Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:57:03.925Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nonword repetition and levels of abstraction in phonological knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2006

Benjamin Munson
Benjamin Munson
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Susan Gathercole's Keynote Article (2006) is an impressive summary of the literature on nonword repetition and its relationship to word learning and vocabulary size. When considering research by Mary Beckman, Jan Edwards, and myself, Gathercole speculates that our finding of a stronger relationship between vocabulary measures and repetition accuracy for low-frequency sequences than for high-frequency sequences is due to differences in the range of the two measures. In our work on diphone repetition (e.g., Edwards, Beckman, & Munson, 2004; Munson, Edwards, & Beckman, 2005) we tried to increase the range in our dependent measures by coding errors on a finer grained scale than simple correct/incorrect scoring would allow. Moreover, restriction of range does not appear to be the driving factor in the relationship between vocabulary size and the difference between high- and low-frequency sequence repetition accuracy (what we call the frequency effect) in at least one of our studies (Munson et al., 2005). When the children with the 50 lowest mean accuracy scores for high-frequency sequences were examined, vocabulary size accounted for 10.5% of the variance in the frequency effect beyond what was accounted for by chronological age. When the 50 children with the highest mean accuracy scores for high-frequency sequences were examined (a group in which the range of high-frequency accuracy scores was more compressed, arguably reflecting ceiling effects), an estimate of vocabulary size accounted for only 6.9% of the frequency effect beyond chronological age. The associated β coefficient was significant only at the α<0.08 level. This is the opposite pattern than Gathercole's argument would predict.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , October 2006 , pp. 577 - 581
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

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

Edwards J., Beckman M. E., & Munson B. 2004. The interaction between vocabulary size and phonotactic probability effects on children's production accuracy and fluency in nonword repetition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 421– 436.Google Scholar
Fisher C., Hunt C., Chambers K., & Church B. 2001. Abstraction and specificity in preschoolers' representations of novel spoken words. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 665– 687.Google Scholar
Frisch S. A., Large N. R., & Pisoni D. B. 2000. Perception of wordlikeness: Effects of segment probability and length on processing of non-word sound patterns. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 481– 496.Google Scholar
Gathercole S. E. 2006. Nonword repetition and word learning: The nature of the relationship [Keynote]. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 513– 543.Google Scholar
Goldinger S. A., & Azuma T. 2004. Episodic memory reflected in printed word naming. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11, 716– 722.Google Scholar
Johnson K. 1997. Speech perception without speaker normalization: an exemplar model. In K. Johnson & J. Mullenix (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 145– 166). New York: Academic Press.
Maye J., Werker J. F., & Gerken L. 2002. Infant sensitivity to distributional information can affect phonetic discrimination. Cognition, 82, B101– B111.Google Scholar
Munson B., Edwards J., & Beckman M. E. 2005. Relationships between nonword repetition accuracy and other measures of linguistic development in children with phonological disorders. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 61– 78.Google Scholar
Munson B., Kurtz B. A., & Windsor J. 2005. The influence of vocabulary size, phonotactic probability, and wordlikeness on nonword repetitions of children with and without specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing, 48, 1033– 1047.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert J. B. 2003. Phonetic diversity, statistical learning, and acquisition of phonology. Language and Speech, 46, 115– 154.Google Scholar
Strand E. 2000. Gender stereotype effects in speech processing. PhD Dissertation, Ohio State University, Department of Linguistics.