Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T03:26:00.917Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The importance of grain size in phonology and the possibility that phonological working memory is epiphenomenal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2017

Alan Juffs
Alan Juffs*
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Pierce, Genesee, Delcenserie, and Morgan have provided an innovative and thought-provoking juxtaposition of the putative role played by phonological working memory (PWM) in explaining individual and group differences among early internationally adopted (IA) children, deaf children with cochlear implants, simultaneous and sequential bilinguals, children who are learning sign languages, and children with otitis media. This novel comparison suggests that adequate exposure to phonology before 12 months of age is key in the development of improved PWM. Consequently, long-term linguistic advantages in vocabulary and learning of morphosyntax arise, but not advantages in other areas of higher cognition. One significant implication of the review is that although many intriguing links exist between language development and PWM, irrefutable conclusions elude the field as to the directionality of a causal relationship between phonological development, other linguistic development, and PWM. In this commentary, I should like to make the somewhat controversial proposal (Gathercole, 2006, and commentaries) that the evidence presented points to PWM being an epiphenomenon arising out of individual differences in the robustness and richness of phonological representations themselves. The authors hinted several times at the tantalizing relationship between phonology and PWM, but they do not articulate explicitly that PWM could be a redundant construct. I also offer some proposals as to how one might test this suggestion experimentally or in a corpus of child language.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 38 , Issue 6 , November 2017 , pp. 1329 - 1333
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

Delcenserie, A., & Genesee, F. (2014). Language and memory abilities of internationally adopted children from China: Evidence for early age effects. Journal of Child Language, 41, 1195–1223.Google Scholar
French, L. M., & O'Brien, I. (2008). Phonological memory and children's second language grammar learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 463–487. doi:10.1017/S0142716408080211 Google Scholar
Gathercole, S. E. (2006). Nonword repetition and word learning: The nature of the relationship. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 513–543. doi:10.1017.S0142716406060383 Google Scholar
Juffs, A. (1990). The role of pitch and syllable structure in Chinese learners’ stress errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 28, 99–117. doi:10.1515/iral.1990.28.2.99 Google Scholar
Juffs, A., & Rodríguez, G. (2008). Some notes on working memory in college-educated and low-educated learners of English as a second language in the United States. In Young-Scholten, M. (Ed.), Low-educated second language and literacy acquisition: Research, policy and practice (Vol. 3, pp. 33–48). Newcastle-Upon-Tyne: Rounduit, Durham.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K. (2004). Early language acquisition: Cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 831–843. doi:10.1038/nrn1533 Google Scholar
MacKenzie, H., Curtin, S., & Graham, S. A. (2012). 12 month-olds’ phonotactic knowledge guides their word-object mappings. Child Development, 83, 1129–1136. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624. 2012.01764.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nathan, G. S. (2015). Phonology. In Dabrowska, E. & Divjak, D. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 252–272). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In Verhoeven, L., Elbro, C., & Reitsma, P. (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 189–214). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pierce, L., Klein, D., Chen, J.-K., Delcenserie, A., & Genesee, F. (2014). Mapping the unconscious maintenance of a lost first language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 17314–17319. doi:10.1073/pnas.1409411111 Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1984). On the major class features and syllable theory. In Aronoff, M. & Oerhle, R. T. (Eds.), Language and sound structure (pp. 107–136). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sunderman, G., & Kroll, J. F. (2009). When study abroad fails to deliver: The internal resources threshold effect. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 79–99. doi:10.1017/S0142716408090048 Google Scholar
Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Song, L., Leavell, A. S., Kahana-Kalman, R., & Yoshikawa, H. (2012). Ethnic differences in mother-infant language and gestural communications are associated with specific skills in infants. Developmental Science, 15, 384–397. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01136.x Google Scholar
Wagner, R., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. (1999). CTOPP: Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. East Moline, IL: LinguiSystems.Google Scholar