Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T03:10:06.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Investigating the effects of syllable complexity in Russian-speaking children with SLI*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2011

DARYA KAVITSKAYA ,
MARIA BABYONYSHEV ,
THEODORE WALLS  and
ELENA GRIGORENKO
DARYA KAVITSKAYA
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Yale University
MARIA BABYONYSHEV
Affiliation:
Child Study Center, Yale University
THEODORE WALLS
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Rhode Island
ELENA GRIGORENKO
Affiliation:
Child Study Center, Yale University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examined the effect of number of syllables and syllable structure on repetition of pseudo-words by Russian-speaking children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI) and typically developing (TD) children. One hundred and forty-four pseudo-words, varying in length and syllable complexity, were presented to two groups of children: 15 children with SLI, age range 4 ; 0 to 8 ; 8, and 15 TD children matched in age to the SLI group. The number of errors in the repetition of pseudo-words was analyzed in terms of the number of syllables and syllable complexity. The results demonstrated that children with SLI have deficits in working memory capacity. In addition to the pseudo-word length, the repetition performance was affected by syllable structure complexity.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 38 , Issue 5 , November 2011 , pp. 979 - 998
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.)

References

REFERENCES

Avanesov, R. I. (1985). Orfoepicheskii slovar' russkogo iazyka: proiznoshenie, udarenie, grammaticheskie formy. Moskva: Russkii iazyk.Google Scholar
Barnes, J. (1997). Bulgarian liquid metathesis and syllabification in Optimality Theory. In Boskovic, Z., Franks, S. & Snyder, W. (eds), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The Connecticut meeting 1997, 38–53. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Bishop, D. V. M. (1997). Uncommon understanding: Development and disorders of language comprehension in children. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. (1995). The syllable in phonological theory. In Goldsmith, J. A. (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2007). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 4.6.32) [Computer program]. Retrieved October 14, 2007 from www.praat.org/.Google Scholar
Bracken, B. A. & McCallum, R. S. (1998). Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test – UNIT. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar
Chiat, S. & Roy, P. (2007). The preschool repetition test: An evaluation of performance in typically developing and clinically referred children. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 50, 429–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clements, G. N. (1990). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Kingston, J. & Beckman, M. E. (eds), Papers in laboratory phonology I. Between the grammar and physics of speech, 283–333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Côté, M.-H. & Varlamov, V. (in press). The impact of experimental tasks on syllabification judgements: A case study of Russian. In Cairns, C. & Raimy, E. (eds.), Handbook of the syllable, 273–94. Leiden, Boston: Brill Publishers.Google Scholar
de Lacy, P. (2004). Markedness conflation in Optimality Theory. Phonology 21, 145–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fee, E. J. (1995). The phonological system of specifically language impaired population. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 9, 189–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallon, N., Harris, J. & van der Lely, H. (2007). Non-word repetition: An investigation of phonological complexity in children with Grammatical SLI. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 21, 435–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gathercole, S. & Baddeley, A. (1990). Phonological memory deficits in language disordered children: Is there a causal connection? Journal of Memory and Language 29, 336–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2006). Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42, 25–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kavitskaya, D. & Babyonyshev, M. (in press). Syllable structure and Specific Language Impairment: A case of Russian-speaking children. In Cairns, C. & Raimy, E. (eds), Handbook of the syllable, 353–71. Leiden, Boston: Brill Publishers.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1981). Remarks on the metrical structure of the syllable. In Dressler, W., Pfeiffer, O. & Rennison, J. (eds), Phonologica 1980, 131–75. Innsbruck, Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Kodzasov, S. V. (1990). Slog. In Iartsev, V. N. (ed.), Lingvisticheskij Entsiklopedicheskij Slovar', 470. Moskva: Sovetskaia Entsiklopediia.Google Scholar
Kozhevnikov, V. A. & Chistovich, L. A. (1965). Speech, articulation, and perception. NTIS, US Dept. of Commerce, JPRS 30, 543.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. B. (1998). Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Leonard, L. B. & Eyer, J. A. (1996). Linguistic theory and the assessment of grammar. In Cole, K. N., Philip, S. & Thal, D. J. (eds), Assessment of communication and language, 97–120. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Marshall, C., Ebbels, S., Harris, J. & van der Lely, H. (2002). Investigating the impact of prosodic complexity on the speech of children with Specific Language Impairment. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14, 43–68.Google Scholar
Marshall, C., Harris, J. & van der Lely, H. (2003). The nature of phonological representations in children with Grammatical-Specific Language Impairment (G-SLI). In Hall, D., Markopoulos, T., Salamoura, A. & Skoufaki, S. (eds), The University of Cambridge First Postgraduate Conference in Language Research, 511–17. Cambridge: Cambridge Institute of Language Research, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Marshall, C. & van der Lely, H. (2009). Effects of word position and stress on onset cluster production: Evidence from typical development, specific language impairment, and dyslexia. Language 85, 39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, M. (2003a). Frog, where are you? New York: Penguin Putnam Inc.Google Scholar
Mayer, M. (2003b). A boy, a dog, and a frog. New York: Penguin Books USA Inc.Google Scholar
Montgomery, J. W. (1995). Sentence comprehension in children with Specific Language Impairment: The role of phonological working memory. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 38, 187–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nickels, L. & Howard, D. (2004). Dissociating effects of number of phonemes, number of syllables, and syllabic complexity on word production in aphasia: It's the number of phonemes that counts. Cognitive Neuropsychology 21, 57–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ohala, J. (1992). Alternatives to the Sonority Hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential constraints. Papers from the Regional Meetings, Chicago Linguistic Society 2, 319–38.Google Scholar
Reich, J. (2009). Morphosyntax acquisition in children with disorders of spoken language. PhD dissertation, Yale University.Google Scholar
Reilly, J., Losh, M., Bellugi, U. & Wulfeck, B. (2004). ‘Frog, where are you?’ Narratives in children with specific language impairment, early focal brain injury, and Williams syndrome. Brain and Language 88, 229–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rescorla, L. & Bernstein Ratner, N. (1996). Phonetic profiles of toddlers with specific expressive language impairment (SLI-E). Journal of Speech and Language Research 39, 153–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, K. (2007). Markedness in phonology. In de Lacy, P. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology, 79–98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roelofs, A. (2002). Syllable structure effects turn out to be word length effects: Comment on Santiago et al. (2000). Language and Cognitive Processes 17, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romani, C. & Calabrese, A. (1998). Syllabic constraints in the phonological errors of an aphasic patient. Brain and Language 64, 83–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roy, P. & Chiat, S. (2004). A prosodically controlled word and nonword repetition task for 2- to 4-year-olds: Evidence from typically developing children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47, 223–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sahlén, B., Reuterskioeld-Wagner, C., Netterlbladt, U. & Radeborg, K. (1999). Non-word repetition in children with language impairment – pitfalls and possibilities. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 34, 337–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santiago, J., MacKay, D. G., Palma, A. & Rho, C. (2000). Sequential activation processes in producing words and syllables: Evidence from picture naming. Language and Cognitive Processes 15, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, F. de. (1916). Cours de Linguistique Générale. Lausanne and Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1984). On the major class features and syllable theory. In Aronoff, M. & Oerhle, R. T. (eds), Language sound structure: Studies in phonology presented to Morris Halle by his teacher and students, 107–135. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sievers, E. (1881). Grundzüge der Phonetic. Leipzig: Breitkopf and Hartel.Google Scholar
Snowling, M., Chiat, C. & Hulme, C. (1991). Words, nonwords, and phonological processes: Some comments on Gathercole, Willis, Emslie, and Baddeley. Applied Psycholinguistics 12, 369–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steriade, D. (1982). Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
van der Lely, H. (2004). Evidence for and implications of a domain-specific grammatical deficit. In Jenkins, L. (ed.), The genetics of language, 117–46. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
van der Lely, H. & Howard, D. (1993). Children with Specific Language Impairment: Linguistic impairment or short-term memory deficit? Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 36, 1193–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vennemann, T. (1972). On the theory of syllabic phonology. Linguistische Berichte 18, 1–18.Google Scholar
Zec, D. (1995). Sonority constraints on syllable structure. Phonology 12, 85–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zec, D. (2007). The syllable. In de Lacy, P. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology, 161–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar