Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:22:02.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Density, frequency and the expressive phonology of children with phonological delay*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2011

JUDITH A. GIERUT  and
MICHELE L. MORRISETTE
JUDITH A. GIERUT*
Affiliation:
Indiana University, Bloomington
MICHELE L. MORRISETTE
Affiliation:
Indiana University, Bloomington
*
Address for correspondence: Judith A. Gierut, Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Indiana University, 200 South Jordan Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47405-7002, USA. e-mail: gierut@indiana.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effect of word-level variables on expressive phonology has not been widely studied, although the properties of words likely bear on the emergence of sound structure (Stoel-Gammon, 2011). Eight preschoolers, diagnosed with phonological delay, were assigned to treatment to experimentally induce gains in expressive phonology. Erred sounds were taught using stimulus words that varied orthogonally in neighborhood density and word frequency as the independent variables. Generalization was the dependent variable, defined as production accuracy of treated and untreated (erred) sounds. Blocked comparisons showed that dense neighborhoods triggered greater generalization, but frequency did not have a clear differential effect. Orthogonal comparisons revealed graded effects, with frequent words from dense neighborhoods being optimal for generalization. The results contrast with prior literature, which has reported a sparse neighborhood advantage for children with phonological delay. There is a suggestion that children with phonological delay require greater than usual cue redundancy and convergence to prompt expressive phonological learning.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , September 2012 , pp. 804 - 834
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[*]

This research was supported in part by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (DC01694) to Indiana University. We thank Dan Dinnsen and Jill Hoover for their input, and members of the Learnability Project for their assistance in data management and analysis.

References

REFERENCES

Bain, B. A. & Dollaghan, C. A. (1991). The notion of clinically significant change. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools 22, 264–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, M. E. & Edwards, J. (2000). Lexical frequency effects on young children's imitative productions. In Broe, M. & Pierrehumbert, J. (eds), Papers in laboratory phonology V, 207–217. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beeson, P. M. & Robey, R. R. (2006). Evaluating single-subject treatment research: Lessons learned from the aphasia literature. Neuropsychology Review 16, 161–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bird, H., Franklin, S. & Howard, D. (2001). Age of acquisition and imageability ratings for a large set of words, including verb and function words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 33, 73–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bybee, J. L. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles-Luce, J. & Luce, P. A. (1990). Similarity neighbourhoods of words in young children's lexicons. Journal of Child Language 17, 205–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charles-Luce, J. & Luce, P. A. (1995). An examination of similarity neighbourhoods in young children's receptive vocabularies. Journal of Child Language 22, 727–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, M. & Wang, W. S.-Y. (1975). Sound change: Actuation and implementation. Language 51, 255–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coady, J. A. & Aslin, R. N. (2003). Phonological neighbourhoods in the developing lexicon. Journal of Child Language 30, 441–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dinnsen, D. A. (1984). Methods and empirical issues in analyzing functional misarticulation. In Elbert, M., Dinnsen, D. A. & Weismer, G. (eds), Phonological theory and the misarticulating child (ASHA monographs no. 22), 5–17. Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.Google Scholar
Dollaghan, C. A. (1994). Children's phonological neighbourhoods: Half empty or half full? Journal of Child Language 21, 257–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elbert, M., Dinnsen, D. A. & Powell, T. W. (1984). On the prediction of phonologic generalization learning patterns. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 49, 309–317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garlock, V. M., Walley, A. C. & Metsala, J. L. (2001). Age-of-acquisition, word frequency and neighborhood density effects on spoken word recognition by children and adults. Journal of Memory and Language 45, 468–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerken, L. A. (1994). Child phonology: Past research, present questions, future directions. In Gernsbacher, M. A. (ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics, 781–820. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gerken, L. A. (2006). Decisions, decisions: Infant language learning when multiple generalizations are possible. Cognition 98, B67–B74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gierut, J. A. (2008a). Fundamentals of experimental design and treatment. In Dinnsen, D. A. & Gierut, J. A. (eds), Optimality Theory, phonological acquisition and disorders, 93–118. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Gierut, J. A. (2008b). Phonological disorders and the developmental phonology archive. In Dinnsen, D. A. & Gierut, J. A. (eds), Optimality Theory, phonological acquisition and disorders, 37–92. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Gierut, J. A. & Dale, R. A. (2007). Comparability of lexical corpora: Word frequency in phonological generalization. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 21, 423–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gierut, J. A. & Morrisette, M. L. (2011a). Age-of-word-acquisition effects in treatment of children with phonological delays. Applied Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Gierut, J. A. & Morrisette, M. L. (2011b). Effect size in clinical phonology. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gierut, J. A., Morrisette, M. L. & Champion, A. H. (1999). Lexical constraints in phonological acquisition. Journal of Child Language 26, 261–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gierut, J. A., Morrisette, M. L. & Ziemer, S. (2010). Nonwords and generalization in children with phonological disorders. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 19, 167–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gierut, J. A. & O'Connor, K. M. (2002). Precursors to onset clusters in acquisition. Journal of Child Language 29, 495–517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilhooly, K. J. & Logie, R. H. (1980). Age-of-acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1,944 words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 12, 395–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilhooly, K. J. & Watson, F. L. (1981). Word age-of-acquisition effects: A review. Current Psychological Reviews 1, 269–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gnanadesikan, A. E. (1996). Child phonology in optimality theory: Ranking markedness and faithfulness constraints. In Stringfellow, A., Cahana-Amitay, D., Hughes, E. & Zukowski, A. (eds), Proceedings of the 20th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Vol. 1, 237–48. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, R. & Fristoe, M. (2000). Goldman–Fristoe test of articulation, 2nd edn.Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Goodman, J. C., Dale, P. S. & Li, P. (2008). Does frequency count? Parental input and the acquisition of vocabulary. Journal of Child Language 35, 515–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hodson, B. W. & Paden, E. P. (1991). Targeting intelligible speech: A phonological approach to remediation, 2nd edn.Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
Janson, T. (1983). Sound change in perception and production. Language 59, 18–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W., Luce, P. A. & Charles-Luce, J. (1994). Infants' sensitivity to phonotactic patterns in the native language. Journal of Memory and Language 33, 630–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, M. H. & Martin, S. (1994). Domain-general abilities applied to domain-specific tasks: Sensitivities to probabilities in perception, cognition, and language. In Gleitman, L. & Landau, B. (eds), The acquisition of the lexicon, 105–140. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Krull, V., Choi, S., Kirk, K. I., Prusick, L. & French, B. (2010). Lexical effects on spoken-word recognition in children with normal hearing. Ear and Hearing 31, 102–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kučera, H. & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1994). Principles of linguistic change: Internal factors. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. B., Newhoff, M. & Mesalam, L. (1980). Individual differences in early child phonology. Applied Psycholinguistics 1, 7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, P. A. (1986). Neighborhoods of words in the mental lexicon (Technical report no. 6). Bloomington, IN: Speech Research Laboratory, Indiana University.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1987). The competition model. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, 249–308. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Magnuson, J. S., Dixon, J. A., Tanenhaus, M. K. & Aslin, R. N. (2007). The dynamics of lexical competition during spoken word recognition. Cognitive Science 31, 133–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marascuilo, L. A. & Serlin, R. C. (1988). Statistical methods for the social and behavioral sciences. New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
McReynolds, L. V. & Kearns, K. P. (1983). Single-subject experimental designs in communicative disorders. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Metsala, J. L. (1997). An examination of word frequency and neighborhood density in the development of spoken word recognition. Memory & Cognition 25, 47–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrisette, M. L. (2000). Lexical influences on the process of sound change in phonological acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Morrisette, M. L. (2004). Recursive change in phonological acquisition. In Slifka, J., Manuel, S. & Matthies, M. (eds), From sound to sense: 50+ years of discoveries in speech communication, 67–72. Boston: MIT.Google Scholar
Morrisette, M. L. & Gierut, J. A. (2002). Lexical organization and phonological change in treatment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 45, 143–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munson, B. (2001). Phonological pattern frequency and speech production in adults and children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 44, 778–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norris, D. (1994). Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition 52, 189–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nusbaum, H. C., Pisoni, D. B. & Davis, C. K. (1984). Sizing up the Hoosier Mental Lexicon: Measuring the familiarity of 20,000 words (Progress report no. 10). Bloomington, IN: Speech Research Laboratory, Indiana University; http://neighborhoodsearch.wustl.edu/Neighborhood/Home.asp.Google Scholar
Peters, A. M. & Strömqvist, S. (1996). The role of prosody in the acquisition of grammatical morphemes. In Morgan, J. L. & Demuth, K. (eds), Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition, 215–32. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pisoni, D. B., Nusbaum, H. C., Luce, P. A. & Slowiaczek, L. M. (1985). Speech perception, word recognition and the structure of the lexicon. Speech Communication 4, 75–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, K. & Avery, P. (1995). Variability in a deterministic model of language acquisition: A theory of segmental elaboration. In Archibald, J. (ed.), Phonological acquisition and phonological theory, 23–42. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rvachew, S. & Nowak, M. (2001). The effect of target-selection strategy on phonological learning. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 44, 610–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N. & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274, 1926–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saffran, J. R. & Thiessen, E. D. (2003). Pattern induction by infant language learners. Developmental Psychology 39, 484–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shriberg, L. D., Kwiatkowski, J. & Gruber, F. A. (1994). Developmental phonological disorders II: Short-term speech-sound normalization. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 37, 1127–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smit, A. B., Hand, L., Freilinger, J. J., Bernthal, J. E. & Bird, A. (1990). The Iowa Articulation Norms Project and its Nebraska replication. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 55, 779–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stoel-Gammon, C. (2011). Relationships between lexical and phonological development in young children. Journal of Child Language 38, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storkel, H. L. (2001). Learning new words: Phonotactic probability in language development. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 44, 1321–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storkel, H. L. (2004a). Methods for minimizing the confounding effects of word length in the analysis of phonotactic probability and neighborhood density. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47, 1454–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storkel, H. L. (2004b). The emerging lexicon of children with phonological delays: Phonotactic constraints and probability in acquisition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47, 1194–1212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storkel, H. L. & Hoover, J. R. (2010a). An online calculator to compute phonotactic probability and neighborhood density on the basis of child corpora of spoken American English. Behavior Research Methods 42, 497–506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storkel, H. L. & Hoover, J. R. (2010b). Word learning by children with phonological delays: Differentiating effects of phonotactic probability and neighborhood density. Journal of Communication Disorders 43, 105–119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storkel, H. L. & Lee, S. Y. (2011). The independent effects of phonotactic probability and neighborhood density on lexical acquisition by preschool children. Language and Cognitive Processes 26, 191–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swingley, D. & Aslin, R. N. (2000). Spoken word recognition and lexical representation in very young children. Cognition 76, 147–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyler, A. A., Edwards, M. L. & Saxman, J. H. (1987). Clinical application of two phonologically-based treatment procedures. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 52, 393–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vitevitch, M. S. & Luce, P. A. (2004). A web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 36, 481–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walley, A. C. (1993). The role of vocabulary development in children's spoken word recognition and segmentation ability. Developmental Review 13, 286–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walley, A. C. & Metsala, J. L. (1992). Young children's age-of-acquisition estimates for spoken words. Memory & Cognition 20, 171–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed