Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T04:26:15.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stepping backwards in development: integrating developmental speech perception with lexical and phonological development – a commentary on Stoel-Gammon's ‘Relationships between lexical and phonological development in young children’*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 October 2010

TANIA S. ZAMUNER
TANIA S. ZAMUNER*
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
*
[*]Address for correspondence: Tania S. Zamuner, Department of Linguistics, University of Ottawa, Arts Hall, 70 Laurier Avenue East, Ottawa, ONT, K1N 6N5, Canada. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Within the subfields of linguistics, traditional approaches tend to examine different phenomena in isolation. As Stoel-Gammon (this issue) correctly states, there is little interaction between the subfields. However, for a more comprehensive understanding of language acquisition in general and, more specifically, lexical and phonological development, we must consider relations between multiple subfields. That is, by examining the interactions between these subfields, a greater understanding of lexical and phonological development can emerge. For instance, the interaction between phonology, syntax and semantics is demonstrated in recent work looking at how phonological patterns can provide a basis for inferring a word's lexical category (such as nouns and verbs) (Christiansen, Onnis & Hockema, 2009; Lany & Saffran, 2010).

Type
Review Article and Commentaries
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 56 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Christiansen, M. H., Onnis, L. & Hockema, S. A. (2009). The secret is in the sound: from unsegmented speech to lexical categories. Developmental Science 12, 388–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Curtin, S. & Werker, J. F. (2007). Perceptual foundations of phonological development. In Gareth Gaskell, M., Altmann, G. T. M., Bloom, P., Caramazza, A. & Levelt, P. (eds), Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics, 579–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fais, L., Kajkawa, S., Amano, S. & Werker, J. (2009). Infant discrimination of a morphologically relevant word-final contrast. Infancy 14, 488–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friederici, A. D. & Wessels, J. M. I. (1993). Phonotactic knowledge and its use in infant speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics 54, 287–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graf Estes, K. (2007). Is there anything wordlike about statistical word segmentation? Paper presented at the Workshop on Current Issues in Language Acquisition: Artificial Languages and Statistical Learning, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W., Goodman, M. & Bauman, A. (1999). 9-month-olds' attention to sound similarities in syllables. Journal of Memory and Language 40, 62–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhl, P. K., Conboy, B. T., Padden, D., Nelson, T. & Pruitt, J. (2005). Early speech perception and later language development: implications for the ‘critical period’. Language Learning and Development 1, 237–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lany, J. & Saffran, J. R. (2010). From statistics to meaning. Psychological Science 21, 284–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levelt, C., Schiller, N. & Levelt, W. (1999). A developmental grammar for syllable structure in the production of child language. Brain and Language 68, 291–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Messer, S. (1967). Implicit phonology in children. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 6, 609–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peperkamp, S. (2003). Phonological acquisition: recent attainments and new challenges. Language and Speech 46, 87–113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramus, F., Peperkamp, S., Christophe, A., Jacquemot, C., Kouider, S. & Dupoux, E. (2010). A psycholinguistic perspective on the acquisition of phonology. In Fougeron, C., Kühnert, B., d'Imperio, M. & Vallée, N. (eds), Laboratory phonology 10: variation, phonetic detail and phonological representation, 311–40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saffran, J. R. & Graf Estes, K. M. (2006). Mapping sound to meaning: connections between learning about sounds and learning about words. In Kail, R. (ed.), Advances in child development and behavior, vol. 1, 1–38. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Stoel-Gammon, C. (1998). Sounds and words in early language acquisition: the relationship between lexical and phonological development. In Paul, R. (ed.), Exploring the speech–language connection, 25–52. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Vihman, M. (1992). Early syllables and the construction of phonology. In Ferguson, C. A., Menn, L. & Stoel-Gammon, C. (eds), Phonological development: models, research, implications, 393–422. Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F. & Curtin, S. (2005). PRIMIR: a developmental framework of infant speech processing. Language Learning and Development 1, 197–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zamuner, T. S. (2006). Sensitivity to word-final phonotactics in 9- to 16-month-old infants. Infancy 10, 77–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zamuner, T. S. (2009a). Phonological probabilities at the onset of language development: speech production and word position. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 52, 49–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zamuner, T. S. (2009b). The structure and nature of phonological neighborhoods in children's early lexicons. Journal of Child Language 36, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed