Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T05:20:51.481Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interactivity in prosodic representations in children*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2012

LISA GOFFMAN  and
STEFANIE WESTOVER
LISA GOFFMAN*
Affiliation:
Purdue University
STEFANIE WESTOVER
Affiliation:
Purdue University
*
Address for correspondence: Lisa Goffman, PhD, Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Heavilon Hall, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907. e-mail goffman@purdue.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine, using speech error and articulatory analyses, whether the binary distinction between iambs and trochees should be extended to include additional prosodic subcategories. Adults, children who are normally developing, and children with specific language impairment (SLI) participated. Children with SLI were included because they exhibit prosodic and motor deficits. Children, especially those with SLI, showed the expected increase in omission errors in weak initial syllables. Movement patterning analyses revealed that speakers produced differentiated articulatory templates beyond the broad categories of iamb and trochee. Finally, weak–weak prosodic sequences that crossed word boundaries showed increased articulatory variability when compared with strong–weak alternations. The binary distinction between iamb and trochee may be insufficient, with additional systematic prosodic subcategories evident, even in young children with SLI. Findings support increased interactivity in language processing.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 40 , Issue 5 , November 2013 , pp. 1032 - 1056
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

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

[*]

We are grateful to Janna Berlin, LouAnn Gerken, Bill Saxton, Amanda Seidl, and David Snow for invaluable assistance with many phases of this work. This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health (National Institute of Deafness and other Communicative Disorders) grant DC04826.

References

REFERENCES

Baese-Berk, M. & Goldrick, M. (2009). Mechanisms of interaction in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes 24, 527–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyle, M. K. & Gerken, L. (1997). The influence of lexical familiarity on children's function morpheme omissions: A nonmetrical effect? Journal of Memory and Language 36, 117–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgemeister, B., Blum, L. & Lorge, I. (1972). Columbia Mental Maturity Scale, 3rd edn. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Cholin, J., Schiller, N. O. & Levelt, W. J. M. (2004). The preparation of syllables in speech production. Journal of Memory and Language 50, 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A. & Carter, D. M. (1987). The predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary. Computer Speech and Language 2, 133–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, B. L., MacNeilage, P. F., Matyear, C. L. & Powell, J. K. (2000). Prosodic correlates of stress in babbling: An acoustical study. Child Development 71, 1258–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawson, J. & Stout, C. (2003). The Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test-3. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.Google Scholar
Demuth, K. (1996). The prosodic structure of early words. In Morgan, J. L. & Demuth, K. (eds), Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition, 171–84. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Demuth, K. (2001). Prosodic constraints on morphological development. In Weissenborn, J. and Hohle, B. (eds), Approaches to bootstrapping: Phonological, syntactic, and neurophysiological aspects of early language acquisition, 3–21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demuth, K. (2003). The status of feet in early acquisition. 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), Universidad Antonima de Barcelona, 151–54.Google Scholar
Echols, C. H. (1993). A perceptually-based model of children's earliest productions. Cognition 46, 245–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerken, L. A. (1994). Young children's representation of prosodic structure: Evidence from English-speakers' weak syllable omissions. Journal of Memory and Language 33, 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerken, L. A. (1996). Prosodic structure in young children's language production. Language 72, 683–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerken, L. A. & McGregor, K. K. (1998). An overview of prosody and its role in normal and disordered child language. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 7, 38–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerken, L. A. & Ohala, D. (2000). Language production in children, In Wheeldon, L. (ed.), Aspects of language production, 275–90. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, L. (1999). Prosodic influences on speech production in children with specific language impairment and speech deficits. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 42, 1499–517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goffman, L. (2004). Kinematic differentiation of prosodic categories in normal and disordered language development. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47, 1088–1102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goffman, L., Heisler, L. & Chakraborty, R. (2006). Mapping of prosodic structure onto words and phrases in children's and adults' speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes 21, 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, L. & Malin, C. (1999). Metrical effects on speech movements in children and adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 42, 1003–1015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goffman, L. & Smith, A. (1999). Development and phonetic differentiation of speech movement patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 25, 649–60.Google ScholarPubMed
Grigos, M. & Patel, R. (2007). Articulator movement associated with the development of prosodic control in children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 50, 119–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, B. (1995). Metrical stress theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heisler, L., Goffman, L. & Younger, B. (2010). Lexical and articulatory interactions in children's language production. Developmental Science 13, 722–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huber, J. E., Stathopoulos, E. T., Ramig, L. O. & Lancaster, S. L. (2003). Respiratory function and variability in individuals with Parkinson Disease: Pre- and post-Lee Silverman Voice Treatment. Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology 11, 185–201.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. B. (1998). Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A. & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 1–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacNeilage, P. F. & Davis, B. L. (2000). On the origin of internal structure of word forms. Science 288, 527–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maner, K., Smith, A. & Grayson, L. (2000). Influences of utterance length and complexity on speech motor performance in children and adults. Journal of Speech, Language, & Hearing Research 43, 560–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MathWorks (1993). Matlab: Higher performance numeric computation and visualization software [computer program]. Natick, MA: Author.Google Scholar
McMillan, C. T., Corley, M. & Lickley, R. (2009). Articulatory evidence for feedback and competition in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes 24, 44–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, A. (1990). Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization. In Ziolkowski, M., Noske, M. & Denton, K. (eds), Papers from the 26th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: The parasession on the syllable in phonetics and phonology, 355–98. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Rapp, B. & Goldrick, M. (2006). Speaking words: Contributions of neuropsychological research. Cognitive Neuropsychology 23, 39–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reynell, J. & Gruber, C. (1990). Reynell Developmental Language Scales-US Edition. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
Robbins, J. & Klee, T. (1987). Clinical assessment of oropharyngeal motor development in young children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 52, 271–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartz, R. G. & Goffman, L. (1995). Metrical patterns of words and production accuracy. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 38, 876–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, A. & Goffman, L. (1998). Stability and patterning of speech movement sequences in children and adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 41, 18–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, A., Goffman, L., Zelaznik, H., Ying, S. & McGillem, C. (1995). Spatiotemporal stability and patterning of speech movement sequences. Experimental Brain Research 104, 493–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, A., Johnson, M., McGillem, C. & Goffman, L. (2000). On the assessment of stability and patterning of speech movements. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 43, 277–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, A. & Zelaznik, H. (2004). Development of functional synergies for speech motor coordination in childhood and adolescence. Developmental Psychobiology 45, 22–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snow, D. (1998). A prominence account of syllable reduction in early speech development: The child's prosodic phonology of tiger and giraffe. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 41, 1158–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thelen, E. & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. & Pierpont, E. I. (2005). Specific language impairment is not specific to language: The procedural deficit hypothesis. Cortex 41, 399–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vihman, M. M., DePaolis, R. A. & Davis, B. L. (1998). Is there a ‘trochaic bias’ in early word learning? Evidence from infant production in English and French. Child Development 69, 935–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zamuner, T. & Gerken, L. A. (1998). Young children's production of coda consonants in different prosodic environments. In Clark, E. (ed.), Proceedings of the Annual Child Language Research Forum 29, 121–28. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar