Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T07:09:16.167Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The contribution of phonological, acoustic, and perceptual techniques to the characterization of a misarticulating child's voice contrast for stops

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Edith M. Maxwell  and
Gary Weismer
Edith M. Maxwell*
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Gary Weismer
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin-Madison
*
Edith M. Maxwell, Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02142
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the voicing contrast for word-initial obstruents in a child whose functional misarticulation initially was characterized by a severe lack of contrasts normally used in the English language. Specifically, auditory analysis indicated that the child represented a large number of both voiced and voiceless obstruents with [d]. Acoustic analysis demonstrated, however, that the child was producing an obstruent voicing distinction, albeit one that was not generally perceptible to listeners. Following a therapy program, the child produced an acceptable voicing distinction, at least for stops. The importance of these findings is that 1) they seem to indicate that the child is attaining articulation skills in a delayed, and not deviant fashion, and 2) they illustrate the utility of acoustic analyses in refining phonological descriptions.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , March 1982 , pp. 29 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

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

Bond, Z., & Wilson, H. F.Acquisition of the voicing contrast by language-delayed and normal-speaking children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1980, 23, 152–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Compton, A. J.Generative studies of children's phonological disorders. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1970, 35, 315–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A., Elbert, M., & Weismer, G. Some typological properties of functional misarticulation Systems. In Dressler, W. O. (Ed.), Phonologica 1980. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprachwissenschaft, 1981.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. H. Phonology and functional misarticulation: theory and analysis. Paper presented at Conference on Dimensions in Communicative Disorders. Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1981.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C., & Macken, M.Phonological development in children: play and cognition. Papers and Reports in Child Language Development, 1980, 18, 138–177.Google Scholar
Fourakis, M. S.A phonetic study of sonorant-fricative clusters in two dialects of English. Research in Phonetics (Phonetics Laboratory, Indiana University), 1980, 18, 167–200.Google Scholar
Goldman, R., & Fristoe, M.Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation. Circle Pines, Minnesota: American Guidance Service, 1969.Google Scholar
Heller, J. H., & Broen, P. A. Perception and production of voice and place: a case study. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Atlanta, Georgia, 1979.Google Scholar
Hyman, L.Phonology: theory & analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976.Google Scholar
Ingram, D.Phonological disability in children. New York: Elsevier, 1976.Google Scholar
Kewley-Port, D., & Preston, M.Early apical stop production: a voice onset time analysis. Journal of Phonetics. 1974, 2, 175–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P., & Menn, L. On the acquisition of phonology. In Macnamara, J. (Ed.), Language, learning and thought. New York: Academic Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Klatt, D.Voice-onset time, frication and aspiration in word-initial consonant clusters. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1975, 18, 686–705.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kornfeld, J., & Goehl, H. A new twist to an old observation: kids know more than they say. Parasession on Natural Phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 1974.Google Scholar
Macken, M., & Barton, D.A longitudinal study of the voicing contrast in American English word-initial stops, as measured by voice onset time. Journal of Child Language, 1980, 7, 41–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, E. M.Competing analyses of a deviant phonology. Glossa, 1979, 13, 181–213.Google Scholar
Mitleb, F. Segmental and non-segmental structure in phonetics: evidence from foreign accent. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Linguistics, Indiana University, 1981.Google Scholar
Pollack, E., & Rees, N.Disorder of articulation: some clinical applications of distinctive feature theory. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1972, 37, 451–461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, D. Q. The inadequacy of bipolarity and distinctive features: the German “voiced/voiceless” consonants. In Reich, P. (Ed.), The Second Lacus Forum – 1975. Columbia, South Carolina: Hornbeam Press, Inc., 1976.Google Scholar
Weiner, F.Phonological process analysis. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weismer, G., Dinnsen, D. A., & Elbert, M.A study of the voicing distinction associated with omitted word-final stops. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1981, 46, 320–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zlatin, M. A., & Koenigsknecht, R. A.Development of the voicing contrast: a comparison of voice onset time in stop perception and production. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1976, 19, 93–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar