /i e/ follow and voicing assimilation (e.g. σμήνος /sminos/→[zminos] ‘flock’) are
typical. Other predominant patterns include: (a) in phonologically similar consonantal
sequences, the second segment changes (e.g. φθηνός /fθiˈnos/→[ftiˈnos] ‘cheap’); excep-
tions are sequences of continuant consonants (except s), sequences in scholarly words (e.g.
πτώση /ˈptosi/→[ˈptosi] ‘fall’) and loans (e.g. τακτ /takt/→[tɐkt] ‘tact’), (b) similar con-
sonants and complex sequences simplify, while hiatus within and across syllables/words
tends to be intercepted in colloquial or dialectal speech.
An indicative estimate of the distribution of Greek phonemes/phones is given by
Setatos (1974), based on a specific text rather than spontaneous usage for a token total
Table 1. Major phonological processes in Greek.

Process Rule (example) Examples
Consonants Assimilation Homorganic n→[ŋ m] /en.’xiɾisi/→[eŋ’xiɾisi] ‘surgery’
nasal
Palatalisation k→[c]_i, e /ke’no/→[cԑ’no] ‘gap’
k, l→[c, ʎ]_iV /’kialia/→[‘cɐʎɐ] ‘binoculars’
Voicing C−VOICEC+VOICE →C+VOICEC+VOICE /’sminos/→[‘zminos] ‘flock’
/eflo’γia/→[evlo’ʝia] ‘blessing’
C+NASALC−VOICE →C+NASAL /en’kosmia/→[ԑŋ’gozmiɐ] ‘worldly’
C+VOICE
Stopping CCONTCSTOP →CSTOPCSTOP /’xte.na/→[‘ktԑ.nɐ] ‘comb’
Coalescence k→[xC+CONT] /’ɾikste/→[‘ɾixtԑ] ‘throw!’
Dissimilation C+CONTC+CONT→ /fθi’nos/→[fti’nos] ‘cheap’
C+CONTC−CONT
Simplification C# #C→C /mes sti/→[mԑsti] ‘in the’
Deletion/elision CCC→CC /’ɾikste/→[‘ɾix∅tԑ] ‘throw!’
C→ ∅ /’tɾoγo/→[‘tɾo∅o] ‘I am eating’
Vowels Epenthesis (hiatus) V.V→V.CV /a’eɾas/→[ɐ’ʝԑɾas] ‘wind’
Paragoge (hiatus) V.V→V.CV.CV /’ʦai/→[‘tsɐγɐci] ‘tea’ (diminutive)
Approximation VV→VCGLIDE /’γaiðaɾos/→[‘γɐjðɐɾos] ‘donkey’,
/’fɾaula/→[‘fɾɐwlɐ] ‘strawberry’
diphthongisation V.V→ Vi /ae’tos/→[ai’tos(→ɐj’tos)] ‘eagle’
(→VCGLIDE)
diphthongisation CV.V→CPALV /e’nea/→/e’nia/→[ԑ’ɲɐ] ‘nine’
Coalescence /ka’mia/→[ka’mɲɐ] ‘none’
Vocalisation CCC→CVC /pst/→[ps̻ t] (exclamation)
Coarticulation CV.V→CVV /ka.ko.a.na.θɾe.’me.no/→[kɐ.koɐ.nɐ.θɾԑ.’mԑ.
no]
‘spoiled (child)’
Vowel lengthening VX.VX→VX: /pa.ɾa.’aɾ.ʝi.sԑs/→[pɐ.’ɾɐ:ɾ.ʝi.sԑs] ‘you are very late’
Deletion VX.VX→VX.∅ /a.’ku.un/→[ɐ’kun] ‘they hear’
#V.→∅. /a’miγðalo/→[‘miγðalo] ‘almond’
Syncope CV.CV.CV /’feɾete/→[‘fԑɾtԑ] ‘bring!
→CVC.CV
4 E. BABATSOULI
of 4151 phonemes (99.92%) and 4078 phones (99.87%). The frequency of vowels, pho-
nemes (2023 tokens, 48.76%) versus phones (1975 tokens, 48.40%) in decreasing order is:
a→ɐ (14.98%, 15.12%), i (13.08%, 11.10%), o (9.20%, 9.09%), e→ԑ (9%, 8.46%), and
u (2.50%, 2.50%). The frequency of consonants, phonemes (2128 tokens, 51.16%) versus
phones (2103 tokens, 51.47%) is: s (7.97%, 7.60%), t (7.90%, 7.72%), n (7.37%, 5.84%), ɾ
(4.43%, 4.51%), p (4.40%, 4.02%), k (4.23%, 2.40%), l (2.64%, 2.45%), m (2.45%, 3.01%), θ
(1.78%, 1.07%), γ (1.78%, 1.05%), ð (1.56%, 1.59%), f (1.22%, 1.25%), x (1.05%, 1.27%),
v (1.03%, 1.05%), z (0.74%, 1.27%), b (0.26%, 0.73%), d (0.21%, 0.53%), and g (0.14%,
0.22%). The frequency of the allophonic distribution of k→c (69 tokens), g→ɟ (6), x→ç
(22), γ→ʝ (32), n→ɲ (7) →ŋ (14), and l→ʎ (10) is: c (1.69%), ʝ (0.78%), ç (0.53%), ŋ
(0.34%), ʎ (0.24%), ɲ (0.17%), and ɟ (0.14%). Given that Greek orthography is largely
transparent, the following frequency in decreasing order of Greek letters/phones may also
be relevant: α/ɐ, ο, ι/i, ε, τ/t, σ,ς/s, ν/n, η/i, υ/i, ρ/ɾ, π/p, κ/k, μ/m, λ/l, ω/o, δ/ð, γ, χ/x, θ, φ/
f, β/v, ξ/ks, ζ/z, and ψ/ps (letterfrequency.org/letter-frequency-by-language/Greek). Setatos
(1974) treats /ʦ/ and /ʣ/ as clusters (for the debate on their phonemic status, see
Malikouti-Drachman, 2001). There are no statistics on functional load (e.g. as discussed
by Ingram, 1989) in Greek.
With regard to consonant clusters, Greek has a maximum of three consonants in onset
position, but there are more CC types than CCC types. Clusters in coda: [ts dz ft vɾ st mbɾ
nd ns ŋg ŋks lt lf ls lm lk ɾt ɾs ɾð ɾts kl kt ks] exist only in loans, for example, ταλκ /talk/
→[tɐlk] ‘baby powder’, τανκς /tanks/→[tɐŋks] ‘tanks’, and φιορδ /fioɾð/→[fçoɾð].
A comprehensive list of Greek clusters in word-initial, medial-onset, and medial-across-
syllables position (adapted from Setatos, 1974) can be found in the Scan Form (pp. 6–8),
provided as supplementary material. The 40 most frequent consonant clusters/sequences
in Greek and their percentages to the total number are given in Protopapas, Tzakosta,
Chalamandaris, and Tsiakoulis (2012) as follows: st (18.5%), pɾ (8.6%), ks (5.9%), ft
(4.5%), zm (3.1%), tɾ (2.8%), kɾ (2.3%), ps (2.1%), pl (2.1%), ɾγ (2.0%), kt (2.0%), xɾ
(2.0%), ðʝ (1.8%), γɾ (1.6%), ðɾ (1.6%), vɾ (1.6%), kl (1.5%), ɾʝ (1.5%), sç (1.3%), ɾç (1.3%),
pt (1.2%), γm (1.1%), sc (1.1%), vl (1.0%), fθ (1.0%), sk (0.9%), ɾn (0.9%), mv (0.9%), sp
(0.8%), sf (0.8%), mf (0.8%), nð (0.8%), ɾm (0.8%), xθ (0.8%), xn (0.7%), stɾ (0.7%), γn
(0.7%), ɾt (0.7%), fs (0.6%), and pç (0.6%).
Syllables
As a syllable-timed language, Greek is characterised by consecutive syllables of equal duration.
Greek has closed syllables, but the tendency is for open ones (Holton, Mackridge, & Philipaki-
Warburton, 2002), where the word structure formula C(0–3)VC(0–1) (Mennen & Okalidou,
2007, p. 400) predominantly holds. The rime in Greek may typically comprise a nucleus (#V
#Vi, V#, iV#, .V., .iV., or syllabic consonant in exclamations) or a nucleus and mainly
a singleton coda, that is, [f v s z θ m n l ɾ k ks x g γ ʝ] word-initially, word-medially (that
includes ð), and overwhelming /s n/word-finally, except in some archaic terms and #- [p b bl
t ts dz s z f st m n ŋg l lt lf lm lk ɾt ɾn ɾð k kt ks x], -# [p b t ts dz z f ft v vɾ st z θ m mbɾ n nd ns ŋg
l lt lf ls lm lk ɾ ɾt ɾs ɾð ɾts k kl kt ks g x γ] in loans. Table 2 shows the distribution of Greek
syllables per word position, as computed by Setatos (1974); tokens are shown in parentheses.
CVCC, CCVCC, and CVCCC appear in loans, while CiVC is an exclamation. The /i/ in
targeted syllables like the last one, and elsewhere (e.g. CiV, CVi, CCiV, etc.) throughout the
text and tables, refers to either the /i/ in falling diphthongs or to the context of the Greek
Table 2. The distribution of Greek syllables per word position*.

2,3,4-σ words
σ type 1-σ words #σ .σ. σ# Sum
V 1.14% (24) 11.13% (233) 0.52% (11) 0.66% (14) 13.47% (282)
Vi
CV 10.80% (226) 11.85% (248) 15.48% (324) 18.64% (390) 56.78% (1188)
CiV 1.19% (25) 0.57% (12) 0.33% (7) 1.48% (31) 3.58% (75)
CVi - (8) (3) - (11)
CCV 0.38% (8) 4.64% (97) 3.34% (70) 2.77% (58) 11.13% (233)
CCiV 0.14% (3) 0.14% (3)
CCCV 0.09% (2) 0.09% (2)
CCCiV
VC 0.04% (1) 0.95% (20) 0.04% (1) 0.52% (11) 1.57% (33)
CVC 5.01% (105) 1.67% (35) 0.62% (13) 4.30% (90) 11.61% (243)
CiVC 0.09% (2) 0.28% (6) 0.38% (8)
CCVC 0.47% (10) 0.09% (2) 0.04% (1) 0.57% (12) 1.19% (25)
CCiVC
CCCVC
CCCiVC
VCC
CVCC
CCVCC
CiVCC
CCCCV
Sum 19.16% (401) 30.92% (647) 20.50% (429) 29.39% (615) 2092
*Adapted from Setatos (1974, in Greek).
palatalisation rule, where a targeted /C/ followed by /i/ and another /V/ palatalises the
consonant (see more in previous section on segments and clusters).
Word structure
Greek has a trochaic foot (Holton et al., 2002). Words are mostly disyllabic or multisyllabic
(3–5 syllables or more, the longest being compounds); monosyllables are few in type, in
common usage when they are function words, and include loans. Not all syllable combina-
tions are possible in the permitted word structures with V, CV, CVC, CCV, CCVC, and VC
being more common (see Scan Form (p. 3), provided as supplementary material). Among
these, the most frequent word structures, as computed by Setatos (1974), are shown in Table
3 (those with over eight tokens for single- to three-syllable words and over two tokens for
four-syllable words).
Table 3. The distribution of most frequent word shapes in Greek*.

σ# % (tokens) Word shape (# tokens)
1-σ All 39.16% (414) CV (224), CVC (112), CiV (26), V (24), CCVC (12), CCV (8)
Unstressed 81.40% (337/414)
2-σ 32.07% (339) CV.CV (82), V.CV (72), CCV.CV (32), V.CVC (26), CVC.CV & CV.CVC (18), CV.CCV (11),
V.CCV & CV.CiV (10), V.CCVC & CCV.CCV (8)
3-σ 19.11% (202) CV.CV.CV (41), V.CV.CV (30), CCV.CV.CV (16), V.CCV.CV (15), V.CV.CCV & CV.CCV.CV
(9), V.CV.CVC (8)
4-σ 7.56% (80) CV.CV.CV.CV (13), CCV.CV.CV.CV (5)
V.CV.CV.V & V.CV.CV.CVC & CV.CV.CV.VC (3), CV.CV.CV.V & V.V.V.CV & V.CV.CCV.V &
V.CCV.CV.V & V.CCV.V.CV & V.CCV.CV.CV & CV.CV.CV.V & CV.CV.CV.CiV & CV.CV.CV.
CVC (2)
5-σ 1.98% (21) CCV.CV.CV.CV.CVC (3), V.CV.CV.CV.CV & CV.CV.CV.CV.VC & CCV.CV.CV.CV.CV (2)
6-σ 0.09% (1) CVC.CV.CV.V.CV.CV (1)
*Adapted from Setatos (1974, in Greek).
6 E. BABATSOULI
Stress
Greek has dynamic stress, primary and secondary, typically falling on the syllable nucleus
(vowel-diphthong-syllabic consonant) of certain words in phrases/sentences. There are
two basic rules: two consecutive syllables cannot be both stressed, and only a maximum of
two unstressed syllables may follow the primary stress (Holton et al., 2002). Stress has
a semantically contrastive function in Greek differentiating between otherwise identical
words/phrases, for example, μιλιά/μίλια [miˈʎɐ/ˈmiʎɐ] ‘speech/miles’ and δεν είπε γιατί
φεύγει [ðԑn ipԑ ʝati/ʝatí fԑvʝi] ‘he didn’t say why/because he is leaving’. Secondary stress
may have a contrastive function, but it is primarily optional. Greek also has enclitic stress
in certain prosodic phrases, for example, το πρόσωπό της [to ˈpɾo.so.ˌpo tis] ‘her face’.
Greek dialects
Representative work on Greek dialectal phonology may be found in Trudgill (2003) and
references therein; for Cypriot Greek, see Newton (1972), Taxitari, Kambanaros, Floros,
and Grohmann (2017). Standard Greek has mostly been furnished by the Peloponnesian
and Ionian varieties. Among the six main dialectal features from elsewhere, only velar
fronting in a following /iV/ context is found in all varieties. Northern varieties features
that are intermittently productive in the standard are: /n l/ palatalisation in the context of
following /i/, for example, πανί /paˈni/→[pɐˈɲi] ‘cloth’ and άλλη /ˈali/→[ˈɐʎí] ‘otherFEM’,
and stop pre-nazalisation (/b d g/→[ɱb nd ŋg]), for example, λάμπα /ˈlaba/→[ˈlɐɱbɐ]
‘lamp’ and αβοκάντο /avocado/→[ɐvokɐndo]. Occasionally, geminates (Cyprus, south-
east), for example, άμμος /ˈamos/→[ˈɐm:os] ‘sand’); /i u/ deletion in unstressed syllables
(north), for example, κορίτσι /koˈɾi.ʦi/→[koˈɾιʦ∅] ‘girl’; and vowel deletions in hiatus, for
example, από εδώ /aˈpo eˈðo/→[ɐpԑ’ðo] ‘this way’ may also be present.
Phonological development and assessment in Greek

Greek child phonological development has been investigated in single-case and cross-
sectional studies (e.g. Kappa, 2002; PAL: Panhellenic Association of Logopaedics, 1995; see
Mennen & Okalidou, 2007, for review). More recent work includes studies on mono-
linguals (Athanasopoulou, 2018; Gazani, 2009; Papathanasiou, Dimitrakopoulou,
Ntaountaki, & Vasiliou, 2012; Piterou, 2015), bilectals (Petinou & Armostis, 2016;
Petinou & Theodorou, 2017), bilinguals (Antoniou, Best, Tyler, & Kroos, 2010;
Babatsouli, 2017; Babatsouli & Nicoladis, 2019), and child speech impairment
(Geronikou & Rees, 2015).
The only available test of Greek phonological acquisition for preschool children is the
Test of Phonetic and Phonological Development that the Panhellenic Association of
Logopedics (PAL, 1995, in Greek) designed, and carried out from 1989 to 1992, eliciting
picture-naming data of 101 words from 300 children, aged 2;6–6;0, in Athens. The words
elicited are in groups of 70 and 31 types each, of which 30 and 14, respectively, are
intended for preliminary assessment. Regarding picture use, only two sketched scenes are
shown of children at home/a playground. Results in PAL (1995) provide normative data
and are widely cited (Babatsouli, 2017; 2018; Babatsouli & Nicoladis, 2019; Mennen &
Okalidou, 2007; Papathanasiou et al., 2012, etc.). PAL (1995) is not published but officially
accessible to registered PAL logopedics, so their word list will be discussed here only as
pertinent. In order to provide a test accessible to phonologists/logopedists/SLPs anywhere

and fill in gaps in the PAL test, the following test was constructed.
Method
The Greek test
The clinical tool for phonological elicitation and analysis proposed here is named
Phonological Assessment for Greek (el), that is, PAel, and targets the typically and
atypically developing Greek speech of mono/multilingual children between 2;6 and
9;0 years. A single-word and narrative elicitation technique is used, adopting the
methodology of the crosslinguistic project across 17 languages undertaken by
Bernhardt, Stemberger, and colleagues (see introduction). With regard to the experi-
mental design, PAel utilises the single case (multiple baseline) design. PAel comprises
150 content words (mostly nouns/adjectives) divided into two parts: a SCREENER: 50
words intended for preliminary/basic assessment (Tables 4 and 5), EXTENDED: 100 words
for assessing more advanced phonological skills (Tables 6–8), and a two-part narrative/
story built on SCREENER/EXTENDED lists that broadens further the list’s phonotactic
representation.
The PAel word list was constructed to include variable representative phonotactic
contexts of the Greek inventory, also accounting for underlying nonlinear interactions.
Greek phonotactics are represented (a) in imageable words, familiar to children; (b)
accounting for distribution frequencies: common words, marked/unmarked segments,
various prosodic contexts, syllable types (structure/stress), and word structures/lengths
(e.g. bilabials vs. fricatives, more /s/ than /g/, more CV than CCCV); (c) in cumulative
Table 4. Greek screener (PAel): monosyllabic/bisyllabic (31 words).

Word shape # Orthographic Phonemic Phonetic Gloss
Monosyllabic (2)
CVC 1 γκολ ˈgol ˈgol goal
CCV 1 μπλε ˈble ˈblԑ blue
Bisyllabic (29)
V.CCiV 1 αυτιά a.ˈftia ɐ.ˈftçɐ ears
V.CiVC 1 ήλιος ˈi.lios ˈi.ʎos sun
CV.V 2 ζώα τσάι ˈzo.a ˈʦa.i ˈzo.ɐ ˈʦɐ.i animals tea
CV.CV 5 γκάζι ˈga.zi ˈgɐ.zi accelerator
μύτη νταντά ˈm.iti da. ˈda ˈm.iti dɐ.ˈdɐ nose nanny
ρύζι χαλί ˈɾi.zi xaˈli ˈɾi.zi xɐ.ˈli rice carpet
CVi.CV 1 μαϊμού mai.ˈmu mɐj.ˈmu monkey
CV.CVC 2 πάγος σάκος ˈpa.ɣos ˈsa.kos ˈpɐ.γos ˈsɐ.kos ice sack
CV.CCV 4 δέντρο κούκλα ˈðe.dɾo ˈku.kla ˈðԑ.dɾo ˈku.klɐ tree doll
νύχτα ζεστό ˈni.xta ze.ˈsto ˈni.xtɐ zԑ.ˈsto night warm
CVC.CV 1 πάρκο ˈpaɾ.ko ˈpɐɾ.ko park
CV.CCVC 1 τίγρης ˈti.γɾis ˈti.γɾis tiger
CCV.V 1 πρωί pɾo.ˈi pɾo.ˈi morning
CCV.CV 5 γλώσσα γκρίζο ˈγlo.sa ˈgɾi.zo ˈγlo.sɐ ˈgɾi.zo tongue grey
μπράτσο τρένο ˈbɾa.ʦo ˈtɾe.no ˈbɾɐ. ʦo ˈtɾε.no arm train
ψάρι ˈpsa.ɾi ˈpsɐ.ɾi fish
CCV.CiV 1 κλειδιά kli.ˈðia kli.ˈðʝɐ keys
CiV.CV 1 πιάτα ˈpia.ta ˈpçɐ.tɐ dishes
CiV.CVC 1 φιόγκος ‘fio.gos ‘fço.gos bow
CCVC.CV 1 γδέρνει ˈγðeɾ.ni ˈγðԑɾ.ni scratches
CCV.CCCV 1 ξύστρα ˈksi.stɾa ˈksi.stɾɐ sharpener
8 E. BABATSOULI
Table 5. Greek screener (PAel): multisyllabic (19 words).

Multisyllabic: 3-σ (14)
CV.CV.V 1 ρολόι ɾο.ˈlo.i ɾο.ˈlo.i clock
CV.CV.CV 7 θάλασσα ˈθa.la.sa θɐ.ˈlɐ.sa sea
καλάθι ka.ˈla.θi kɐ.ˈlɐ.θi basket
κεφάλι ke.ˈfa.li cԑ.ˈfɐ.li head
λουλούδι lu.ˈlu.ði lu.ˈlu.ði flower
μπαλόνι ba.ˈlo.ni bɐ.ˈlo.ni balloon
παπούτσι pa.ˈpu.ʦi pɐ.ˈpu ʦi shoe
χελώνα xe.ˈlo.na çԑ.ˈlo.nɐ turtle
CV.CVi.CV 1 νεράιδα ne.ˈɾai. ða nԑ.ˈɾɐj.ðɐ fairy
CV.CV.CCVC 1 θησαυρός θi.sa.ˈvɾos θi.sɐ.ˈvɾos treasure
CV.CCV.V 1 βιβλίο vi.ˈvli.o vi.ˈvli.o book
CV.CCV.CV 1 δασκάλα ða.ˈska.la ðɐ.ˈskɐ.lɐ teacher
CV.CCV.CVC 1 βάτραχος ˈva.tɾa.xos ˈvɐ.tɾɐ.xos frog
CVC.CV.CV 1 φορτηγό foɾ.ti.ˈγo foɾ.ti.ˈγo truck
V.CV.CV.CVC 1 ελέφαντας e.ˈle.fa.das ԑ.ˈlԑ.fɐ.dɐs elephant
VC.CV.CV.CCV 1 ευχαριστώ ef.xa.ɾi.ˈsto ԑf.xɐ.ɾi.ˈsto thanks
VC.CV.CV.V 1 εργαλεία eɾ.γa.ˈli.a ԑɾ.γɐ.ˈli.ɐ tools
CV.CV.CCV.V 1 γενέθλια γe.ˈne.θli.a ʝԑ.ˈnԑ.θli.ɐ birthday
CCCV.CV.CV.CV.CVC 1 στρουθοκάμηλος stɾu.θo.ˈka.mi.los stɾu.θo.ˈkɐ.mi.los ostrich
depiction from screener to extended list, to narrative. The EXTENDED list expands the
SCREENER in that it includes more contexts for singleton segments, more consonant
sequences, and word structures/lengths, overall targeting more complex/advanced phonol-
ogies. The culture-relevant colour images (one per word) prepared for data elicitation, are
freely available in slideshow software from: http://phonodevelopment.sites.olt.ubc.ca /or
by contacting the author. Sentence cues (cloze technique), and/or phonemic, syllabic cues,
are included in the slide show for clinical use to motivate children during the test, as
needed. Aiming for efficiency and speed, the test lasts between 10 and 30–40 min (screener
and full list, respectively), also depending on child/context (attention, need for narrative,
prompts, etc.). Select words in the list (or narrative parts) may separately furnish assess-
ment/therapy or language research, as necessary.
Phonotactic and distributional analysis

Sixty-seven words in PAel are common in adult speech (www.1000mostcommonwords.
com), 65 are child vocabulary/everyday terms/animals, and 18 (5 verbs) are purposefully
added because they broaden represented phonotactics. Word shapes and targeted/pro-
duced depictions in International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) are shown in Tables 4–8; more
new types that include function (mono/bi/multisyllabic) words are supplemented in the
narrative (1001 word total), alongside a depiction of phonetic/dialectal variation (see
Appendix).
To ascertain how representative PAel is of targeted Greek, a distributional analysis of
the word list phonotactics is undertaken next in terms of phones, consonant clusters, word
shapes, stress patterns, and syllable types per word position. First, there is a parallel
between Setatos’ (1974) results on Greek (el) and PAel’s frequency of vocalic phones to
all phones (Table 9) in the following decreasing order: ɐ (el: 15%, PAel: 130/874: 15%),
i (11%, 103/874: 12%), o (9%, 84/874: 10%), ԑ (8%, 39/874: 4%), and u (3%, 18/874: 2%).
Although there are no computations for targeted Greek phones by word position in
Table 6. Greek extended list (PAel): monosyllabic/bisyllabic words (55).

Word
shape # Orthographic Phonemic Phonetic Gloss
Monosyllabic (2)
CVC 2 φως ροζ ˈfos ˈɾoz ˈfos ˈɾoz light pink
Bisyllabic (53)
V.CCV 3 αυγό έξι οχτώ a.ˈvγo ˈe.ksi ɐ.ˈvγo ˈε.ksi egg six
o.ˈxto o.ˈxto eight
V.CCCVC 1 άσπρος ˈa.spɾos ˈɐ.spɾos white
CV.CV 7 τυρί νερό ti.ˈɾi ne.ˈɾo ti.ˈɾi nԑ.ˈɾo cheese water
ζώνη ˈzo.ni ˈzo.ni belt
χέρι χώμα ˈxe.ɾi ˈxo.ma ˈçԑ.ɾi ˈxo.mɐ hand soil
τσάντα τζάκι ˈʦa.da ˈʣa.ki ˈʦɐ.dɐ ˈʣɐ.ci bag fireplace
CV.CiV 1 μαγιό ma.ˈγio mɐ.ˈʝo swimsuit
CV.CiV 2 πάπια ˈpa.pia ˈpɐ.pçɐ duck
κάμπια ˈka.bia ˈkɐ.bʝɐ caterpillar
CiV.CiV 1 γυαλιά γia.ˈlia ʝɐ.ˈʎɐ glasses
CV.CVC 1 γέρος ˈγe.ɾos ˈʝԑ.ɾos old man
CCiV.CVC 1 μοιάζουν ˈmɲazun ˈmɲɐ.zun look alike
CV.CCV 3 μαύρη λίμνη ˈma.vɾi ˈli.mni ˈmɐ.vɾi ˈli.mni black lake
ραβδί ɾav.ˈði ɾɐ.ˈvði wand
CV.CCVC 1 κάπνος ka.ˈpnos kɐ.ˈpnos smoke
CV.CCCV 1 κάστρα ˈka.stɾa ˈkɐ.stɾɐ castles
CVC.CV 1 βάρκα ˈvaɾ.ka ˈvɐɾ.kɐ boat
CCV.V 2 κλαίει πλοίο ˈkle.i ˈpli.o ˈklԑ.i ˈpli.o crying ship
CCV.VC 1 κρέας ˈkɾe.as ˈkɾԑ.ɐs meat
CCV.CV 17 βγαίνει ˈvγeni ˈvʝԑ.ni exits
βλέπει ˈvle.pi ˈvlԑ.pi sees
βροχή βγάζει vɾo.ˈxi ˈvɣa.zi vɾoˈçi ˈvɣɐ.zi rain
μπλούζα ˈblu.za ˈblu.zɐ removes
σβούρα svu.ˈɾa ˈzvu.ɾɐ blouse
σγουρά σκαλί sɣu.ˈɾa skaˈli zɣu.ˈɾɐ ˈskɐ.’li spinning top
σκούπα σπίτι ˈsku.pa ˈspi.ti ˈsku.pɐ ˈspi.ti curly step broom
στόμα σφυρί ˈsto.ma sfi.ˈɾi ˈsto.mɐ sfi.ˈɾi house mouth
σχήμα σχοινί ˈsçi.ma sxi.ˈni ˈsçi.mɐ sçi.ˈni hammer
φτερά fte.ˈɾa ftԑ.ˈɾa shape rope
χνούδι ˈxnu.ði ˈxnu.ði wings fluff
χτένα ˈxte.na ˈxtԑ.nɐ comb
CCV.CiV 1 φλούδια ‘flu.ðia ˈflu.ðʝɐ fruit peels
CCV.CVC 4 δρόμος ˈðɾo.mos ˈðɾo.mos road
θρόνος ˈθɾo.nos ˈθɾo.nos throne
σκύλος ˈsci.los ˈsci.los dog
χρυσός xɾi.ˈsos xɾi.ˈsos gold
CCV.CCV 1 μπροστά bɾo.ˈsta bɾo.ˈstɐ ahead
CCiV.CCV 1 φτιάχνει ˈftia.xni ˈftçɐ.xni makes
CCV.CCVC 1 φράχτης ˈfɾa.xtis ˈfɾɐ.xtis fence
CCCV.CV 1 σκληρό skliˈɾo skli.ˈɾo hard
CCCV.CCV 1 σπρώχνει ˈspɾo.xni ˈspɾo.xni pushes
Setatos (1974), the distribution of PAel vowels appears in this order: word-medial (236/
374: 63%) > word-final (124/374: 33%) > word-initial (14/374: 4%).
A comparison of singleton consonant distribution shows that PAel (Table 10) also
reflects targeted language distributions (cf. Setatos, 1974) for phones: s (el: 8%, PAel: 12%),
t (8%, 32/277: 7%), n (6%, 23/277: 8%), ɾ (5%, 33/277: 12%), p (4%, 14/277: 5%), k (2%, 12/
277: 4%), l (2%, 23/277: 8%), m (3%, 14/277: 5%), θ (1%, 6/277: 2%), γ (1%, 5/277: 2%), ð
(2%, 12/277: 4%), f (1%, 12/277: 4%), x (1%, 6/277: 2%), v (1%, 6/277: 2%), z (1%, 13/277:
5%), b (0.7%, 1/277: 0.3%), d (0.5%, 7/277: 2.5%), and g (0.2%, 7/277: 2.5%) and
10 E. BABATSOULI
Table 7. Greek extended list (PAel): trisyllabic words (36).

V.CV.CiV 1 αγγούρια a.ˈgu.ɾia ɐ.ˈguɾ.ʝɐ cucumbers
V.CVC.CiV 1 αδέρφια a.ˈðeɾ.fia ɐ.ˈðԑɾ.fçɐ siblings
V.CCV.CV 1 ακρίδα a.ˈkɾi.ða ɐ.ˈkɾi.ðɐ grasshopper
CV.CV.CV 5 ντομάτα do.ˈma.ta do.ˈmɐ.tɐ tomato
φεγγάρι fe.ˈga.ɾi fe.ˈga.ɾi moon
σύννεφο ˈsi.ne.fo ˈsi.nԑ.fo cloud
γατάκι γa.ˈta.ki γɐ.ˈtɐ.ci kitten
τζατζίκι ʣa.ˈʣi.ki ʣɐ.ˈʣi.ci tzatziki
CiV.CV.CV 2 διαβάζει ðʝa.ˈva.zi ðʝɐ.ˈvɐ.zi is reading
λιοντάρι lioˈda.ɾi ʎo.ˈdɐ.ɾi lion
CVC.CV.CV 1 δελφίνι ðel.ˈfi.ni ðԑl.ˈfi.ni dolphin
CV.CV.CVC 1 θόρυβος ˈθo.ˈɾi.vos ˈθo.ˈɾi.vos noise
CVi.CV.CVC 1 γάιδαρος ˈγai.ða.ɾos ˈγaj.ðɐ.ɾos donkey
CV.CV.CCV 2 τσουλήθρα ʦuˈliθɾa ʦu.ˈli.θɾɐ slide
φάντασμα ‘fa.da.sma ˈfɐ.dɐ.zmɐ ghost
CV.CCV.CV 2 γκοφρέτα go.ˈfɾeta go.ˈfɾԑ.tɐ wafer
κίτρινο ˈki.tɾi.no ˈci.tɾi.no yellow
CV.CCV.CiV 2 ζωγραφιά zo.ɣɾa.ˈfia zo.ɣɾɐ.ˈfçɐ rawing
παιχνίδια pe.ˈxni.ðia pԑ.ˈxni.ðʝɐ toys
CCV.CV.V 5 γραφείο ɣɾa.ˈfi.o ɣɾɐ.ˈfi.o office
θρανίο θɾaˈni.o θɾɐ.ˈni.o ˈ desk
κτίριο πτυχίο ˈkti.ɾi.o pti.ˈxi.o kti.ɾi.o pti.ˈçi.o building university degree
σχολείο sxo.ˈli.o sxo.ˈli.o school
CCV.CV.CV 8 πράσινο ˈpɾa.si.no ˈpɾɐ.si.no green
τραπέζι tɾa.ˈpe.zi tɾɐ.ˈpԑ.zi table
ντρέπεται ˈdɾe.pe.te ˈdɾԑ.pԑ.tԑ is shy
κρεβάτι kɾe.ˈva.ti kɾԑ.ˈvɐ.ti bed
φλιτζάνι fli.ˈʣa.ni fli.ˈʣɐ.ni cup
χταπόδι xta.ˈpo.ði xtɐ.ˈpo.ði octopus
χρώματα ˈxɾo.ma.ta ˈxɾo.mɐ.tɐ colours
γρασίδι ɣɾa.ˈsi.ði γɾɐ.ˈsi.ði grass
CCV.CV.CiV 2 σταφύλια sta.ˈfi.lia stɐ.ˈfi.ʎɐ grapes
φρυγανιά fɾi.ɣa.ˈnia fɾi.ɣɐ.ˈɲɐ toast
CCV.CVC.CCV 1 σφυρίχτρα sfi.ˈɾix.tɾa sfi.ˈɾix.tɾɐ whistle (n)
CCCV.CV.CVC 1 στρογγυλός stɾo.gi.ˈlos stɾo.ɟi.ˈlos round
Table 8. Greek extended list (PAel): multisyllabic (9 words).

CV.CV.CV.CV 2 ποδήλατο po.ˈði.la.to po.ˈði.lɐ.to bicycle
σοκολάτα so.ko.ˈla.ta so.ko.ˈlɐ.tɐ chocolate
CVC.CV.CV.CCV 1 θερμόμετρο θeɾ.ˈmo.me.tɾo θԑɾ.ˈmo.mԑ.tɾo thermometer
CCV.CV.CV.CV 2 γλειφιτζούρι ɣli.fi.ˈʣu.ɾi ɣli.fi.ˈʣu.ɾi lollipop
φθινόπωρο fθi.ˈno.po.ɾo fθi.ˈno.po.ɾo autumn
CVC.CV.VˈCVC 1 χαρταετός xaɾ.ta.e.ˈtos xɐɾ.tɐ.ԑ.ˈtos kite
V.V.CV.CCV.CV 1 αερόστατο a.e.ˈɾo.sta.to ɐ.ԑ.ˈɾo.stɐ.to hot air balloon
V.CCV.CV.CV.CV 1 αυτοκίνητο a.fto.ˈki.ni.to ɐ.fto.ˈci.ni.to car
CCV.CV.CV.CV.CV 1 σπανακόπιτα spa.na.ˈko.pi.ta spɐ.nɐ.ˈko.pi.tɐ spinach pie
allophones: c (el: 1.7%, PAel: 5/277: 1.8%), ʝ (0.8%, 5/277: 1.8%), ç (0.5%, 4/277: 1.4%), ʎ
(0.2%, 4/277: 1.4%), ɲ (0.2%, 1/277: 0.3%), and ɟ (0.1%, 1/277: 0.3%).
Differences lie in that PAel has more z, l, ɾ tokens and fewer p, t, k tokens. Based on
PAel computations (see Table 10), there are more singleton consonants: (a) at word-
medial/syllable-onset (WM σ-I) 59.5% (165/277) > word-initially (WI) 25.6% (71/277) >
word-finally (WF) 9.3% (26/277) > at word-medial/syllable-coda (WM σ-F) 5.4% (15/277),
and (b) in terms of MANNER: FRICATIVES (101/277: 36%) > STOPS (66/277: 23.8%) > LIQUIDS
(60/277: 21.6%) > NASALS (38/277: 13.7%) > AFFRICATES (9/277: 3.2%) > GLIDES (3/277: 1%).
The phonological mean length of utterance (PMLU; Ingram, 2002; Ingram & Ingram,
2001) of the PAel word list is calculated to be: PMLU = (2C + V)/150 = (2 ×
500 + 374) = 1374/150 = 9.16.
It is notable that computations for targeted Greek consonants (Setatos, 1974) include
cluster members, but there no computations on cluster distributions per se. The distribu-
tion of consonant clusters in PAel is discussed next. Consonant clusters in PAel (Tables 11
and 12) are classified according to C1(PLACE)/C2(MANNER) but differentiate C1(ANY)C2
(SONORANT) (CSON) and sCLUSTERS (sCs), as follows: CSON (53/99: 54%) > sSTOP (12/99:
12%) > LABFRIC (11/99: 11%) > sFRIC (7/99: 7%) > DORSTOP (6/99: 6%) > DORFRIC (3/99:
3%) > LABSTOP (3/99: 3%). CSON distribution (CSON divided by all CCs), shown separately
in Table 12 due to space limitations, is as follows: CRHOTIC (32/99: 32%) > CLATERAL (13/
99: 13%) > CNASAL (8/99, 8%).
Among the CCs permitted in Greek (see Scan Form (pp. 6–8), provided as supple-
mentary material), the following are not tested in the PAel word list (a) WI CCs: pn,
vð, mn, mɲ, tm, sθ, zb, zm, θn, θl, θç, kn, xl, gl, ɣn, which occur in formal or less
common terms, like πνοή [pnoi] ‘breath’, βδέλλa [vðԑlɐ] ‘leech’, κνήμη [knimi] ‘leg’,
γκλίτσα [gliʦɐ] ‘crook’; (b) WM syllable-onset: pt, kt(~xt), ps, bʝ(~ɱbʝ), bn(~ɱbn), tn,
tm, dm(~ndm), kn, km, xn, pl, pɾ, bl(~ɱbl), bɾ(~ɱbɾ), gɾ(~ŋgɾ), ft(~pθ), ft(~fθ), fk, sp,
sc, xt(~xθ), fθ, sf, sθ, sç, sx, zv, zɣ, θç, xθ(~xt), ɣð θn, ɣn, fl, ðɾ, xl, ɣl, xɾ, mɲ. Also,
among the WM across-syllable clusters permitted in Greek (see Scan Form (pp. 6–8),
provided as supplementary material), the following are tested in the PAel word list: f.x,
l.f, ɾ.fç, ɾ.t, ɾ.m, ɾ.k, x.tɾ, and ɾ.ɣ. Furthermore, PAel tests the following three-member
clusters (CCCs): WI: #ftç (1 token), #spɾ (1), #stɾ (2), #skl (1), and WM: .ftç. (1), spɾ.
(1), stɾ (2). Among the few non-tested (full list, Scan Form (pp. 6–8), provided as
supplementary material), are CCCs in uncommon words, σπλήνα [splinɐ] ‘spleen’,
σκνίπα [sknipɐ] ‘gnat’, and σκράπας [‘skɾɐpɐs] ‘ignorant’ (loan).
A comparison of word shapes in targeted Greek (el) with those in PAel shows that single-
syllable (1-σ) and five-syllable (5-σ) words are less common in Greek phonotactics, while
multisyllabic (2,3,4,5-σ) words are in decreasing frequency from shorter to longer length: el
2-σ 32.07%, 3-σ 19.11%, 4-σ 7.56%, 5-σ 1.98% (Table 2) versus PAel 2-σ 54.6% (82/150), 3-σ
33.3% (59/150), 4-σ 6.6% (10/150), 5-σ: 2.6% (4/150) (Table 13), though numbers for related
categories are not directly comparable. Notably, monosyllabic distribution in Greek is higher
than in the list (39.16% vs. 2.6% (4/150)), because it is predominantly function words that Setatos
(1974) includes in his counts; incorporating the PAel narrative would balance this divergence but
it is beyond the scope here. PAel comprises the most frequent Greek word shapes (cf. Tables 2
(results in bold below) and 13), involving further complexity to enhance the test’s gauging
potential. This holds across categories as for, for example, 2-σ: CV.CV→CCV.CV→CCVC.
CVC & CCVC.CCV, V.CV→V.CVC/V.CCV→V.CCiV→ V.CCCVC; 3-σ: CV.CV.CV→CV.
CCV.CV→CCV.CV.CV→CCV.CVC. CCV, V.CV.CV→V.CV.CiV→ V.CCV.CV→V.CVC.
CiV, and 4-σ: CV.CV.CV.CV→CVCˈCV.CV.CCV, V.CV.CV.CVC→VC.CV.CV.’CCV.
Different word lengths are utilised in PAel to permit comparisons across diverse length, stress,
and phonotactic contexts. For instance, at least one CV token is elicited in word-initial/medial/
final, stressed and unstressed positions.
12 E. BABATSOULI
Table 9. Distribution of PAel vowels (Vs).

FRONT CENTRE BACK
Vs i ԑ ɐ o u Sum
WI 1 4 8 1 0 14
WM 56 33 76 55 16 236
WF 46 2 46 28 2 124
Sum 103 39 130 84 18 374
Table 10. Distribution of PAel singleton consonants.

STOPS FRIC AFFR NAS LIQ GLI
Cs p b t d k c g ɟ f v θ ð s z x ç γ ʝ ts dz m n ɲ l ʎ ɾ j w sum
WI 6 1 2 2 5 2 3 0 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 2 2 3 3 2 4 3 0 2 1 4 0 0 71
WM σ-I 8 0 17 5 7 3 4 1 7 3 2 9 6 8 2 2 3 2 1 3 10 19 1 19 3 20 0 0 165
WM σ-F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 3 0 15
WF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 26
Sum 14 1 19 7 12 5 7 1 12 6 6 12 32 13 6 4 5 5 4 5 14 23 1 23 4 33 3 0 277
To the author’s knowledge, no distributional analysis exists of Greek stress patterns. Table 13
documents a preference for trochee, typical of Greek, and an overall balance across stress-
pattern groups, very likely characteristic of targeted speech: more Su (types 20/tokens 57) than
uS (12/25) in disyllables, more uSu (13/35) than Suu (8/11) than uuS (4/4) in trisyllables, more
uSuu (5/5) than uuSu (3/3) than uuuS (2/2) in four-syllable words, and a predominant uuSuu
(4/4) for five-syllable words. Enclitic stress is represented only in the narrative. Comparing next
the distribution of syllables per word position between the targeted language (Table 2) and PAel
(Table 14), we see similar patterns across syllable types, for example, predominant VC word-
initially/finally than word-medially, more CV word-finally than word-medially/initially, more
CCV word-initially than word-medially than word-finally, CCV mostly word-finally, more
CVC word-finally than initially than medially, and so on. Thus, PAel syllable distributions
largely epitomise targeted Greek. Infrequent syllable types under-represented in Table 2 are also
infrequent in PAel; the earlier comment on monosyllables holds here also.
Comparing with PAL (1995)

Forty-six words in PAel inadvertently coincide with words in PAL; also, PAL and PAel test 34
common word shapes. Six out of seven PAL word shapes are indirectly represented in PAel
as part of a more complex shape, for example, CV.CV.CV.CV (ποδήλατο [po.ði.lɐ.to]
‘bicycle’) but not V.CV.CV.CV (αγελάδα [ɐ.ʝԑ.lɐ.ðɐ] ‘cow’). Only two PAL word shapes are
omitted in PAel: V.CVC.CVC and V.CCV.CCV.CV.V, though similar PAel structures are V.
CCCV, V.CV.CiV, V.CCV.CV, VC.CV.CV.V, and V.CV.CV.CVC. However, PAel intro-
duces 30 new word shapes to include monosyllables (e.g. μπλέ [blԑ] ‘blue’) and added
syllable/word-shape complexity (e.g. άσπρος [ˈɐ.spɾos] ‘white’, φτιάχνει / ˈftia.xni / [ˈftçɐ.
xni] ‘makes’, στρουθοκάμηλος [stɾu.θo.ˈkɐ.mi.los] ‘ostrich’). Nineteen word-initial and 14
word-medial CC types are commonly targeted in both tests, as well as #stɾ, #ftç and word-
medial .ftç. PAel introduces word-initial: #pt, #pl, #pɾ, #bɾ, #bl, #dɾ, #ft, #fθ, #fɾ, #fç, #vl, #vɣ,
#vʝ, #st, #sç, #zv, #ðʝ, #mɲ, #xn, #xɾ, #gɾ, #ɣð, and #kt; word-medial onsets: .pn, .fɾ, .vɾ, .stɾ, .
spɾ, .st,. .stɾ, .sk, .θl, ðʝ, .ks, .kɾ, .γɾ; across-syllables: f.x, f.ç, v.ð, ɾ.ʝ, ɾ.fç; and word-initial CCCs:
#spɾ, #skl and word-medial onsets: .spɾ, .stɾ. Finally, new words in the PAel narrative both
Table 11. Distribution of PAel two-member clusters: ALL.
PLAMAN LABSTOP LABFRIC CORFRIC DORSTOP DORFRIC CSON sSTOP sFRIC
CCs pt ft ps pç fθ fç vð vʝ vγ ðʝ kt xt ks γð … sp st sk sc sf zv sx sç zγ Sum
WI 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 32 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 60
WM 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 3 0 3 1 0 21 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 39
Sum 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 4 1 5 2 1 53 2 6 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 99
CLINICAL LINGUISTICS & PHONETICS
13
14 E. BABATSOULI
Table 12. Distribution of PAel two-member clusters: CSON.

CSON CNASAL CLATERAL CRHOTIC
CCs pn zm mn mɲ xn pl bl fl vl θl kl γl pɾ bɾ fɾ vɾ tɾ dɾ θɾ ðɾ kɾ gɾ xɾ γɾ Sum
WI 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 32
WM 1 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 21
Sum 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 3 3 6 2 3 1 3 1 2 4 53
Table 13. Distribution of PAel syllable types and stress patterns.

% (tokens/total) Word shapes (# types/tokens)
1-σ (2/4)
2.7% (4/150) ˈCVC(3), ˈCCV
2-σ (34/82)
55% (82/150) uS (12/24) Su (22/58)
V.ˈCCV(2), V.ˈCCiV, ˈV.CVC, ˈV.CCV, ˈV.CCCVC, CV.CVC(3),
CV.ˈCV(6), CVi.ˈCV, ˈCV.CCV(5), ˈCVC.CV(2), ˈCV.CCVC, ˈCiV.CV,
CV.ˈCCV(2), CV.ˈCCVC, ˈCiV.CVC, ˈCV.CCCV, ˈCV.CV(8), ˈCVC.CV(2),
CCV.ˈV, CCV.ˈCV(6), ˈCCV.CV(16), ˈ CCVC.CV, ˈCV.V, CCV.V(2),
CCV.ˈCiV, CCV.ˈCCV, ˈCCV.CVC(4), ˈCCV.VC, CCV.ˈCCV, CCV.CCCV,
CCV.ˈCVC, CCCVˈCV ˈCCVC.CVC, ˈCCCV.CCV(2)
3-σ (26/50)
33% (50/150) uSu (14/35) Suu (8/11) uuS (4/4)
V.ˈCV.CiV, V.ˈCCV.CV, ˈCV.CV.CV(2), CV.CV.ˈCCVC,
V.ˈCVC.CiV, CV.ˈCV.CV(11), ˈCV.CV.CVC, ˈCiV.CV.CVC, CV.CCV.ˈCiV,
CV.ˈCVi.CV, CVC.CVˈCV(2), ˈCV.CCV.CV, ˈCV.CV.CCV, CVC.CV.ˈCV,
CV.ˈCV.V, CVˈCV.CCV, ˈCV.CCV.CVC, ˈCCV.CV.V, CCV.CV.ˈCiV
CV.ˈCCV.V, CV.ˈCCV.CV(2), ˈCCV.CV.CV(3)
CCV.ˈCV.V(4), CCV.ˈCV.CV(7),
CV.ˈCCV.CCV, CCV.ˈCVC.CCV
4-σ (10/10)
6.7% uSuu (5/5) uuSu (3/3) uuuS (2/2)
(10/150) V.CV.CV.CVC, CVˈCV.CV.CV, VC.CV.’CV.V, VC.CV.CV.’CCV,
CVˈCV.CCV.V, V.CV.ˈCV.CV, CVC.CV.V.ˈCVC
CVCˈCV.CV.CCV, CCV.CVˈCV.CV
CCVˈCV.CV.CV
5-σ (3/4)
2.7% uuSuu (3/4)
(4/150) CCV.CV.’CV.CV.CVC (1), V.CCV.’CV.CV.CV (2), CCV.CV.’CV.CV.CV2 (1)
Table 14. The distribution of PAel syllables per word position.

σ type 1-σ words 2,3,4,5-σ words
#σ .σ. σ# Sum
V - 3.4% (13) 0.5% (2) 3.9% (15) 7.9% (30)
VC - 0.5% (2) - 0.3% (1) 0.8% (3)
CV - 15% (58) 17% (66) 21% (80) 54% (204)
CiV - 1.0% (4) - 2.4% (9) 3.4% (13)
CVi - 0.5% (2) 0.3% (1) - 0.8% (3)
CiVC - - - 0.3% (1) 0.3% (1)
CVC 0.8% (3) 2.1% (8) 0.5% (2) 4.5% (17) 7.9% (30)
CCV 0.3% (1) 14% (53) 3.1% (12) 4.5 (17) 22% (83)
CCiV - 0.5% (2) - 0.3% (1) 0.8% (3)
CCVC - 0.3% (1) - 0.5% (2) 0.8% (3)
CCCV - 1.0% (4) - 0.5% (2) 1.6% (6)
CCCVC - - - 0.5% (2) 0.5% (2)
Sum 1.0% (4) 39% (147) 22% (83) 39% (147) 381
Table 15. The child’s singleton consonant adult-like match (%).

STOPS FRIC AFFR NAS LIQ GLI
p b t d k c g ɟ f v θ ð s z x ç γ ʝ ts dz m n ɲ l ʎ ɾ j
100 100 93 100 96 100 29 0 100 100 91 89 98 100 21 55 94 83 0 0 100 97 100 60 0 14 0
match (e.g. πόρτα [ˈpoɾ.tɐ] ‘door’) and expand PAL (e.g. αμύγδαλα [ɐ.ˈmiγ.ðɐ.lɐ] ‘almonds’),
but again detailed analysis of the narrative is beyond the scope here.
PAel has the potential to stand for PAL, also improving it to address limitations in
terms of: (a) monosyllabic content words with singleton/clusters (Tables 4 and 6), (b)
more cluster types/contexts and more word shapes/lengths, (c) more content words that
extend prosodic contexts for singletons/clusters, (d) representing the phonotactic distri-
butions of targeted Greek, (e) a complementary narrative to contextualise words providing
alternative IPA renditions (formal/informal/dialectal) that include variable stress types,
and adding over 200 new words, of which about half are verbs, as well as, several non-
imageable ones (i.e. function words) whose phonotactics are not representable in word
lists, and (e) colour images for each test word. Furthermore, narrative illustration is part of
the procedures.
The pilot test

This section describes the elicitation, transcription, and phonological analysis methods
used in pilot-testing PAel.
Elicitation method
The girl recruited for the pilot test, a monolingual Greek speaker aged 4;8, is the only child
of middle-class parents living near Athens (Greece) and has no history of speech-language
impairment, communication difficulties, or any known sensory, cognitive, anatomical
conditions. On a social visit, the investigator/author (a phonetically trained native-Greek
speaker) noticed inconsistency in the child’s speech given her age and asked permission to
test the child’s phonological skill. Following parental consent, the investigator sat with the
child in a quiet, informal setting and encouraged the child to teach Greek to a doll.
Immediately taking to operating the pc-run slide show by pushing a button, the child
subsequently named the pictures (printed picture cards and a puppet may also be used). In
a single session, both the SCREENER and EXTENDED lists were administered in this order
lasting 8 and 32 min, respectively, with a few minutes break between. An OLYMPUS VN-
712PC was used for audio-recording the session. Running speech samples were also
collected as part of a familiarisation session prior to administering the test, and afterwards
during a free play session, but are not included in the analysis here.
Methods for phonetic and phonological analysis

The data retrieved from the WMA audios were transcribed in IPA by the investigator.
Using language analysis software for numerical computations is necessary for large data-
sets (e.g. PHON: Rose & MacWhinney, 2014; CLAN: MacWhinney, 2000) but not so in this
study. For transcription consensus purposes, two native-Greek phoneticians were
16 E. BABATSOULI
consulted and a couple of disagreements (on vocalic epenthesis; [ʝ] vs. [j]) between the
three were resolved by verifying correct renditions in Praat (Boersma & Weenink, 2018).
Based on the results, a nonlinear phonological analysis scan (Bernhardt & Stemberger,
2000; see discussion at phonodevelopment.sites.olt.ubc.ca) modified for Greek (Scan
Form, provided as supplementary material) was completed. The Greek scan (form)
summarises Greek phonotactics in terms of word structure (p.3), segments and features
(pp. 4, 9), and consonantal clusters/sequences (p.6–8). It is a comprehensive index and
easy to fill in (or just highlight) client evidence-based information. The scan includes
a preview section for establishing strengths/weaknesses (p.2) and a conclusive summary
page (p.11). A Greek translation of the scan is also freely available: at http://phonode-
velopment.sites.olt.ubc.ca.
Results and discussion

The child spontaneously produced the words except εργαλεία /ԑɾγɐliɐ/ ‘tools’, βιβλίο
/vivlio/ ‘book’, γατάκι /ɣɐtɐci/ ‘kitten’, φιόγκος /fçogos/ ‘bow’, τζατζίκι /ʣɐʣici/ ‘tzatziki’,
πλοίο /plio/ ‘ship’, φλυτζάνι /fliʣɐni/ ‘cup’, στρουθοκάμηλος /stɾuθokɐmilos/ ‘ostrich’, and
γλειφιτζούρι /ɣlifiʣuɾi/ ‘lollipop’. Instead, she produced diminutive γατούλα /ɣɐtulɐ/ ‘cat’
for γατάκι /ɣɐtɐci/, καράβι /kɐɾɐvi/ ‘large boat’ for πλοίο /plio/, and κορδέλα /koɾðԑlɐ/
‘ribbon’ for φιόγκος /fçogos/. Having not recognised the picture of an opened book, she
attempted βιβλίο /vivlio/ when an actual book was shown to her. Also, she produced the
plural of γλειφιτζούρι /ɣlifiʣuɾi/ seeing two lollipops in the picture. She had difficulty with
εργαλεία /ԑɾγɐliɐ/, στρουθοκάμηλος /stɾuθokɐmilos/, and φιόγκος /fçogos/ being less
familiar with the terms. These were subsequently attempted, prompted by sentence and
phonetic cues. The original pictures for book/lollipop were replaced by unambiguous
versions.
The child’s phonology in comparison to published norms or studies

There is evidence of strength and weakness in the child's phonology investigated next in
terms of whole-word match, PMLU, phonological word proximity (PWP; e.g. Ingram,
2002), singleton match, cluster proximity, common/uncommon phonological patterns,
and word-shape match. An analysis of the SCREENER data reflects patterns also found in the
EXTENDED list productions, so data are discussed collectively. Forty-four words, represent-
ing all word lengths, were produced target-like resulting in a low whole-word match of
29% (44/150): three 1-σ (75%), twenty-five 2-σ (30%), twelve 3-σ (25%), two 4-σ (20%),
and two 5-σ (50%) words. The child’s mismatches were mostly in 2–4σ words. There were
no stress errors. Her produced PMLU was 7.72 and the mean PWP (produced PMLU/
targeted PMLU; Ingram, 2002) 0.84; no normative data exist for comparison. Vowel errors
occurred only in diphthong monophthongisation of /ai/ [a], and a single instance of:
στρογγυλός /stɾoɟilos/ [tɐʝilos] ‘round’ (see Scan Form (p. 10), provided as supplementary
material); vowels are typically acquired by respective monolinguals by 4;0 (see Mennen &
Okalidou, 2007), though few mismatches are also expected. Also, cross-syllable hiatus was
intercepted by weak syllable deletion: αερόστατο /ɐ.ԑˈ.ɾo.sta.to/ [ɐ.ˈlo.sta.to] ‘hot-air
balloon’.
Remaining mismatches involved consonants that, in turn, affected word-shape matches

(see Scan Form (pp. 2–4), provided as supplementary material). The proportion of
consonant correct (PCC: Shriberg, Austin, Lewis, McSweeney, & Wilson, 1997) was 72%
(see Scan Form (p. 1), provided as supplementary material), below the 75% acquisition
criterion suggested by Cazden (1968), Olswang and Bain (1985), PAL (1995), and so on.
Table 15 presents the mean of single consonant matches. Among the non-acquired
consonants: l (60%), ɾ (14%), x (21%), ç (55%), and g (29%), ʦ, ʣ, ʎ, and ɟ were not
produced at all (also see Scan Form (p. 5), provided as supplementary material). The rest
were below expectations as based on PAL (1995) and other studies (see Mennen &
Okalidou, 2007): l (3;6–4;0), x (3;0–3;6), ç (3;0–3;6), g (2;6–3;0), except ɾ (5;6–6;0).
Interestingly, a Greek–English bilingual girl acquired ɾ by age 4;0 (Babatsouli & Gut,
2012). Respective normative age ranges of acquisition of this child’s non-produced sounds
are 4;6–5;0 (ʦ, ʣ), 4;0–4;6 (ʎ), and 2;6–3;0 (ɟ); [ʦ] is in the phonetic inventory by 3;7 and
[ʣ], [ʎ] by 4;1 (see Mennen & Okalidou, 2007). A Greek–English bilingual showed 68%
target-like [ʦ] at age 2;7 (Babatsouli, forthcoming). Palatals are consistently produced by
three 2- to 3-year-old children (Athanasopoulou, 2018). Mixing substitutions of targeted
sounds is another sign of a developing phonology, as in this child that produced /ɾ/→[ʝ],
when /ɾ/→[l] and /ʎ/→[ʝ] (e.g. γέρος/ʝԑɾos/→[ɟԑʝos] ‘old man’).
Her mismatches (Table 16) are accounted by universal developmental processes (e.g.
Beers, 1995; Grunwell, 1981; PAL, 1995) leading to typical developmental mismatches
(Bernhardt & Stemberger, 1998; Mennen & Okalidou, 2007; PAL, 1995). Some inter-
mittent errors in acquired consonants also involved prototypical processes (e.g. stop-
ping, voicing). Table 16 details these processes and errors with examples. The presence
of the following processes attests to a possible phonological delay: prevocalic voicing
and stopping (disappearing by 2;6), fronting of velars (by 3;0), and assimilation (by
3;6) (Beers, 1995; PAL, 1995). Her featural weaknesses on Manner: [LIQUID],
[AFFRICATE], and Place: [DORSAL] in the acquisition of singletons (see Scan Form (p.
Table 16. The child’s singleton consonant mismatches.

Singleton consonant mismatches
Deaffrication /ʦ/→[s z] /ʦɐi/→[sɐi] ‘tea’, /ʦuliθɾɐ/→[zuviθɐ] ‘slide’
/ʣ/→[s z] /ʣɐci/→[zɐci] ‘fireplace’
/ʣɐʣici/→[sɐzici] ‘tzatziki’
Delateralisation /ʎ/→[ʝ] /ʝaʎa/→[ʝɐʝɐ] ‘glasses’
/ʎodɐɾi/→[ʝodɐli] ‘lion’
Lateralisation /ɾ/→[l] /ɾoz/→[loz] ‘pink’, /nԑɾo/→[nԑlo] ‘water’
Stopping /x/→[k] /vɐtɾɐxos/→[vɐtɐkos] ‘frog’
/ç/→[c] /çԑɾi/→[cԑɾi] ‘hand’
/ʝ/→[ɟ] /ʝԑɾos/→[ɟԑʝos] ‘old man’
Frication /g/→[γ] /gofɾԑtɐ/→[γofԑtɐ] ‘wafer’
/ɟ/→[ʝ] /stɾoɟilos/→[tɐʝilos] ‘round’
Voicing/devoicing /t/→[d] /tiɾi/→[diʝi] ‘cheese’
/ʦ/→[z] /ʦuliθɾɐ/→[zuviθɐ] ‘slide’
/g/→[k] /ɐguɾʝɐ/→[ɐkuʝɐ] ‘cucumbers’
Deletion /ʎ l ɾ/→∅ /iʎos/→[i:∅os] ‘sun’
/sxolio/→[sko∅io] ‘school’
/efxɐɾisto/→[efxɐ∅isto] ‘thanks’
Assimilation [LATERAL] /fԑgɐɾi/→[fԑlɐli] ‘moon’
[FRICATIVE] /ʝԑɾos/→[ʝԑʝos] ‘old man’
/ԑɾγɐliɐ/→[ԑʝɐʝiɐ] ‘tools’
[NASAL] /limni/→[nimni] ‘lake’, /nԑɾo/→[nԑno] ‘water’, /nԑɾɐiðɐ/→[nԑnɐðɐ] ‘fairy’
18 E. BABATSOULI
Table 17. The patterns of the child’s consonant cluster mismatches.

Consonant Cluster Mismatches
Reduction CLIQUID CLATERAL→ C /plio/→[pio] ‘ship’
/vivlio/→[vivio] ‘book’
CRHOTIC→ C /bɾɐʦo/→[bɐso] ‘arm’
/θɾonos/→[fonos] ‘throne’
/ɐkɾiðɐ/→[ɐciðɐ] ‘grasshopper’
/kɾԑɐs/→[tԑɐs] ‘meat’
FRICATNASAL /xn/→[n] /xnuði/→[nuði] ‘fluff’, /spɾoxni/→[sponi] ‘pushes’
DORSAL [FRICATIVE] sequences CC→ C /fçogos/→[foγos] ‘bow’
/γðԑɾni/→[ʝԑni] ‘scratches’
sC→ s, C /sçimɐ/→[simɐ] ‘shape’
/zγuɾɐ/→[γulɐ] ‘curly’
DORSALSTOP CC→C /ktiɾio/→[tilio] ‘building’
/xtԑnɐ/→[tԑnɐ] ‘comb’
/xtɐpoði/→[kɐpoði] ‘octopus’
sSTOPLIQ sSTOPLATERAL→ sSTOP /skliɾo/→[scilo] ‘hard’
sSTOPRHOT→ sSTOP, STOP /ɐspɾos/→[ɐspos] ‘white’
/stɾoɟilos/→[tɐʝilos] ‘round’
FRICSTOPFRIC /ftç/→[fç] /ftçɐxni/→[fçɐni] ‘s/he makes’
Deletion DORSLIQUID /xɾ/→∅ /xɾisos/→[∅isos] ‘gold’
Vowel epenthesis CLIQUID /pɾ/→[pVl] /pɾoi/→[poloi] ‘morning’
/kl/→[kVl] /kukla/→[kukula] ‘doll’
9), provided as supplementary material) are also the main sources of cluster
mismatches.
Table 17 shows the rules in the child’s consonant cluster mismatches which involve
mainly reduction but also deletion and vowel epenthesis. For a recent review of patterns in
typical and atypical development of clusters crosslinguistically, see Babatsouli and
Sotiropoulos (2018). The targeted CCs involving [LIQUID] reduced to [-LIQUID], and those
involving [DORSAL] were generally reduced to either member; an exception was γλώσσα
/ɣlosa/→[losa] ‘tongue’. When one member was [FRICATIVE], then the child’s reduction
followed Pater and Barlow’s (2003) axiom, that is, if a segment of a given sonority is
retained instead of the fricative, then all segments of lesser sonority are retained rather
than the fricative. Thus, because /xn/→[n], then /xt/→[t, k]; an exception was: /pԑxniðʝɐ/
[pԑciðʝɐ] ‘toys’. Her targeted CCC sSTOPLIQ, also reduced to [-LIQUID], that is, to an sSTOP
or to a STOP. Her targeted CCC FRICSTOPFRIC, /ftç/ reduced to [fç], deleting the STOP. When
CC /fç/was targeted, it was either kept or reduced to [f]. Besides reduction, there was one
occurrence of deletion, /xɾ/→ [∅], and two occurrences of vowel epenthesis, /pɾ/→ [pVl]
and /kl/→ [kVl], all involving [LIQUID].
The child’s proportions of adult-like cluster productions are WI CCs 30% (23/60), WM CCs
46% (18/39), and CCCs 0% (0/9). Most mismatches were in CSON, with their adult-like
proportions being WI 6% (2/32) and WM 19% (4/21). Her adult-like productions containing
CSON were μπλέ [blԑ], κούκλα [kuklɐ], μοιάζουν [mɲɐzun], φάντασμα [fɐdɐzmɐ], καπνός
[kɐpnos], and λίμνη [limni]. Notably, CNASAL mismatches occurred when C was [DORSAL].
Excluding CSON, adult-like CCs were WI 75% (21/28) and WM 78% (14/18). A measure for
cluster proximity (MCP, Babatsouli & Sotiropoulos, 2018), proposed recently, distinguishes
between different CC productions giving credit to various non-adult-like productions; so, one
adult-like cluster member scores 25%, two adult-like members with vowel epenthesis score
62.5%, and CC production with one member substituted: 87.5%. The child’s MCP is 56% (WI)
and 64% (WM). Compared to norms, she shows delay in acquiring STOPSON and [xn] (see
Mennen & Okalidou, 2007) and in FRICLAT compared to a Greek–English bilingual girl’s
acquisition by age 4;0 (Babatsouli, 2018).
As a result of weaknesses on the featural and prosodic level, the child’s word shapes were
also affected (see Scan Form (pp. 3–4), provided as supplementary material); an instance of
an added-syllable is λιοντάρι /ʎo.ˈda.ɾi/ [li.o.ˈdɐ.li]. Instances of weak syllable deletion were
φάντασμα /ˈfada.zma/ [ˈfɐ.dɐs∅] ‘ghost’, ευχαριστώ /ef.xa.ɾi.ˈsto/ [∅.xɐ.∅i.ˈsto] ‘thanks’,
αερόστατο /a.e.ˈɾo.sta.to/ [ɐ.∅.ˈlo.sta.to], a process typically disappearing in Greek by 3;6
(PAL, 1995). Conversely, word complexity was also evidenced to affect featural and prosodic
acquisition, as follows in (a) non-production of word-medial/syllable-coda (WM σ-F):
δελφίνι /ðelfini/ [dԑ∅fini] ‘dolphin’, (b) WF coda deletion: ελέφαντας /elefadas/ [ԑlԑfɐdɐ∅]
‘elephant’, (c) regression when markedness constraints (featural/prosodic) combine: χρυσός
/xɾisos/ [∅isos] (CC deletion), /stɾoɟilos/ [tɐʝilos] ‘round’ ([st] acquired elsewhere), σφυρί
/sfiɾi/ [sfi∅i] ‘hammer’ ([sf] production deletes singleton), δελφίνι /ðelfini/ [dԑfini] ‘dolphin’,
τσουλήθρα /ʦuliθɾa/ [zuviθɐ] ‘slide’ ([ð], [l] substituted here though typically acquired as
singletons).
Consequently, though the child’s phonology showed evidence of acquisition and ongoing
development in some respects, the nonlinear phonological analysis above demonstrated that
significant aspects of her speech (e.g. a low whole-word match, not meeting expected
developmental norms, regression in complex words, etc.) suggest phonological delay. This
is further supported by evidence in the child’s spontaneous speech samples (not analysed),
indicating regression with increased utterance length and complexity.
Limitations and future research

The study contributes to the crosslinguistic pool of phonological assessment proce-
dures by adding a battery for the Greek language. The data (and its analysis) of the
single participant also add to the pool of cross-linguistic data. Future work should
address limitations of this pilot investigation. First, there is a need for further
support of the efficacy of the word list for comprehensive phonological assessment
by administering it to more children. Second, a large cross-sectional study on
typically developing children would permit test standardisation and the establish-
ment of detailed quantitative norms lacking in the literature; results in PAL (1995)
are mostly qualitative reporting acquisition by relating the proportion of children
within an age group, rather than level of acquisition per se. Such norms would
establish reliable guidelines for assessing delay/disorder. Future development of the
tool should also include (a) testing the efficacy of the narrative to permit compar-
isons between spontaneous and word-elicited data; (b) child multi-/bilingual speakers
of Greek; the proposed tool has the potential to evaluate second-language speakers of
Greek, too; and (c) studies focusing on protracted phonological development and
child speech disorder; these would highlight any modifications needed for
a dependable phonological assessment battery by further evaluating the validity and
efficacy of the proposed test.
20 E. BABATSOULI
Conclusions
The study has proposed a tool for the phonological assessment of developmental child
Greek (PAel) in typical and clinical contexts, comprising of a word list and narrative.
Being child appropriate, the test aimed to represent Greek phonotactics in terms of
features, segments, sequences, syllables, word shapes, and stress patterns in as many/
variable contexts as possible, advancing the methodology of an existing but largely
inaccessible battery. The proposed tool has also innovatively addressed adherence to
the statistical properties of the language and dialectal variation in a Greek battery. Due
to space limitations, only the word list was administered and analysed here to
determine its efficacy and gauging potential. Analysis of a monolingual Greek girl’s
elicited data at age 4;8 demonstrates that this clinical test has the potential to
comprehensively assess strengths and weaknesses during phonological development,
also diagnosing phonological protraction. More children’s data elicited using PAel will
address limitations of this study by further elucidating the tool’s strengths and weak-
nesses. Data analysis was performed within the constraint-based nonlinear theoretical
framework illuminating the interplay of underlying hierarchical representations. Future
goals comprise studies on more children to include multilingual and delayed/disor-
dered populations, test standardisation, and establishment of norms on a quantitative
basis to be used as dependable evaluation assessment and intervention of phonological
delay/disorder.
Author’s note
The assessment tools are available free of charge through the website phonodevelopment.sites.olt.
ubc.ca (or by contacting the author) along with tutorials on nonlinear phonological analysis and
examples of therapy activities.
Acknowledgments
The author is indebted to Barbara May Bernhardt of the University of British Columbia for
encouraging this work, for suggestions, comments, and review of the manuscript, and to
Elizabeth MacLeod of Vancouver, British Columbia, for reviewing the word list.
Disclosure Statement
The author reports no conflict of interest.
ORCID
Elena Babatsouli http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3010-986X
References
Antoniou, M., Best, C. T., Tyler, M. D., & Kroos, C. (2010). Language context elicits nativelike stop
voicing in early bilinguals’ productions in both L1 and L2. Journal of Phonetics, 38, 640–653.
doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2010.09.005
Arvaniti, A. (2007). Greek Phonetics: The state of the art. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 8, 97–208.
doi:10.1075/jgl.8.08arv
Athanasopoulou, A. (2018, June 18–20). The production of palatal consonant clusters at 2–3 years in
Greek. Paper presented at the International Child Phonology Conference 2018, Chania, Greece.
Babatsouli, E. (2017). Bilingual development of theta in a child. Poznan Studies in Contemporary
Linguistics, 53(2), 157–195. doi:10.1515/psicl-2017-0007
Babatsouli, E. (2018). Acquired singleton fricatives and lateral in cluster development: A bilingual
case. In E. Babatsouli & D. Ingram (Eds.), Phonology in protolanguage and interlanguage (pp.
109–138). Sheffield, UK: Equinox Publishing.
Babatsouli, E. (forthcoming). Portrait of a developing phonology in child L2 English and L1 Greek.
In E. Babatsouli & M. J. Ball (Eds.), An anthology of bilingual child phonology. Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Babatsouli, E., & Gut, U. (2012). Transfer in a bilingual child’s phonological development. Oral
presentation at the 31st Annual Second Language Research Forum (SLRF 2012), Pittsburgh, PA,
USA.
Babatsouli, E., & Nicoladis, E. (2019). The acquisition of English possessives by a bilingual child: Do
input and usage frequency matter? Journal of Child Language, 46(1), 170–183. Published online
2018. doi:10.1017/S0305000918000429
Babatsouli, E., & Sotiropoulos, D. (2018). A measure for cluster proximity (MCP) in child speech.
Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 32(12), 1071–1089. doi:10.1080/02699206.2018.1510982
Beers, M. (1995). The phonology of normally developing and language impaired children. IFOTT
dissertation series, No 20. University of Amsterdam.
Bernhardt, B., & Stemberger, J. (1998). Handbook of phonological development: From a nonlinear
constraints-based perspective. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bernhardt, B. M., & Stemberger, J. P. (2017). Investigating typical and protracted phonological
development across languages. In E. Babatsouli, D. Ingram, & N. Müller (Eds.), Crosslinguistic
encounters in language acquisition: Typical and atypical development (pp. 71–108). Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Bernhardt, B. M., Stemberger, J. P., Bérubé, D., Ciocca, V., Freitas, M. J., Ignatova, D., …
Ramalho, A. M. (forthcoming). Identification of protracted phonological development across
languages - The whole word match and basic mismatch measures. In E. Babatsouli & M. J. Ball
(Eds.), An anthology of bilingual child phonology. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Bernhardt, B. M., & Stemberger, J. P. (2000). Workbook in nonlinear phonology for clinical applica-
tion. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Copyright reverted, 2013 to phonodevelopment.sites.olt.ubc.ca.
Bérubé, D., Bernhardt, B. M., & Stemberger, J. P. (2015). A test of French phonology: Construction
and use. Canadian Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 39(1), 62–101.
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2018). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program].
Version 6.0.43, Retrieved September 8, 2018, from http://www.praat.org/
Botinis, A. (2011). The phonetics of Greek (2nd ed.). Athens, Greece: ISEL editions. (in Greek).
Cazden, C. (1968). The acquisition of noun and verb inflections. Child Development, 39, 433–444.
doi:10.2307/1126956
Chen, R. K., Bernhardt, B. M., & Stemberger, J. P. (2016). Phonological assessment and analysis
tools for Tagalog: Preliminary development. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 30(8), 599–627.
doi:10.3109/02699206.2016.1157208
Chomsky, N, & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of english. New York: Harper & Row.
Gazani, E. (2009). Phonetic and ohonological features in children’s language (Bachelor’s Thesis).
University of Thessaloniki.
Geronikou, E., ., & Rees, R. (2015). Psycholinguistic profiling reveals underlying impairments for
Greek children with speech disorders. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 32(1), 95–110.
doi:10.1177/0265659015583915
Grunwell, P. (1981). The development of phonology. First Language, 3, 161–191. doi:10.1177/
014272378100200601
Holton, D., Mackridge, P., & Philippaki-Warburton, I. (2002). Greek: A comprehensive grammar of
the modern language (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge.
22 E. BABATSOULI
Ingram, D. (1989). First language acquisition: Method, description and explanation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ingram, D. (2002). The measurement of whole-word production. Journal of Child Language, 29,
713–733.
Ingram, D., & Ingram, K. (2001). A whole-word approach to phonological analysis and
intervention. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 271–283. doi:10.1044/0161-
1461(2001/024)
ISO 639.1 (2018). Retrieved September 21, 2018, from https://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/
code_list.php
Kappa, I. (2002). On the acquisition of syllabic structure in Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 3(1),
1–52. doi:10.1075/jgl.3.03kap
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Malikouti-Drachman, A. (2001). Greek phonology: A contemporary Perspective. Journal of Greek
Linguistics, 2, 187–243. doi:10.1075/jgl.2.08mal
Mennen, I., & Okalidou, A. (2007). Acquisition of Greek phonology: An overview. In S. McLeod
(Ed.), The international guide to speech acquisition (pp. 398–407). Clifton Park, NY: Thomson
Delmar Learning.
Mohanan, K. P. (1992). Emergence of complexity in phonological development. In C. A. Ferguson,
L. Menn, & C. Stoel-Gammon (Eds.), Phonological development: Models, research, implications
(pp. 635–662). Timonium, MD: York Press.
Newton, B. (1972). Cypriot Greek: Its phonology and inflections. Cambridge, UK: Mouton.
Nicolaidis, K. (2001). An electropalatographic study of Greek spontaneous speech. Journal of the
International Phonetic Association, 31(1), 67–85. doi:10.1017/S0025100301001062
Nirgianaki, E. (2014). Acoustic characteristics of Greek fricatives. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 135(5), 2964–2976. doi:10.1121/1.4870487
Olswang, L. B., & Bain, B. A. (1985). Monitoring phoneme acquisition for making treatment
withdrawal decisions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 6, 17–37. doi:10.1017/S0142716400005993
PAL: Panhellenic Association of Logopaedics. (1995). Assessment of phonetic and phonological
development. Athens, Greece: PAL. (in Greek).
Papathanasiou, I., Dimitrakopoulou, I., Ntaountaki, M., & Vasiliou, K. (2012). Phonetic and
phonological development in Greek children aged 4-0-6;0. Paper presented at ASHA Convention,
Atlanta, USA.
Pater, J., & Barlow, J. (2003). Constraint conflict in cluster reduction. Journal of Child Language, 30,
487–526.
Petinou, K., & Armostis, S. (2016). Phonological processes occurrence in typically developing
toddlers. Folia Phoniatrica Logopidica, 68(5), 199–204. doi:10.1159/000454950
Petinou, K., & Theodorou, E. (2017). Early phonetic profiles in Cypriot Greek toddlers. Clinical
Linguistics and Phonetics, 4, 22–38.
Piterou, E. (2015). Phonological acquisition in children 3;6-4;6: Relationship in sound acquisition
between single word and running speech (Bachelors Thesis). Patra, Greece: TEI of Western
Greece.
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (2004). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Protopapas, A., Tzakosta, M., Chalamandaris, A., & Tsiakoulis, P. (2012). IPLR: An online resource for
Greek word-level and sublexical information. Language Resources and Evaluation, 44(3), 1–11.
Rice, K., & Avery, P. (1995). Variability in a deterministic model of language acquisition: A theory
of segmental elaboration. In J. A. Archibald (Ed.), Phonological acquisition and phonological
theory (pp. 23–42). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rose, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (2014). The PhonBank initiative. In J. Durand, U. Gut, &
G. Kristoffersen (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corpus phonology (pp. 380–401). Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Setatos, Μ. (1974). Phonology of modern Greek koine. Athens, Greece: Papazisis. (in Greek).
Shriberg, L., Austin, D., Lewis, B., McSweeney, J., & Wilson, D. (1997). The percentage of
consonants correct (PCC) metric: Extensions and reliability data. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research, 3, 708–722. doi:10.1044/jslhr.4004.708
Taxitari, L., Kambanaros, M., Floros, G., & Grohmann, K. (2017). Early language development in
a bilectal context: The Cypriot adaptation of the McArthur-Bates CDI. In E. Babatsouli,
D. Ingram, & N. Müller (Eds.), Crosslinguistic encounters in language acquisition: Typical and
atypical development (pp. 145–171). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Trudgill, P. (2003). Modern Greek dialects. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 4, 45–64. doi:10.1075/
jgl.4.04tru
Appendix. Greek test (PAel) narrative

The two-part narrative, Short and Sequel is shown in three parts: Greek orthography, phonetic IPA
(adult surface), and English translation. Words in the screener/extended word lists appear in bold;
the new types appear in italics, the remaining are function words.
Τα γενέθλια της Άννας

SHORT (395 words)
Μία φορά κι ένα καιρό κάτω από ένα πεύκο, το μεγαλύτερο δέντρο τoυ πάρκου, υπήρχε ένα
σπίτι που έμοιαζε με φάτνη. Σε αυτό ζούσε ένα κοριτσάκι με τη γριά νταντά της. Ο μπαμπάς και η
μαμά της έλειπαν σε ένα μακρινό ταξίδι στη θάλασσα. Το παιδί είχε μία όμορφη κούκλα, σαν
νεράιδα, αλλά της έλειπαν τα αυτιά. Την κουβαλούσε πάντα μαζί της μέσα σε ένα καλάθι γιατί της
θύμιζε τη δασκάλα που έβλεπε από το κρεβάτι της, έξω από το τζάμι, να έρχεται κάθε πρωί με το
τρένο και να φεύγει αργά τη νύχτα. Ανυπομονούσε να μεγαλώσει και να πάει και κείνη στο σχολείο.
Συχνά, ωστόσο, της άρεσε να διαβάζει το αγαπημένο της βιβλίο. που ήταν σαν άτλαντας. Το βιβλίο
είχε στο εξώφυλλο ένα λουλούδι και μέσα εικονίζονταν πολλά ζώα, όπως μια στρουθοκάμηλος,
ένας βάτραχος, μια τίγρης, μια μαϊμού, μια χελώνα, κι ένας τεράστιος δράκος που έπαιζε
ποδόσφαιρο και έβαζε και γκολ.
Εκείνη τη μέρα, η μικρή είχε τα γενέθλιά της. Βγάζοντας το κεφάλι της έξω από το παράθυρο, είδε
πως ο πάγος της νύχτας έλιωνε σαν βροχή πάνω στο σκαλί της εξώπορτας, καθώς ο χρυσός ήλιος
έσκαγε μύτη σιγά-σιγά. Πρώτα έπλυνε το πρόσωπό της με σαπούνι, περιποιήθηκε τα μαλλιά της με τη
χτένα και μετά, αφού κοίταξε τη γλώσσα στον καθρέφτη, έριξε ικανοποιημένη μια γρήγορη ματιά στο
κεφάλι και στην πλάτη της. Στο τραπέζι ανάμεσα στα πιάτα, την περίμενε ήδη ένα φλιτζάνι ζεστό
γάλα και λίγο τσάι που ήταν ακριβώς αυτό που ζητούσε ο κρυωμένος λαιμός της για να μη γδέρνει.
Καθώς έπαιρνε το πρωινό της, παρατήρησε πως πάνω στο χαλί, δίπλα στο παπούτσι της, είχαν πέσει
φλούδια και αρκετό ρύζι, και ότι είχαν πάρει παράξενο σχήμα. Έμοιαζαν λίγο με σφυρίχτρα και λίγο
με ξύστρα πάνω σε γρασίδι. Άπλωσε το μπράτσο της να τα μαζέψει, όταν ξαφνικά άκουσε το ρολόι
στον τοίχο να χτυπά οχτώ φορές και τα κλειδιά στην πόρτα να γυρνούν. Είδε τότε τη νταντά της να
μπαίνει μέσα στο δωμάτιο κρατώντας κάτι τεράστιο, σαν μπλε μπαλόνι. «Τι μεγάλος, στρογγυλός
σάκος! Τι ωραίος φιόγγος! Και πόσα δώρα κρύβει! Ολόκληρος θησαυρός!» είπε το κορίτσι. Παρόλο
που έλειπαν οι γονείς της, δεν την είχαν ξεχάσει, ούτε τα γενέθλιά της. «Ευχαριστώ!» φώναξε,
αρχίζοντας να ξετυλίγει το πρώτο πακέτο με την ευχή να κρύβει ένα ζευγάρι φθηνές κάλτσες ή ένα
ψάρι σε γυάλα. Βρήκε ωστόσο ένα γκρίζο φορτηγό με εργαλεία, τόσο αληθινό που είχε και γκάζι.
SEQUEL (606 words)

«Άννα, άφησε τώρα τα δώρα δίπλα στο τζάκι και συνέχισε το πρωινό σου!» της είπε η νταντά.
Όμως, η Άννα είχε βάλει θερμόμετρο το βράδυ στο στόμα της για να δει αν έχει πυρετό και τώρα
δεν πεινούσε τόσο για να φάει τη φρυγανιά, το αυγό, το κίτρινο τυρί και τη σπανακόπιτα που ήταν
αραδιασμένα μπροστά της. Δεν ήταν κορόιδο να αλλάξει γνώμη. Ούτε της άρεσε να εκφράζει τα
συναισθήματά της με το να κλαίει. Αντίθετα, ονειρευόταν ένα μεγάλο πάρτι μέσα στο γραφείο του
μπαμπά με χρώματα, γλυκά, ένα πράσινο, σκληρό γλειφιτζούρι, μία γκοφρέτα, μία σοκολάτα, και
πολλούς καλεσμένους. Γενέθλια είχε, εξάλλου!
24 E. BABATSOULI
Αλλά, προηγούνταν οι προετοιμασίες. Μάζεψε με τη σκούπα το ρύζι και τα φλούδια, που τώρα
έμοιαζαν με φάντασμα στο χώμα και έκανε στην κούκλα της μπάνιο με χλιαρό νερό από τη βρύση.
Της άρεσε να την ντύνει με ένα ροζ μαγιό, αλλά σήμερα της διάλεξε ένα χνουδωτό φορεματάκι με
μαύρη ζώνη που ταίριαζε με τα σγουρά της μαλλιά. Μετά, έβγαλε από τη τσάντα με τις χειροτεχνίες
διάφορα στολίδια και παιχνίδια. Με ένα σχοινί κρέμασε ψηλά πάνω από το φως ένα φεγγάρι, ένα
σύννεφο, ένα χαρταετό, ένα αερόστατο, και μια πάπια με απλωμένα τα φτερά. Όλα μοιάζαν σαν
να κάνουνε τσουλήθρα και ήταν τέλεια σαν ζωγραφιά.
«Είμαστε έτοιμες!» είπε στην νταντά της, η οποία στο μεταξύ είχε βάλει γυαλιά για να βλέπει και
έψαχνε στον υπολογιστή πάνω στο θρανίο να βρει συνταγή για μαγειρευτό χταπόδι με κολοκύθια,
αγγούρια και ντομάτα. Ήθελε να ετοιμάσει κάτι ιδιαίτερο για τα γενέθλια της Άννας, εκτός από κρέας
και τζατζίκι. «Άννα, μην ξεχάσεις πως σε λίγο θα έρθει ο κύριος Γρηγόρης», της είπε η νταντά. Αυτός
ήταν ένας γέρος γείτονας εξήντα έξι χρονών που ζούσε στο διπλανό κτίριο. Ήταν, παλιά, καλός φίλος
του παππού αφού είχαν πάρει πτυχίο από το ίδιο πανεπιστήμιο. Είχε υποσχεθεί πως θα έφερνε στην
Άννα μια μπάλα και ένα μαγικό ραβδί που το κουνάς με το χέρι και γίνεται σφυρί. Στα νιάτα του, ο
κύριος Γρηγόρης ταξίδευε και αυτός, όπως οι γονείς της, πότε με βάρκα και πότε με πλοίο. Κάποιες
φορές πήγαινε σε μακρινά μέρη με κάστρα πάνω στους λόφους, στα οποία μπορούσε κανείς να
πλησιάσει μόνο με γάιδαρο. Ή Άννα διασκέδαζε με τις ιστορίες που της έλεγε, χωρίς να ντρέπεται.
Κοίταξε βιαστικά έξω από το παράθυρο να δει αν έρχεται, αλλά ο δρόμος ήταν άδειος. Μόνο ο καπνός
φαινόταν να πετάγεται σαν σβούρα από το τζάκι τους και ο άσπρος φράχτης της αυλής, καλυμμένος
με κάτι σαν χνούδι που έπεφτε από το δέντρο. Ήταν φθινόπωρο.
«Μα τι θόρυβος είναι αυτός;» ρώτησε την νταντά της, αλλά εκείνη είχε, από ώρα, βγει από το
δωμάτιο. Γύρισε και τί να δει; Μέσα από τις σελίδες του αγαπημένου της βιβλίου ξεπετάχτηκαν όλα
τα γνωστά της ζώα και μαζί με αυτά κι ένας άσχημος σκύλος, ένας ελέφαντας, ένα λιοντάρι, ένα
γατάκι και μια ακρίδα. «Τα μάθατε τα νέα;» μίλησαν σαν να ήταν παιδιά, «είδαμε ένα δελφίνι να
βγαίνει από τη λίμνη. Ξέρει κανείς να σπρώχνει φορτίο για να το διώξουμε στη θάλασσα; Εδώ
κινδυνεύει από εχθρούς ή και να πνιγεί». Η Άννα πάντα ήθελε να βοηθά τους άλλους και, αμέσως,
προσφέρθηκε να δανείσει το ποδήλατό της ή το αυτοκίνητο της νταντάς. Τα ζώα έστειλαν αμέσως
μήνυμα στην ομάδα διάσωσης και μετά γιόρτασαν τα γενέθλια της Άννας όλοι μαζί, σαν αδέρφια.
Αν θέλετε το πιστεύετε, αλλά το χνουδωτό γατάκι έφαγε το μεγαλύτερο κομμάτι της τούρτας με τις
φράουλες και τα αμύγδαλα!
Η Άννα πέρασε υπέροχα εκείνη την ημέρα, τόσο που θα έμενε στην μνήμη της. Σαν την Άννα
των Αγρών, ήξερε να φτιάχνει τη μέρα της και, επίσης, πως λίγη φαντασία μπορεί να σε πάει από το
άλφα στο ωμέγα. (total FULL: 1,001 words).
Adult surface production in IPA
Phonetic variation, i.e. informal/running speech is in parenthesis; dialectal speech is shown in

parenthesis preceded by an asterisk (*); The symbol #. marks the end of a sentence.
SHORT
'mi.ɐ ('mɲɐ) fo.'ɾɐ cԑ 'ԑ.nɐn cԑ.'ɾo ('cԑ.nɐ ŋɟԑ.'ɾo) 'kɐ.to ɐ.'po 'ԑ.nɐ 'pԑf.ko, to mԑ.ɣɐ.'li.tԑ.ɾo (*mԑ.
ɣɐ.'ʎi.tԑ.ɾo) 'ðԑ.(n)dɾo tis 'po.lis (*'poʎis) i'piɾ.çԑ 'ԑ.nɐ 'spi.ti (*'spit) pu 'ԑ.mɲɐ.zԑ ('pu.mɲɐ.zԑ) mԑ 'fɐt.
ni (*'fɐt.ɲi)#. sԑ ɐ.'fto (sɐ.'fto) 'zu.sԑ 'ԑ.nɐ ko.ɾi.'ʦɐ.ci mԑ ti ɣɾi.'ɐ dɐ'.(n)dɐ tis#. o bɐ.'(ɱ)bɐs cԑ i (ci)
mɐ.'mɐ tis 'ԑ.li.pɐn sԑ 'ԑ.nɐ ('sԑ.nɐ) mɐ.kɾi.'no tɐ.'ksi.ði sti 'θɐ.lɐ.sɐ#. to pԑ.'ði i.çԑ 'mi.ɐ ('mɲɐ) 'ku.klɐ
'o.moɾ.fi (*'o.moɾf) sɐn nԑ.'ɾɐi.ðɐ (sɐ nԑ.'ɾɐj.ða) ɐ.'lɐ tis 'ԑ.li.pɐn tɐ ɐ.'ftiɐ (tɐ.'ftçɐ) #. tin ku.vɐ.'lu.sԑ (ti.
(ŋ)gu.vɐ.'lu.sԑ) 'pɐ.(n)dɐ mɐ.'zi tis 'mԑ.sɐ 'sԑ 'ԑ.nɐ ('sԑ.nɐ) kɐ.'lɐ.θi (*kɐ.'lɐθ) ʝɐ.'ti tis 'θi.mi.zԑ ti ðɐ.'skɐ.
lɐ pu 'ԑ.vlԑ.pԑ ('pu.vlԑ.pԑ) ɐ.'po to (ɐ.'pto) kɾԑ.'vɐ.ti tis (*kɾԑ.'vɐ.tits) 'ԑ.kso ɐ.'po to (ɐ.'pto) 'ʣɐ.mi
(*'ʣɐm) nɐ 'ԑɾ.çԑtԑ ('nɐɾ.çԑ.tԑ) 'kɐ.θԑ pɾo.'i mԑ to 'tɾԑ.no cԑ nɐ 'fԑ.vʝi (*'fԑvʝ) ɐɾ.'γɐ ti 'ni.xtɐ#. ɐ.ni.po.
mo.'nu.sԑ nɐ mԑ.ɣɐ.'lo.si (*mԑ.ɣɐ.'los) cԑ nɐ 'pɐi cԑ ԑ.'ci.ni (cԑ.'ci.ni) (*cԑ.'ciɲi) sto sxo.'li.o. si.'xnɐ
o.'sto.so 'ԑ.pԑ.zԑ mԑ to ɐ.ɣɐ.pi.'mԑ.no (tɐ.ɣɐ.pi.'mԑ.no) tis vi.'vli.o, pu 'i.tɐn ('pu.tɐn) sɐn 'at.lɐ.(n)dɐs#.
to vi.'vli.o 'i.çԑ sto ԑ.'kso.fi.lo 'ԑ.nɐ lu.'lu.ði (*lu.'luð) cԑ 'mԑ.sɐ i.ko.'ni.zo.(n)dɐn po.'lɐ 'zo.ɐ, 'o.pos 'mi.ɐ
('mɲɐ) stɾu.θo.ˈkɐ.mi.los, 'ԑ.nɐs 'vɐ.tɾɐ.xos, 'mi.ɐ (mɲɐ) 'ti.ɣɾis, 'mi.ɐ ('mɲɐ) mɐi.'mu(~mɐj.'mu), 'mi.ɐ
('mɲɐ) çԑ.'lo.nɐ, ci 'ԑ.nɐs ('cԑ.nɐs) tԑ.'ɾɐ.sti.os 'ðɾɐ.kos pu 'ԑ.pԑ.zԑ ('pu.pԑ.zԑ) po.'ðo.sfԑ.ɾo cԑ 'ԑ.vɐ.zԑ ('cԑ.
vɐ.zԑ) cԑ'(ŋ)gol#.
ԑ.'ci.ni (*ԑ.'ci.ɲi, ԑ.'ciɲ) tin i'mԑ.ɾɐ (ti'mԑ.ɾɐ) i mi.'kɾi i.çԑ tɐ ʝԑ.'nԑ.θli.ˌɐ tis#. 'vɣɐ.zo.(n)dɐs to cԑ.'fɐ.
li (*cԑ.'fɐ.ʎi, cԑ.'fɐ.ʎ) tis 'ԑ.kso ɐ.'po to ('ԑ.ksɐ.'pto) pɐ.'ɾɐ.θi.ɾo 'i.ðԑ pos o 'pɐ.ɣos tis 'ni.xtɐs 'ԑ.ʎo.ne sɐn
vɾo.'çi 'pɐ.no sto skɐ.'li (*skɐ.'ʎi) tis ԑ.'kso.poɾ.tɐs, kɐ.'θos o xɾi.'sos 'i.ʎos 'ԑ.skɐ.ʝԑ 'mi.ti si.'ɣɐ si.'ɣɐ#.
'pɾo.tɐ 'ԑ.pli.ne to 'pɾo.so.ˌpo tis mԑ sɐ.'pu.ni (*sɐ.'pu.ɲi, sɐ.'puɲ), pԑ.ɾi.pi.'i.θi.cԑ tɐ mɐ.'ʎɐ tis mԑ ti
'xtԑ.nɐ(~'ktԑ.nɐ) cԑ mԑ.'tɐ, ɐ.'fu 'ci.tɐ.ksԑ ti ɾoz 'ɣlo.sɐ tis, 'ԑ.ɾi.ksԑ i.kɐ.no.pi.i.'mԑ.ni 'mi.ɐ ('mɲɐ) 'ɣɾi.
ɣo.ɾi mɐt.'çɐ ston kɐ.'θɾԑ.fti~kɐ.'θɾԑ.pti (sto.(ŋ)gɐ.'θɾԑfti~ sto.(ŋ)gɐ.'θɾԑ.pti) (*(sto.(ŋ)gɐ.'θɾԑft~sto.(ŋ)
gɐ.'θɾԑ.pt) sto cԑ.'fɐ.li (*sto cԑ.'fɐ.ʎi, sto cԑ.'fɐʎ) cԑ stin 'plɐ.ti (sti.'(ɱ)blɐ.ti) (*sti.'(ɱ)blɐt) tis (*sti.'(ɱ)
blɐ.tits) #. sto tɾɐ.'pԑ.zi ɐ.'nɐ.mԑ.sɐ stɐ 'pçɐ.tɐ, tin pԑ.'ɾi.mԑ.nԑ (ti.(ɱ)bԑ.'ɾi.mԑ.nԑ) i.ði 'ԑ.nɐ fli.'ʣɐ.ni
(*fli.'ʣɐ.ɲi, fli.'ʣɐɲ) zԑ.'sto 'ɣɐ.lɐ cԑ 'li.ɣo 'ʦɐ.i pu 'i.tɐn ɐ.kɾi.'vos ɐ.'fto pu zi.'tu.sԑ o kɾi.o.'mԑ.nos
lԑ.'mos tis ʝɐ nɐ mi 'γðԑɾ.ni (*'γðԑɾ.ɲi, 'γðԑɾɲ)#. kɐ.'θos 'ԑ.pԑɾ.nԑ to pɾo.i.'no tis, pɐ.ɾɐ.'ti.ɾi.sԑ pos 'pɐ.no
sto xɐ.'li (*xɐ.'ʎi), 'ði.plɐ sto pɐ.'pu.ʦi tis (*pɐ.'pu.ʦits), 'i.xɐn 'pԑ.si ('i.xɐ.'(ɱ)bԑ.si) 'flu.ðʝɐ cԑ ɐ.ɾcԑ.'to
(cɐɾ.cԑ.'to) 'ɾi.zi, cԑ 'o.ti ('co.ti) 'i.xɐn 'pa.ɾi pɐ.'ɾɐ.ksԑ.no 'sçi.mɐ#. 'ԑ.mɲɐ.zɐn 'li.ɣo mԑ sfi.'ɾix.tɾɐ cԑ 'li.
ɣo mԑ 'ksi.stɾɐ 'pɐ.no se ɣɾɐ.'si.ði (*ɣɾɐ.'sið)#. 'ɐ.plo.sԑ to '(ɱ)bɾɐ.ʦo tis (*'(ɱ)bɾɐ.ʦots) nɐ tɐ mɐ.'zԑ.psi
(*mɐ.'zԑps), 'o.tɐn ksɐf.ni.'kɐ ('otɐ.(ŋ)gsɐf.ni.'kɐ) 'ɐ.ku.se to ɾo.'lo.i ston 'ti.xo (sto.'(n)di.xo) nɐ xti.'pɐ
o.'xto(~o.'kto) fo.'ɾԑs cԑ tɐ kli.'ðʝɐ stin 'poɾ.tɐ (sti'ɱboɾ.tɐ) nɐ ʝiɾ.'nun#. 'i.ðԑ 'to.tԑ ti dɐ.'(n)dɐ tis na '(ɱ)
bԑ.ni (*'(ɱ)bԑ.ɲi, '(ɱ)bԑ.ɲ) 'mԑ.sɐ sto ðo.'mɐ.tio kɾɐ.'to.(n)dɐs 'kɐ.ti (+'kɐt) tԑ.'ɾɐ.sti.o, sɐn 'blԑ (sɐ'mblԑ)
bɐ.'lo.ni (*bɐ.'lo.ɲi, bɐ.'loɲ)#. ti mԑ.'ɣɐ.los stɾo.ɟi.'los (stɾo.(ŋ)ɟi.'los) 'sɐ.kos!#. ti o.'ɾԑ.os 'fço.gos#. cԑ
'po.sɐ 'ðo.ɾɐ 'kɾi.vi!#. o'lo.kli.ɾos θi.sɐ.'vɾos, i.pԑ to ko.'ɾi.ʦi (*ko.'ɾiʦ)#. pɐ.'ɾo.lo pu 'ԑ.li.pɐn ('pu.li.pɐn)
i ɣo.'nis tis ðԑn tin 'i.xɐn ksԑ.'xɐ.si ('i.xɐŋgsԑ.'xɐ.si) 'u.tԑ tɐ ʝԑ.'nԑ.θliˌɐ tis#. ‘ԑf.xɐ.ɾi.'sto!#. 'fo.nɐ.ksԑ
ɐɾ.'çi.zo.(n)dɐs nɐ ksԑ.ti.'li.ʝi (*ksԑ.ti.'ʎi.ʝi, ksԑ.ti.'ʎiʝ) to 'pɾo.to pɐ.'cԑ.to mԑ tin ԑf.'çi nɐ 'kɾi.vi ԑ.nɐ
zԑv.'ɣɐ.ɾi (*zԑv.'ɣɐɾ) fti.'nԑs(~fθi.'nԑs) 'kɐl.ʦԑs i 'ԑ.nɐ 'psɐ.ɾi (*'psɐɾ) sԑ 'ʝɐ.lɐ#. 'vɾi.cԑ o.'sto.so 'ԑ.nɐ 'gɾi.
zo foɾ.ti.'ɣo mԑ ԑɾ.γɐ.ˈli.ɐ (mԑɾ.γɐ.ˈli.ɐ), 'to.so ɐ.li.θi.'no pu 'i.çԑ cԑ '(ŋ)gɐ.zi (*'(ŋ)gɐz)!#.
SEQUEL
'ɐ.nɐ, 'ɐ.fi.sԑ 'to.ɾɐ tɐ 'ðo.ɾɐ 'ði.plɐ sto 'ʣɐ.ci (*'ʣɐc) cԑ si.'nԑ.çi.sԑ to pɾo.i.'no su,#. tis 'i.pԑ i (tis 'i.
pԑ) dɐ.'(n)dɐ#. 'o.mos, i 'ɐ.nɐ 'i.çԑ 'vɐ.li (*'vɐ.ʎi, 'vɐʎ) θԑɾ.'mo.mԑ.tɾo to 'vɾɐ.ði (*'vɾɐð) sto 'sto.mɐ tis ʝɐ
nɐ ði an 'ԑ.çi pi.ɾԑ.'to cԑ 'to.ɾɐ ðԑn pi.'nu.sԑ (ðԑ.(m)bi.'nu.sԑ) 'to.so ʝɐ nɐ 'fɐ.i ti fɾi.ɣɐ.'ɲɐ, to ɐ.'vɣo, to
'ci.tɾi.no ti.'ɾi cԑ ti spɐ.nɐ.'ko.pi.tɐ pu 'i.tɐn ɐ.ɾɐ.ðʝɐ.'zmԑ.nɐ bɾo.'stɐ tis#. ðԑn 'itɐn ko.'ɾoi.ðo~ko.'ɾoj.ðo
('i.tɐ.(ŋ)go.'ɾoi.ðo~'i.tɐ(ŋ)go.'ɾoj.ðo) nɐ ɐ.'lɐ.ksi (nɐ.'lɐ.ksi) (*nɐ.'lɐks) 'ɣno.mi (*'ɣnom)#. 'u.tԑ tis 'ɐ.ɾԑ.
sԑ nɐ ԑk.'fɾɐ.zi (*ԑk.'fɾɐz) tɐ si.nԑ.'sθi.mɐ.ˌtɐ tis mԑ to nɐ 'klԑ.i#. ɐ.'(n)di.θԑ.tɐ, o.ni.ɾԑ.'vo.tɐn 'ԑ.nɐ
mԑ.'ɣɐ.lo 'pɐɾ.ti 'mԑ.sɐ sto ('mԑ.sto) ɣɾɐ.'fio tu bɐ.'(m)bɐ mԑ 'xɾo.mɐ.tɐ, ɣli.'kɐ (*ɣʎi.'kɐ), 'ԑ.nɐ 'pɾɐ.si.no
skli.'ɾo (*skʎi.'ɾo) ɣli.fi.'(n)ʣu.ɾi (*ɣʎi.fi.'(n)ʣu.ɾi, ɣʎi.fi.'(n)ʣuɾ), 'mi.ɐ ('mɲɐ) go.'fɾԑ.tɐ, 'mi.ɐ ('mɲɐ)
so.ko.'lɐ.tɐ, cԑ po.'lus kɐ.lԑ.'zmԑ.nus#. ʝԑ.'nԑ.θli. ɐ 'i.çԑ, ԑ.'ksɐ.lu!#.
ɐ.'lɐ, pɾo.i'.ɣu.(n)dɐn i pɾo.ԑ.ti.mɐ.'si.ԑs#. 'mɐ.zԑ.psԑ mԑ ti 'sku.pɐ to ɾi.zi cԑ tɐ 'flu.ðʝɐ, pu 'to.ɾɐ 'ԑ.
mɲɐ.zɐn mԑ 'fɐ(n).dɐ.zmɐ sto 'xo.mɐ cԑ 'ԑ.kɐ.nԑ ('cԑ.kɐ.nԑ) stin 'ku.klɐ (sti'(ŋ).gu.klɐ) tis 'bɐ.ɲo mԑ xli.
ɐ.'ɾo (*xʎi.ɐ.'ɾo) nԑ.'ɾo ɐ.'po ti 'vɾi.si (ɐ.pti.'vɾi.si) (*ɐ.pti.'vɾis)#. tis 'ɐ.ɾԑ.sԑ nɐ ti 'di.ni (ti.'(n)dini) mԑ 'ԑ.
nɐ ('mԑ.nɐ) ɾoz mɐ.'ʝo, ɐ.'lɐ 'si.mԑ.ɾɐ tis 'ðʝɐ.lԑ.ksԑ 'ԑ.nɐ xnu.ðo.'to fo.ɾԑ.mɐ.'tɐ.ci mԑ 'mɐ.vɾi 'zo.ni
(*'zo.ɲi, 'zoɲ) pou 'tԑɾ.ʝɐ.zԑ mԑ tɐ zɣu.'ɾɐ tis mɐ.'ʎɐ#. mԑ.'tɐ, 'ԑ.vɣɐ.lԑ ɐ.'po tin 'ʦɐ.dɐ (ɐ.pti.'(n)ʣɐ(n)dɐ)
mԑ tis çi.ɾo.tԑ.'xni. ԑs (*çi.ɾo.tԑ.'xɲi.ԑs) ði.'ɐ.fo.ɾɐ ('ðʝɐ.fo.ɾɐ) sto.'li.ðʝɐ cԑ pԑ.'xni.ðʝɐ (*pԑ.'xɲi.ðʝɐ)#. mԑ
'ԑ.nɐ ('mԑ.nɐ) sçi.'ni(~sci.'ni) 'kɾԑ.mɐ.sԑ psi.'lɐ 'pɐ.no ɐ.'po to fos 'ԑ.nɐ fԑ.'(ŋ)gɐ.ɾi (*fԑ.'(ŋ)gɐɾ), 'ԑ.nɐ 'si.
nԑ.fo, 'ԑ.nɐn xɐɾ.tɐ.ԑ.'to, 'ԑ.nɐ ɐ.ԑ.'ɾo.stɐ.to cԑ mɲɐ 'pɐ.pçɐ mԑ ɐ.plo.'mԑ.nɐ tɐ ftԑ.'ɾɐ#. 'o.lɐ 'mɲɐ.zɐn sɐn
nɐ 'kɐ.nu.nԑ (sɐ.nɐ.'(ŋ)gɐnun) ʦu.'li.θɾɐ cԑ 'i.tɐn ('ci.tɐn) 'tԑ.liɐ sɐ zo.ɣɾɐf.'çɐ#.
'i.mɐ.stԑ 'ԑ.ti.mԑs,#. 'i.pԑ sti dɐ.'(n)dɐ tis, i o.'pi. ɐ sto mԑ.tɐ.'ksi 'i.çԑ 'vɐ.li (*'vɐ.ʎi) ʝɐ.'ʎɐ ʝɐ nɐ 'vlԑ.pi
cԑ 'ԑ.psɐ.xnԑ ston i.po.lo.ʝi.'sti 'pɐ.no sto θɾɐ'ni.o.nɐ vɾi si.(n)dɐ.'ʝi ʝɐ mɐ.ʝi.ɾԑ.'fto xtɐ.'po.ði (*xtɐ.'poð)
mԑ ko.lo.'ci.θçɐ cԑ do'.mɐ.tɐ#. 'i.θԑ.lԑ nɐ ԑ.ti.'mɐ.si (*ԑ.ti.'mɐs) 'kɐ.ti i.ði.'ԑ.tԑ.ɾo (i.'ðʝԑ.tԑ.ɾo) ʝɐ tɐ ʝԑ.'nԑ.
θli.ɐ tis 'ɐ.nɐs, ԑ.'ktos(~ԑ.'xtos) ɐ.'po 'kɾԑ.ɐs cԑ ʣɐ.'ʣi.ci#. 'ɐ.nɐ, min ksԑ.'xɐ.sis (mi.(ŋ)gsԑ.'xɐ.sis) pos
sԑ 'li.ɣo θɐ 'ԑɾ.θi ('θɐɾ.θi) o 'ci.ɾi.os ɣɾi.'ɣo.ɾis,#. tis 'i.pԑ i dɐ.'(n)dɐ#. ɐ.'ftos 'i.tɐn 'ԑ.nɐs 'ʝԑ.ɾos 'ʝi.to.nɐs
e.'ksi.(n)dɐ 'ԑ.ksi xɾo.'non pu 'zu.sԑ sto ði.plɐ.'no 'kti.ɾio#. 'i.tɐn, pa.'ʎɐ, kɐ.'los 'fi.los tu pɐ.'pu ɐ.'fu 'i.
xɐn 'pɐ.ɾi pti.'çio ɐ.'po to 'i.ðʝo pɐ.nԑ.pi.'sti.mio#. 'i.çԑ i.po.sçԑ.'θi pos θɐ 'e.fԑɾ.nԑ stin 'ɐ.nɐ mɲɐ 'bɐ.lɐ
cԑ 'e.nɐ mɐ.ʝi.'ko ɾɐ.'vði pu to ku.'nɐs mԑ to 'çԑ.ɾi cԑ 'ʝi.nԑ.tԑ sfi.'ɾi#. stɐ 'ɲɐ.tɐ tu, o 'ci.ɾi.os ɣɾi.'ɣo.ɾis
tɐ.'ksi.ðԑ.vԑ cԑ ɐ.'ftos (cɐ.'ftos), 'o.pos i ɣo.'nis tis, 'po.tԑ mԑ 'vɐɾ.kɐ ce 'po.tԑ mԑ 'pli.o#. 'kɐ.pçԑs fo.'ɾԑs
'pi.ʝԑ.nԑ se mɐ.kɾi.'nɐ 'mԑ.ɾi mԑ 'kɐ.stɾɐ 'pɐ.no stus 'lo.fus, stɐ o.'pi.ɐ bo.'ɾu.sԑ kɐ.'nis nɐ pli.si.'ɐ.si 'mo.
no mԑ 'ɣɐi.ðɐ.ɾo(~'ɣɐj.ðɐ.ɾo) #. i 'ɐ.nɐ ði.ɐ.'scԑ.ðɐ.zԑ(ðʝɐ.'scԑ.ðɐ.zԑ) mԑ tis i.sto.'ɾi. ԑs pu tis 'ԑ.lԑ.ʝԑ,
xo.'ɾis nɐ 'dɾԑ.pԑ.tԑ#. 'ci.tɐ.ksԑ vʝɐ.sti.'kɐ 'ԑ.kso ɐ.'po to pɐ.'ɾɐ.θi.ɾo nɐ ði ɐn 'ԑɾ.çԑ.tԑ, ɐ.'lɐ o 'ðɾo.mos 'i.
26 E. BABATSOULI
tɐn 'ɐ.ðʝos#. 'mo.no o kɐ.'pnos fԑ.'no.tɐn nɐ pe.'tɐ.ʝԑ.tԑ sɐn 'zvu.ɾɐ ɐ.'po to 'ʣɐ.ci tus cԑ o 'ɐ.spɾos 'fɾɐ.
xtis tis ɐ.'vlis, kɐ.li.'mԑ.nos mԑ 'kɐ.ti sɐn 'xnu.ði pu 'ԑ.pԑ.ftԑ ɐ.'po to 'ðԑ.(n)dɾo (ɐ.pto.'ðԑ.(n)dɾo)#. 'i.tɐn
fθi.'no.po.ɾo#.
mɐ ti 'θo.ɾi.vos 'i.nԑ ɐ.'ftos,#. 'ɾo.ti.sԑ ti dɐ.'(n)dɐ tis, ɐ.'lɐ ԑ.'ci.ni 'i.çԑ, ɐ.'po 'o.ɾɐ, vʝi ɐ.'po to (ɐ.'pto)
ðo.'mɐ.ti.o#. 'ʝi.ɾi.sԑ cԑ ti nɐ ði, 'mԑ.sɐ ɐ.'ptis sԑ.'li.ðԑs tu ɐ.ɣɐ.pi.'mԑ.nu tis vi.'vli.u ksԑ.pԑ.'tɐ.xti.kɐn 'o.
lɐ tɐ ɣno.'stɐ tis 'zo.ɐ cԑ mɐ.'zi mԑ ɐ.'ftɐ ci 'ԑ.nɐs ('cԑ.nɐs) 'ɐ.sçi.mos (~'ɐ.sci.mos) 'sci.los, 'ԑ.nɐs ԑ.'lԑ.fɐ.
(n)dɐs, 'ԑ.nɐ ʎo.'(n)dɐ.ɾi cԑ 'ԑ.nɐ ɣɐ.'tɐ.ci#. tɐ 'mɐ.θɐ.tԑ tɐ 'nԑ.ɐ, mi.'lu.sɐn sɐn nɐ 'i.tɐn (sɐ.'nɐ.tɐn)
pԑ.'ðʝɐ#., 'i.ðɐ.mԑ e.nɐ ðԑl.'fi.ni nɐ 'vʝԑ.ni ɐ.'po ti 'li.mni#. 'ksԑ.ɾi kɐ.'nis nɐ 'spɾo.xni foɾ.'tio ʝɐ nɐ to
'ðʝo.ksu.mԑ sti 'θɐ.lɐ.sɐ#. ԑ.'ðo cin.ði.'nԑ.vi ɐ.'po ԑx.'θɾus#. i 'ɐ.nɐ 'pɐ.(n)dɐ 'i.θԑ.lԑ nɐ vo.i.'θɐ.i (vo.i.'θɐ)
tus 'ɐ.lus cԑ, ɐ.'mԑ.sos, pɾo.'sfԑɾ.θi.cԑ nɐ ðɐ.'ni.si (*ðɐ.'ɲi.si) to po.'ði.lɐ.ˌto tis 'i to ɐ.fto.'ci.ni.to tis dɐ.
(n)dɐs#. ta 'zo.ɐ 'ԑ.sti.lɐn ɐ.'mԑ.sos 'mi.ni.mɐ stin o.'mɐ.ðɐ ði.'ɐ.so.sis ('ðʝɐ.so.sis) cԑ mԑ.'tɐ 'ʝoɾ.tɐ.san tɐ
ʝԑ.'nԑ.θli.ɐ tis 'ɐ.nɐs 'o.li mɐ.'zi, sɐn ɐ.'ðԑɾ.fçɐ#. ɐn 'θԑ.lԑ.tԑ to pi.'stԑ.vԑ.tԑ, ɐ.'lɐ to xnu.ðo.'to ɣɐ.'tɐ.ci 'ԑ.
fɐ.ʝԑ to mԑ.ɣɐ.'li.tԑ.ɾo ko.'mɐ.ti tis 'tuɾ.tɐs mԑ tis 'fɾɐ.u.lԑs(~'fɾɐw.lԑs) cԑ tɐ ɐ'miɣ.ðɐlɐ (tɐ.'miɣ.ðɐlɐ)#.
i 'ɐ.nɐ 'pԑ.ɾɐ.sԑ i'pԑ.ɾo.xɐ ԑ.'ci.ni tin i'mԑ.ɾɐ (ti'mԑ.ɾɐ) 'to.so pu θɐ 'ԑ.mԑ.nԑ ('θɐ.mԑnԑ) sti 'mni.mi tis
(*'mɲi.mi tis, 'mɲimits)#. sɐn tin (sɐ.(n)din) 'ɐ.nɐ ton ɐ.'ɣɾon, 'i.ksԑ.ɾԑ nɐ 'ftçɐ.xni ('fçɐ.xni) (*'fçɐ.xɲi,
'fçɐxɲ) ti 'mԑ.ɾɐ tis cԑ pos 'li.ʝi fɐ.(n)dɐ.'si.ɐ bo.'ɾi nɐ sԑ 'pɐ.i ɐ.po to 'ɐl.fɐ sto o.'mԑ.ɣɐ#.
English Translation
Anna’s birthday
Once upon a time, under a pine tree, the biggest tree in the park, there was a house that looked
like a manger. Τhere lived a girl with her old nanny. Her daddy and mammy had gone on a long
trip out to sea. The child had a doll, beautiful like a fairy, but it was missing its ears. She carried it
along with her in a basket, because it reminded her of the teacher she could see from her bed,
outside the pane, coming every morning by train and leaving late in the evening. She was looking
forward to growing up herself and, also, going to school. Still, she often liked to read her favorite
book, a type of atlas. There was a flower on the front cover of the book, and several animals were
shown inside, such as an ostrich, a frog, a tiger, a monkey, a turtle, and a huge dragon that played
soccer and would even score a goal.
That day was the girl’s birthday. Sticking her head out of the window, she saw that the night frost
was melting like rain over the front-door step, as the golden sun was slowly breaking out. She first
washed her face with soap, tidied her hair with the comb and then, after looking at her tongue in the
mirror, she quickly glanced at her head and back. On the table among the dishes, there was already
waiting for her a cup of hot milk and some tea, which was exactly what her achy throat needed not to
be scratching. As she was having breakfast, she noticed that, next to her shoe on the carpet, there were
some fruit peels and plenty of rice, and that they had taken a strange shape. They looked somewhat
like a whistle and somewhat like a sharpener on grass. She spread her arm to pick them up when,
suddenly, she heard the clock on the wall strike eight times, and the door keys turn. Then, she saw her
nanny enter the room holding something huge, like a blue balloon. “What a big, round sack! What a
beautiful bow! And, how many gifts are hidden inside! An entire treasure” said the girl. Although her
parents were gone, they had not forgotten her, nor her birthday. “Thank you!” she exclaimed,
beginning to unwrap the first package, wishing that a pair of inexpensive socks or a fish bowl were
hidden in it. Nevertheless, she only found a grey truck, so real that it even had a gas pedal and tools.
SEQUEL
“Anna, leave the gifts next to the fireplace and finish your breakfast!” the nanny told her. Anna
had put a thermometer in her mouth the night before to see if she had fever and, now, she wasn’t so
hungry to eat the toast, the egg, the yellow cheese, and the spinach pie that were stacked in front of
her. She wasn’t a fool to change her mind. Neither did she like to express her feelings by crying. On
the contrary, she was dreaming of a big party inside daddy’s study with colours, candy, a green
lollipop, a wafer, a chocolate, and a lot of guests. It was her birthday, after all!
Preparations come first, though. She used the broom to pick up the rice and fruit peels that now
looked like a ghost on the floor(soil) and, then, gave her doll a bath in lukewarm water from the tap.
She liked dressing the doll in a pink swimsuit, but today she chose a fuzzy dress with a black belt
that matched its curly hair. Afterwards, she brought several decorations and toys out of the
handicrafts bag and used a rope to hang them high over the light: a moon, a cloud, a kite, a hot
air balloon, and a duck with spread-out wings. They all looked like they were going down a slide
and were picture-perfect.
“We are ready!” she told her nanny, who had put on her reading glasses in the meantime and,
sitting at the desk, was browsing the internet for an octopus-in-tomato or zucchini and cucumbers
recipe. She wanted to prepare something special for Anna’s birthday, besides meat and tzatziki.
“Άnna, don't forget that Mr. Gregory is coming in a short while” the nanny told her. He was an old
neighbour, a sixty-six year old, who lived in the adjacent building. He used to be grandpa’s good
friend, since they both got their degree from the same university. He had promised to bring Anna a
ball and a magic wand that becomes a hammer when shaken by hand. In his youth, Mr. Gregory
travelled a lot, like her parents, sometimes by boat and sometimes by ship. On and off, he would go
to distant places with castles on top of the hills, where one could only reach riding a donkey. Anna
enjoyed listening to the stories he told her, without being shy. She hastily looked outside the
window to see if he was coming, but the street was empty. Only the smoke could be seen like a
spinning top from the fireplace and the white fence in the yard, covered by something like fuzz that
was falling from the tree. It was autumn.
“What is this noise?” she asked her nanny, but she had long gone out of the room. She turned
the other way, and what a surprise! Out of the pages of her favorite book, there appeared all the
animals mentioned before, and many more along with them, such as an ugly dog, an elephant, a
lion, a kitten and a grasshopper. “Have you heard the news?” they were saying like they were
children “we saw a dolphin come out of the lake! Does anyone know how to push heavy load so we
can send it away to the sea? It's in danger from enemies here or it might drown.” Anna always
wanted to help others, and she immediately offered to lend her bike or nanny’s car. The animals,
however, at once sent a message to the rescue team and, afterwards, they all celebrated Anna’s
birthday together, like siblings. Believe it if you want: the fuzzy kitty ate the largest piece of the
strawberry-almond cake!
Anna had a wonderful time that day; so much so that it would stay in her memory. Like Anne of
Green Gables, she knew how to make her day. She also knew that a little imagination can take one
from alpha to omega.

Babatsouli (2019) A Phonological Assessment Test For Child Greek

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Babatsouli (2019) A Phonological Assessment Test For Child Greek

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics

ISSN: 0269-9206 (Print) 1464-5076 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/iclp20

A phonological assessment test for child Greek

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02699206.2019.1569164

View supplementary material

Published online: 18 Feb 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

A phonological assessment test for child Greek

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The constraint-based nonlinear child phonological development/assessment

allophonic complementary distribution. Among the allophones, ɾ→[r ɹ] is in free non-

Table 1. Major phonological processes in Greek.

Table 2. The distribution of Greek syllables per word position*.

Table 3. The distribution of most frequent word shapes in Greek*.

Phonological development and assessment in Greek

pertinent. In order to provide a test accessible to phonologists/logopedists/SLPs anywhere

Table 4. Greek screener (PAel): monosyllabic/bisyllabic (31 words).

Table 5. Greek screener (PAel): multisyllabic (19 words).

Phonotactic and distributional analysis

Table 6. Greek extended list (PAel): monosyllabic/bisyllabic words (55).

Table 7. Greek extended list (PAel): trisyllabic words (36).

Table 8. Greek extended list (PAel): multisyllabic (9 words).

Table 9. Distribution of PAel vowels (Vs).

Table 10. Distribution of PAel singleton consonants.

Comparing with PAL (1995)

Table 12. Distribution of PAel two-member clusters: CSON.

Table 13. Distribution of PAel syllable types and stress patterns.

Table 14. The distribution of PAel syllables per word position.

Table 15. The child’s singleton consonant adult-like match (%).

The pilot test

Methods for phonetic and phonological analysis

Results and discussion

The child’s phonology in comparison to published norms or studies

Remaining mismatches involved consonants that, in turn, aﬀected word-shape matches

Table 16. The child’s singleton consonant mismatches.

Table 17. The patterns of the child’s consonant cluster mismatches.

Limitations and future research

Appendix. Greek test (PAel) narrative

Τα γενέθλια της Άννας

SEQUEL (606 words)

Adult surface production in IPA

Phonetic variation, i.e. informal/running speech is in parenthesis; dialectal speech is shown in

You might also like