DOCSLIB.ORG

Minimal Pair Approaches to Phonological Remediation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Minimal Pair Approaches to Phonological Remediation Minimal Pair Approaches to Phonological Remediation Jessica A. Barlow, Ph.D.,1 and Judith A. Gierut, Ph.D.2 ABSTRACT This article considers linguistic approaches to phonological reme- diation that emphasize the role of the phoneme in language. We discuss the structure and function of the phoneme by outlining procedures for de- termining contrastive properties of sound systems through evaluation of minimal word pairs. We then illustrate how these may be applied to a case study of a child with phonological delay. The relative effectiveness of treat- ment approaches that facilitate phonemic acquisition by contrasting pairs of sounds in minimal pairs is described. A hierarchy of minimal pair treat- ment efficacy emerges, as based on the number of new sounds, the number of featural differences, and the type of featural differences being intro- duced. These variables are further applied to the case study, yielding a range of possible treatment recommendations that are predicted to vary in their effectiveness. KEYWORDS: Phoneme, minimal pair, phonological remediation Learning Outcomes: As a result of this activity, the reader will be able to (1) analyze and recognize the con- trastive function of phonemes in a phonological system, (2) develop minimal pair treatment programs that aim to introduce phonemic contrasts in a child’s phonological system, and (3) discriminate between different types of minimal pair treatment programs and their relative effectiveness. Models of clinical treatment for children cognition given our need to understand how with functional phonological delays have been learning takes place in the course of interven- based on three general theoretical frameworks. tion. Still other approaches are grounded in Some models are founded on development linguistics because the problem at hand in- given that the population of concern involves volves the phonological system. In this article, children. Other models have their basis in we explore the linguistic bases of phonological Updates in Phonological Intervention; Editors in Chief, Nancy Helm-Estabrooks, Sc.D., and Nan Bernstein Ratner, Ed.D.; Guest Editor, Shelley Velleman, Ph.D. Seminars in Speech and Language, volume 23, number 1, 2002. Address for correspondence and reprint requests: Jessica A. Barlow, Ph.D., Department of Communicative Disorders, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182. E-mail: [email protected]. 1Department of Communicative Disorders, San Diego State University, San Diego, California and 2Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. Copyright © 2002 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel: +1(212) 584-4662. 0734–0478,p;2002,23;01,057,068,ftx,en;ssl00104x. 57 58 SEMINARS IN SPEECH AND LANGUAGE/VOLUME 23, NUMBER 1 2002 intervention with a specific focus on the phonetic variants then are allophones of the phoneme. We ask three questions: What are phoneme /t/. the structure and function of phonemes in lan- By definition, phonemes are abstract, men- guage generally? How are phonemes assessed tal concepts of sounds that reflect a speaker’s in children’s sound systems? And, how might internal or mental knowledge about the lan- treatment be designed to best facilitate phone- guage he or she speaks, and they function to mic acquisition? mark distinctions in meaning. Phonemic dis- tinctions are made most apparent in minimal pairs. A minimal pair is a set of words that dif- fer by a single phoneme, whereby that differ- WHAT IS A PHONEME? ence is enough to signal a change in meaning. For instance, the words “map” [mp] and “mat” For the linguist interested in the study of [mt] form a minimal pair in English. These phonology, a primary aim is to establish the two words are identical in terms of the first inventory of sounds and how these function in consonant and the vowel. They differ only by a given language. For the speech-language the last consonant—[p] versus [t]—and this pathologist, a key to establishing treatment difference signals a change in meaning (“map” goals is to assess the sounds of a child’s phono- versus “mat”). English speakers would agree logical system. As with the linguist studying a that “map” and “mat” are two very different newly discovered language or reanalyzing a words with two very different meanings. The well-known one, our clinical aim in analyzing “map”–“mat” example illustrates how minimal a developing phonological system is to deter- pairs reveal phonemic contrasts in final posi- mine which sounds are used as phonemes by a tion, but contrasts also occur in other contexts, child and which are used as allophones. To including word-initial position, such as “map” evaluate this requires a firm understanding of [mp]-“cap” [kp], as well as word-medial just what a phoneme is. A phoneme reflects a positions, such as “fashion” [fʃən]-“fasten” certain “ideal” concept of a sound, according to [fsən]. Cluster contexts, both initial and the perceptions of the speaker, even though final, can also be revealing of contrasts, as with that phoneme might actually be produced “spy” [spɑ]-“sky” [skɑ] or “cats” [kts]– phonetically in a variety of ways. Take the “caps” [kps]. Vowels too contrast within min- phoneme /t/, for example. As speakers of the imal pairs, as with “map” [mp]–“mop” [mɑp] English language, we all share a similar con- and “cap” [kp]—“keep” [kip]. Finally, near cept of /t/. This is reflected in our spelling as minimal pairs are found via cluster-singleton well as our perceptions about the sounds in our comparisons, such as “play” [ple]–“pay” [pe], language and in other languages. When we or vowel- versus consonant-final comparisons, hear words such as “tie,”“star,”“butter,” and such as “boat” [boυt]–“bow” [boυ]. “button,” we, as English speakers, recognize In comparison with these examples of that all of these words have the sound /t/ in phonemes revealed by minimal pairs, we con- common. This is the case despite the fact that sider another possible pair in English, [mæp] the relevant sounds in these words are actually and [mp]. These two forms are identical with quite different from one another in produc- respect to the first consonant and the vowel as tion. Whereas “tie” is pronounced with an as- with the “map”–“mat” example. Similarly, they pirated [th] as [thɑ], “star” is pronounced with also differ only by the final sound: released [p] an unaspirated [t] as [stɑr]. “Butter” is pro- versus unreleased [p ]. However, most impor- nounced with a flap in American English as tant, this phonetic difference does not signal a [bɾ], and “button” is produced with a glottal change in meaning because the two words mean stop as [bʔn ]. Nevertheless, speakers of the exactly the same thing, “map.” With no differ- English language assume that all four of ence in meaning, [mp] and [mp] do not these phones [t t ɾ ʔ] belong to one and the form a minimal pair. Consequently, [p] and [p ] same category—the phoneme /t/. These four are not contrastive, nor do they function as MINIMAL PAIR APPROACHES/BARLOW, GIERUT 59 phonemes in English; instead, they are allo- /f v/, /s z/, and /tʃ d/. Together, the features phones (phonetic variants) of the phoneme /p/. associated with place, manner, and voice are Phonemes are typically viewed as phonetic called nonmajor class distinctions. These are reflexes of a complex of smaller sized units differentiated from other major class properties. known as distinctive features. Consequently, it is The major class features serve to differ- not the phonemes per se that are the contrastive entiate among the main groupings of sounds in elements of a language; rather, it is their featural language, namely consonants versus vowels, makeup. The features that contrast serve to cre- glides versus consonants, and obstruents (stops, ate an “opposition” between phonemes of a par- fricatives, and affricates) versus sonorants ticular language.1,2 Phonemes may contrast with (nasals, liquids, glides, vowels). The featural one another along one or more of a number of distinctions that mark these respective con- specific feature dimensions. In formalized lin- trasts are [syllabic], [consonantal], and [sono- guistic frameworks, these featural contrasts are rant]. For example, the contrast between /b/ described in terms of distinctive features as de- and /m/ in the pair “by”–“my” illustrates that a scribed in, for example, The Sound Pattern of major class distinction between obstruents and English.3 These can be interpreted in perhaps sonorants ([sonorant]) occurs in English. Simi- more familiar terminology associated with larly, the contrast between /m/ and /w/ in place, manner, and voice for the present pur- “my”–“why” shows that a major class distinc- pose, as illustrated for English phonemes in tion between consonants and glides ([conso- Table 1. nantal]) also occurs in English. Place of articulation features differentiate Based on their featural characteristics, then, labial, coronal, and dorsal contrasts, which are phonemes may contrast with one another either relevant to the phonemic distinctions among minimally or maximally. A minimal contrast is /p t k/ and /b d / in, for example, “pea,”“tea,” defined by a single or just a few feature differ- and “key” or “by,”“dye,” and “guy,” respectively. ences among phonemes. The difference between Manner of articulation features differentiate “pie”–“by” involves a minimal contrast in voice, [continuant] contrasts, which are relevant to whereas the differences between “tea”–“key” or distinctions between stops, fricatives, and af- “toe”–“so” involve minimal contrasts in place and fricates. This feature would distinguish, for ex- manner, respectively. By comparison, a maximal ample, /p/ from /f/ in “pea”–“fee,” or /ʃ/ from contrast means that a phonemic difference cuts /tʃ/ in “shoe”–“chew.” Manner features also across many featural dimensions of place, man- differentiate [nasal] and [lateral] contrasts, ner, and voice.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Brief Description of Consonants in Modern Standard Arabic
    Linguistics and Literature Studies 2(7): 185-189, 2014 http://www.hrpub.org DOI: 10.13189/lls.2014.020702 A Brief Description of Consonants in Modern Standard Arabic Iram Sabir*, Nora Alsaeed Al-Jouf University, Sakaka, KSA *Corresponding Author: [email protected] Copyright © 2014 Horizon Research Publishing All rights reserved. Abstract The present study deals with “A brief Modern Standard Arabic. This study starts from an description of consonants in Modern Standard Arabic”. This elucidation of the phonetic bases of sounds classification. At study tries to give some information about the production of this point shows the first limit of the study that is basically Arabic sounds, the classification and description of phonetic rather than phonological description of sounds. consonants in Standard Arabic, then the definition of the This attempt of classification is followed by lists of the word consonant. In the present study we also investigate the consonant sounds in Standard Arabic with a key word for place of articulation in Arabic consonants we describe each consonant. The criteria of description are place and sounds according to: bilabial, labio-dental, alveolar, palatal, manner of articulation and voicing. The attempt of velar, uvular, and glottal. Then the manner of articulation, description has been made to lead to the drawing of some the characteristics such as phonation, nasal, curved, and trill. fundamental conclusion at the end of the paper. The aim of this study is to investigate consonant in MSA taking into consideration that all 28 consonants of Arabic alphabets. As a language Arabic is one of the most 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Phonological Processes
    Phonological Processes Phonological processes are patterns of articulation that are developmentally appropriate in children learning to speak up until the ages listed below. PHONOLOGICAL PROCESS DESCRIPTION AGE ACQUIRED Initial Consonant Deletion Omitting first consonant (hat → at) Consonant Cluster Deletion Omitting both consonants of a consonant cluster (stop → op) 2 yrs. Reduplication Repeating syllables (water → wawa) Final Consonant Deletion Omitting a singleton consonant at the end of a word (nose → no) Unstressed Syllable Deletion Omitting a weak syllable (banana → nana) 3 yrs. Affrication Substituting an affricate for a nonaffricate (sheep → cheep) Stopping /f/ Substituting a stop for /f/ (fish → tish) Assimilation Changing a phoneme so it takes on a characteristic of another sound (bed → beb, yellow → lellow) 3 - 4 yrs. Velar Fronting Substituting a front sound for a back sound (cat → tat, gum → dum) Backing Substituting a back sound for a front sound (tap → cap) 4 - 5 yrs. Deaffrication Substituting an affricate with a continuant or stop (chip → sip) 4 yrs. Consonant Cluster Reduction (without /s/) Omitting one or more consonants in a sequence of consonants (grape → gape) Depalatalization of Final Singles Substituting a nonpalatal for a palatal sound at the end of a word (dish → dit) 4 - 6 yrs. Stopping of /s/ Substituting a stop sound for /s/ (sap → tap) 3 ½ - 5 yrs. Depalatalization of Initial Singles Substituting a nonpalatal for a palatal sound at the beginning of a word (shy → ty) Consonant Cluster Reduction (with /s/) Omitting one or more consonants in a sequence of consonants (step → tep) Alveolarization Substituting an alveolar for a nonalveolar sound (chew → too) 5 yrs.
    [Show full text]
  • Working Papers in Linguistics and Oriental Studies 1
    Universita’ degli Studi di Firenze Dipartimento di Lingue, Letterature e Studi Interculturali Biblioteca di Studi di Filologia Moderna: Collana, Riviste e Laboratorio Quaderni di Linguistica e Studi Orientali Working Papers in Linguistics and Oriental Studies 1 Editor M. Rita Manzini firenze university press 2015 Quaderni di Linguistica e Studi Orientali / Working Papers in Linguistics and Oriental Studies - n. 1, 2015 ISSN 2421-7220 ISBN 978-88-6655-832-3 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13128/QULSO-2421-7220-1 Direttore Responsabile: Beatrice Töttössy CC 2015 Firenze University Press La rivista è pubblicata on-line ad accesso aperto al seguente indirizzo: www.fupress.com/bsfm-qulso The products of the Publishing Committee of Biblioteca di Studi di Filologia Moderna: Collana, Riviste e Laboratorio (<http://www.lilsi.unifi.it/vp-82-laboratorio-editoriale-open-access-ricerca- formazione-e-produzione.html>) are published with financial support from the Department of Languages, Literatures and Intercultural Studies of the University of Florence, and in accordance with the agreement, dated February 10th 2009 (updated February 19th 2015), between the De- partment, the Open Access Publishing Workshop and Firenze University Press. The Workshop promotes the development of OA publishing and its application in teaching and career advice for undergraduates, graduates, and PhD students in the area of foreign languages and litera- tures, and of social studies, as well as providing training and planning services. The Workshop’s publishing team are responsible for the editorial workflow of all the volumes and journals pub- lished in the Biblioteca di Studi di Filologia Moderna series. QULSO employs the double-blind peer review process.
    [Show full text]
  • Phonetics in Phonology” in This SICOL).1
    Emergent Stops John J. Ohala University of California, Berkeley Two of the most fundamental distinctions between classes of speech sounds is that between sonorants and obstruents and between continuants and non-continuants. Sonorants are characterized as sounds which have no constriction small enough to impede the flow of air to the point of creating any audible turbulence; obstruents, as sounds which have a constriction which does impede the flow of air to the point of creating turbulence a stop burst. Continuants are sounds which could be extended indefinitely whereas non-continuants involve a momentary and abrupt attenuation of the speech signal amplitude. This being the case, it is a rather remarkable phonological event when a stop, which is an non-continuant obstruent, appears as it were, “out of nowhere” surrounded by speech sounds which are either sonorants and/or continuants. Typically these are referred to in the phonological literature as ‘epenthetic’ or ‘intrusive’ stops, terms which reflect the belief that they were introduced by some external cause. Some examples are given in (1) (for references, see Ohala 1995, in press). (1) Engl. youngster [»j√Nkst‘] < j√N + st‘ Engl. warmth [wç”mpT] < warm + T Engl. Thompson < Thom + son (proper name) Engl. dempster ‘judge’ < deem + ster Sotho vontSa ‘to show’ < *voniSa (causative of ‘to see’) Cl. Greek andros < ane# ros ‘man’ French chambre < Latin kame(ra 'room' Spanish alhambra < Arabic al hamra ‘the red’ Latin templum < *tem - lo ‘a section’ A common explanation for these stops is to characterize them as ways to make the transition easier between the flanking sounds or to “repair” ill-formed phonotactics (Piggot and Singh 1985).
    [Show full text]
  • The Phonetic Nature of Consonants in Modern Standard Arabic
    www.sciedupress.com/elr English Linguistics Research Vol. 4, No. 3; 2015 The Phonetic Nature of Consonants in Modern Standard Arabic Mohammad Yahya Bani Salameh1 1 Tabuk University, Saudi Arabia Correspondence: Mohammad Yahya Bani Salameh, Tabuk University, Saudi Arabia. Tel: 966-58-0323-239. E-mail: [email protected] Received: June 29, 2015 Accepted: July 29, 2015 Online Published: August 5, 2015 doi:10.5430/elr.v4n3p30 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/elr.v4n3p30 Abstract The aim of this paper is to discuss the phonetic nature of Arabic consonants in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA). Although Arabic is a Semitic language, the speech sound system of Arabic is very comprehensive. Data used for this study were collocated from the standard speech of nine informants who are native speakers of Arabic. The researcher used himself as informant, He also benefited from three other Jordanians and four educated Yemenis. Considering the alphabets as the written symbols used for transcribing the phones of actual pronunciation, it was found that the pronunciation of many Arabic sounds has gradually changed from the standard. The study also discussed several related issues including: Phonetic Description of Arabic consonants, classification of Arabic consonants, types of Arabic consonants and distribution of Arabic consonants. Keywords: Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), Arabic consonants, Dialectal variation, Consonants distribution, Consonants classification. 1. Introduction The Arabic language is one of the most important languages of the world. With it is growing importance of Arab world in the International affairs, the importance of Arabic language has reached to the greater heights. Since the holy book Qura'n is written in Arabic, the language has a place of special prestige in all Muslim societies, and therefore more and more Muslims and Asia, central Asia, and Africa are learning the Arabic language, the language of their faith.
    [Show full text]
  • Glossary of Key Terms
    Glossary of Key Terms accent: a pronunciation variety used by a specific group of people. allophone: different phonetic realizations of a phoneme. allophonic variation: variations in how a phoneme is pronounced which do not create a meaning difference in words. alveolar: a sound produced near or on the alveolar ridge. alveolar ridge: the small bony ridge behind the upper front teeth. approximants: obstruct the air flow so little that they could almost be classed as vowels if they were in a different context (e.g. /w/ or /j/). articulatory organs – (or articulators): are the different parts of the vocal tract that can change the shape of the air flow. articulatory settings or ‘voice quality’: refers to the characteristic or long-term positioning of articulators by individual or groups of speakers of a particular language. aspirated: phonemes involve an auditory plosion (‘puff of air’) where the air can be heard passing through the glottis after the release phase. assimilation: a process where one sound is influenced by the characteristics of an adjacent sound. back vowels: vowels where the back part of the tongue is raised (like ‘two’ and ‘tar’) bilabial: a sound that involves contact between the two lips. breathy voice: voice quality where whisper is combined with voicing. cardinal vowels: a set of phonetic vowels used as reference points which do not relate to any specific language. central vowels: vowels where the central part of the tongue is raised (like ‘fur’ and ‘sun’) centring diphthongs: glide towards /ə/. citation form: the way we say a word on its own. close vowel: where the tongue is raised as close as possible to the roof of the mouth.
    [Show full text]
  • Mimicry of Non-Distinctive Phonetic Differences Between Language Varieties *
    Mimicry of Non-distinctive Phonetic Differences Between Language Varieties * James Emil Flege Ro bert M. Ham mond Unil'l![sifyof Alabama. Birmingham Miami·Dade Community College 1\ delayed mimicry paradigm w.as used to assess speakers' ,awareness of non-dlSlLnCf!Vc phonetic differences which in part dislinguisn I:mguagcs, . The notion of " rho no logIcal fillu­ Lng" IffiroheS ttur second Lmsuagc learners may not be lIblc to perceIve: phonetic differences between thCIT native language and :01 fOrf:.gn langua~ unless the phonetic differences arc linguistically relevant in the nallve bngu2gc. If cross-bogulIgc phoncuc differences arc In fact perceIved poorly, It is unlikely [hal phon.::!;\; mod,ficallon , ..,II OCcur .n Ihc course of nalUu.hsllc second language acqu15iuon. In th.s study natlvC' English speakers familiar Wllh Spamsh·accentcd English ulempted to lead sentences With a Spamsh accent. Acoustic mC::l5Uremc:nts showed thai twO phonellc characlens!!cs of Engllsh-Ihe long VOT values aSSOC iated '''llh 'p, t, kI and hnal-syll:Jble lengthening- were altered In the direction of Spanuh anu Spanish.accented Enghsh. These results prOVide tentative eYldence that nOn -dlStlnCIIVe rhonetle differences between languages arc detecuble by I:lnguage learners and thus do nO! present an msupeuble bamer to phonetIC learning in second 1:lOgU .. gc "cqulsHlun For several decades phonologists have believed that "phonological fillering" con· tnbutes Importantly to the presence of foreign accent In the speech of second languagc learners ITrubct;:koy 1969:5 1 ffI. Having acquired the phonology of one language, the language learner will tend to mterpret sounds heard in a foreign language in terms of phonological umts found In the native language.
    [Show full text]
  • Efficacy of the Treatment of Developmental Language
    brain sciences Review Efficacy of the Treatment of Developmental Language Disorder: A Systematic Review Sara Rinaldi 1,2,* , Maria Cristina Caselli 3, Valentina Cofelice 4, Simonetta D’Amico 5,6,†, Anna Giulia De Cagno 2, Giuseppina Della Corte 7, Maria Valeria Di Martino 8, Brigida Di Costanzo 9,10, Maria Chiara Levorato 6,11,†, Roberta Penge 12, Tiziana Rossetto 2, Alessandra Sansavini 6,13,† , Simona Vecchi 14 and Pierluigi Zoccolotti 15,16 1 Developmental Neurorehabilitation Service, UOC Infancy, Adolescence, Family Counseling, AULSS 6 Euganea—Padua Bacchiglione District, Via Dei Colli 4/6, 35143 Padua, Italy 2 Federazione Logopedisti Italiani, Via Daniello Bartoli, 00152 Rome, Italy; [email protected] (A.G.D.C.); [email protected] (T.R.) 3 Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, CNR, 00185 Rome, Italy; [email protected] 4 “Iuvenia” Rehabilitation Centre, C.da Piana, 86026 Morcone, Italy; [email protected] 5 Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L’Aquila, P.le S. Tommasi, 1, 67100 Coppito, Italy; [email protected] 6 CLASTA—Communication & Language Acquisition Studies in Typical & Atypical Population, Piazza Epiro 12D, 00183 Rome, Italy; [email protected] (M.C.L.); [email protected] (A.S.) 7 Centro Panda, Via Antonio Gramsci, 38, 80022 Arzano, Italy; [email protected] 8 Health Professions Integrated Service, Azienda Ospedaliera dei Colli di Napoli, 80131 Napoli, Italy; [email protected] 9 Division
    [Show full text]
  • Gradient Phonemic Contrast in Nanjing Mandarin Keith Johnson (UC Berkeley) Yidan Song (Nanjing Normal University)
    UC Berkeley Phonetics and Phonology Lab Annual Report (2016) Gradient phonemic contrast in Nanjing Mandarin Keith Johnson (UC Berkeley) Yidan Song (Nanjing Normal University) Abstract Sounds that are contrastive in a language are rated by listeners as being more different from each other than sounds that don’t occur in the language or sounds that are allophones of a single phoneme. The study reported in this paper replicates this finding and adds new data on the perceptual impact of learning a language with a new contrast. Two groups of speakers of the Nanjing dialect of Mandarin Chinese were tested. One group was older and had not been required to learn standard Mandarin as school children, while the other younger group had learned standard Mandarin in school. Nanjing dialect does not contrast [n] and [l], while standard Mandarin does. Listeners rated the similarity of naturally produced non-words presented in pairs, where the only difference between the tokens was the medial consonant. Pairs contrasting [n] and [l] were rated by older Nanjing speakers as if two [n] tokens or two [l] tokens had been presented, while these same pairs were rated by younger Nanjing speakers as noticeably different but not as different as pairs that contrast in their native language. Introduction The variety of Mandarin Chinese spoken in Nanjing does not have a contrast between [n] and [l] (Song, 2015), while the standard variety which is now taught in schools in Nanjing does have this contrast. Prior research has shown that speech perception is modulated by linguistic experience. Years of research has shown that listeners find it very difficult to perceive differences between sounds that are not contrastive in their language (Goto, 1971; Werker & Tees, 1984; Flege, 1995; Best et al., 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • Perceptual and Acoustic Analysis of Lexical Stress in Greek Speakers with Dysarthria
    Perceptual and acoustic analysis of lexical stress in Greek speakers with dysarthria Ioannis Papakyritsis and Nicole Müller Linköping University Post Print N.B.: When citing this work, cite the original article. Original Publication: Ioannis Papakyritsis and Nicole Müller, Perceptual and acoustic analysis of lexical stress in Greek speakers with dysarthria, 2014, Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, (28), 7-8, 555-572. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2014.926993 Copyright: Informa Healthcare http://informahealthcare.com/ Postprint available at: Linköping University Electronic Press http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-109597 Perceptual and acoustic analysis of lexical stress in Greek speakers with dysarthria Ioannis Papakyritsis1 and Nicole Müller2 1Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL, USA 2 Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden (Received 4 February 2014, accepted 25 April 2014) Address for Correspondence: Dr. Ioannis Papakyritsis Dept. Communication Sciences and Disorders Western Illinois University 240 Memorial Hall, 1 University Circle Macomb, IL 61455 [email protected] Abstract The study reported in this paper investigated the abilities of Greek speakers with dysarthria to signal lexical stress at the single word level. Three speakers with dysarthria and two unimpaired control participants were recorded completing a repetition task of a list of words consisting of minimal pairs of Greek disyllabic words contrasted by lexical stress location only. Fourteen listeners were asked to determine the attempted stress location for each word pair. Acoustic analyses of duration and intensity ratios, both within and across words, were undertaken to identify possible acoustic correlates of the listeners’ judgments concerning stress location. Acoustic and perceptual data indicate that while each participant with dysarthria in this study had some difficulty in signaling stress unambiguously, the pattern of difficulty was different for each speaker.
    [Show full text]
  • Phonology of Kunming Chinese
    Phonology of Kunming Chinese Ruolan Li [email protected] University of Rochester 1. Introduction Yunnan is a province in Southern China. Although the province is ethnically and linguistically diverse, the variant from standard Mandarin, Yunnanese, is spoken at many, if not most places. As one of Southwestern Guanhua (lit. court language), it diverged from a common ancestor of Mandarin in early Ming dynasty (14–15th century). When soldiers and government officials were sent from Nanjing to Yunnan, at that time relatively remote and undeveloped, they carried Nanjing Mandarin to the province (Hammarström, Forkel, and Martin, 2017; Zeng, 2018). Over the several hundred years, the Yunnan dialect became mutually unintelligible with modern standard Mandarin (Gui, 1990) and diverse locally in many difference cities and counties. In this project, I will focus on Kunming Chinese, a branch of Yunnanese. Kunming is the capital city of Yunnan province, and Kunming Chinese is used everywhere on the street. The choice of Kunming Chinese, rather than other Yunnanese sub-dialects, is made not because of any prestige reasons, but only because it is more accessible to me. The Kunming dialect has a speaker population of about 650, 000 (Gui, 1990). It is highly analytic, and belongs to the Sino-Tibetan language family. Syntactically, it has some grammatical particles (/gə31/, /gɑ53/, both question particles, and /nə44/, as a possessive particle) that is distinct from standard Mandarin (Gao, 2004). Lexically, Kunming Chinese also has many unique nouns and verbs. It has several different phonological contrast from other branches of Yunnanese, but is overall unified within the dialect.
    [Show full text]
  • Introductory Phonology
    3 More on Phonemes 3.1 Phonemic Analysis and Writing The question of phonemicization is in principle independent from the question of writing; that is, there is no necessary connection between letters and phonemes. For example, the English phoneme /e}/ can be spelled in quite a few ways: say /se}/, Abe /e}b/, main /me}n/, beige /be}è/, reggae /cryge}/, H /e}tà/. Indeed, there are languages (for example, Mandarin Chinese) that are written with symbols that do not correspond to phonemes at all. Obviously, there is at least a loose connection between alphabetic letters and phonemes: the designers of an alphabet tend to match up the written symbols with the phonemes of a language. Moreover, the conscious intuitions of speakers about sounds tend to be heavily influenced by their knowledge of spelling – after all, most literate speakers receive extensive training in how to spell during child- hood, but no training at all in phonology. Writing is prestigious, and our spoken pronunciations are sometimes felt to be imperfect realizations of what is written. This is reflected in the common occur- rence of spelling pronunciations, which are pronunciations that have no historical basis, but which arise as attempts to mimic the spelling, as in often [cÑftvn] or palm [pwlm]. In contrast, most linguists feel that spoken language is primary, and that written language is a derived system, which is mostly parasitic off the spoken language and is often rather artificial in character. Some reasons that support this view are that spoken language is far older than writing, it is acquired first and with greater ease by children, and it is the common property of our species, rather than of just an educated subset of it.
    [Show full text]