Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T15:57:38.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Individual variation and its relevance to a theory of phonological acquisition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Heather Goad  and
David Ingram
Heather Goad
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
David Ingram*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
*
Department of Linguistics, The University of British Columbia, 6369–1866 Main Mall, Vancouver, B.C., CanadaV6T 1W5.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Stoel-Gammon & Cooper (1984) have recently presented phonological analyses in this journal of three children acquiring English. Their general conclusion is that the three children are each following their own unique pattern of acquisition. This paper is a response to that conclusion. We first point out that such research needs to distinguish different possible causes of variation. We then go on to criticize the method of analysis they used, arguing that it disposes the results towards individual variation. Next, we present an alternative analysis, using a different methodology, and show that the children's patterns of acquisition are actually relatively similar. Lastly, we conclude that both their and our results provide evidence for early phonological processing in opposition to the biological model presented in Locke (1983).

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , October 1987 , pp. 419 - 432
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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

Bloom, L. M., Lightbown, P. & Hood, L. (1975). Structure and variation in child language. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding: the Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. & Farwell, C. B. (1975). Words and sounds in early language acquisition. Language 51. 410–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kempler, D. & Wang, W. S.-Y. (eds) (1979). Individual differences in language ability and language behavior. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. (1981 a). On variant patterns of language acquisition. Paper presented at the symposium: ‘Individual differences in language acquisition: is an integrated theory possible?’ at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Boston, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. (1981 b). Procedures for the phonological analysis of children's language. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. (1983). Jakobson revisited: some evidence from the acquisition of Polish. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. (1985 a). On children's homonyms. Journal of Child Language 12. 671–80.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. (1985 b). [v]: the acquisition. Paper presented at the Western Conference on Linguistics, Victoria, British Columbia.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. (in press). Child language acquisition: method, description, and explanation. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1968). Child language, aphasia, and phonological universals. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. & Menn, L. (1977). On the acquisition of phonology. In MacNamara, J. (ed.), Language learning and thought. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kuczaj, S. A. (1975). On the acquisition of a semantic system. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14. 340–58.Google Scholar
Locke, J. L. (1980). The prediction of child speech errors: implications for a theory of acquisition. In Yeni-Komshian, G., Kavanagh, J. F. & Ferguson, C. A. (eds), Child phonology. Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Locke, J. L. (1983). Phonological acquisition and change. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Macken, M. A. & Ferguson, C. A. (1983). Cognitive aspects of phonological development: model, evidence, and issues. In Nelson, K. E. (ed.), Children's language. Vol. 4. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (1973). Structure and strategy in learning to talk. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 38. No. 149.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (1981). Individual differences in language development: Implications for development and language. Developmental Psychology 17. 170–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, A. M. (1980). The units of language acquisition. Working Papers in Linguistics 12. University of Hawaii: Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Pye, C., Ingram, D. & List, H. (in press). A comparison of initial consonant acquisition in English and Quiché. To appear in Nelson, K. E. & Van Kleeck, A. (eds), Children's language. Vol. 6. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schwartz, R., Leonard, L., Wilcox, M. J. & Folger, K. (1980). Again and again: reduplication in child phonology. Journal of Child Language 7. 75–87.Google Scholar
Shvachkin, N. (1973). The development of phonemic speech perception in children. In Ferguson, C. A. & Slobin, D. I. (eds), Studies of child language development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Stampe, D. (1969). The acquisition of phonetic representation. Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 433–44.Google Scholar
Stoel-Gammon, C. (1985). Phonetic inventories, 15–24 months: a longitudinal study. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 28. 505–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stoel-Gammon, C. & Cooper, J. A. (1984). Patterns of early lexical and phonological development. Journal of Child Language 11. 247–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stoel-Gammon, C. & Dunn, C. (1985). Normal and disordered phonology in children. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Velten, H. V. (1943). The growth of phonemic and lexical patterns in infant language. Language 19. 281–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar