A Prosodically Controlled Word and Nonword Repetition Task for 2- to 4-Year-Olds

Abstract

Citation: Roy, P. & Chiat, S. (2004). A prosodically controlled word and nonword repetition task for 2-to 4-year-olds: Evidence from typically developing children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(1), pp. 223-234. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2004 This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. An association has been found between nonword repetition and language skills in school-aged children with both typical and atypical language development (Dollaghan & Campbell, 1998; Ellis Weismer et al., 2000;Gathercole & Baddeley, 1990;Montgomery, 2002). This raises the possibility that younger children's repetition performance may be predictive of later language deficits. In order to investigate this possibility, it is important to establish that elicited repetition with very young children is both feasible and informative. PermanentTo this end, a repetition task was designed and carried out with 66 children aged 2-4. The task consisted of 18 words and 18 matched nonwords that were systematically manipulated for length and prosodic structure. In addition, an assessment of receptive vocabulary was administered.The repetition task elicited high levels of response. Total scores as well as word and nonword scores were sensitive to age. Lexical status and item length affected performance regardless of age: words were repeated more accurately than nonwords, and one-syllable items were repeated more accurately than two-syllable items, which were in turn repeated more accurately than three-syllable items. The effect of prosodic structure was also significant. Whole syllable errors were almost exclusive to unstressed syllables, with those preceding stress being most vulnerable. Performance on the repetition task was significantly correlated with performance on the receptive vocabulary test. Since this repetition task was effective in eliciting responses from most of the 2 to 4-year-old participants, tapped developmental change in their repetition skills, and revealed patterns in their performance, it has the potential to identify deficits in very early repetition skills that may be indicative of wider language difficulties. Word and nonword repetition 3A prosodically-controlled word and nonword repetition task for 2-4 year olds: Evidence from typically developing children However, the current high profile of nonword repetition testing is due more to the relationships that have been found between nonword repetition and a range of other language abilities and disabilities. Nonword Repetition and Language Measures

Computer Simulations of Developmental Change: The Contributions of Working Memory Capacity and Long‐Term Knowledge

“…NWR studies involve a nonsense word being read aloud to the child, who is asked to repeat it back accurately. Across a range of studies, NWR performance has consistently been shown to improve with age and to be inversely related to nonword length (e.g., Gathercole & Adams, 1993;Gathercole & Baddeley, 1989;Roy & Chiat, 2004). These results appeared to support the view that phonological WM capacity increased with age (e.g., Gathercole & Adams, 1993;Gathercole & Baddeley, 1989).…”

The Acquisition of Sign Language: The Impact of Phonetic Complexity on Phonology

“…Our method is based on non-word repetition tasks that are widely used in studies of spoken language acquisition (Dollaghan & Campbell, 1998;Gallon, Harris, & van der Lely, 2007;Gathercole & Baddeley, 1990;Kirk & Demuth, 2006;Roy & Chiat, 2004). The participant is required to listen to a set of non-words and repeat each one immediately after hearing it.…”

“…In spoken language research, two manipulations of non-word items have been carried out: the quantity of phonological material, achieved by manipulating the number of syllables (Gathercole & Baddeley, 1990;Dollaghan & Campbell, 1998), and the nature of that phonological material, achieved by manipulating the segmental content, syllabic complexity and/or metrical structure of that material (de Bree, 2007;Gallon, Harris, & van der Lely, 2007;Kirk & Demuth, 2006;Marshall & van der Lely, 2009;Roy & Chiat, 2004). There is evidence that both the quantity of phonological material and the nature of the phonological representation to be encoded impact on accuracy in this task -participants are less accurate as length and complexity increase, and this is the case for children with typical and atypical language development.…”

Baremación de una tarea de repetición de pseudopalabras para la evaluación del desarrollo léxico

“…Results have demonstrated that the test is an excellent task not only for measuring phonological memory but also for evaluating children's language development since scores on nonword repetition correlate positively and significantly with other standard measures of language development such as vocabulary level. This is supported by works conducted in English (Gathercole & Baddeley, 1989;Hoff, Core & Bridges, 2008;Roy & Chiat, 2004), Spanish (Mariscal & Gallego, 2013;Rujas, 2014), Dutch (Rispens & Baker, 2012), or Italian (D'Odorico, Assanelli, Franco & Jacob, 2007.…”

“…Indeed, it has frequently been suggested that the relationship between nonword repetition and word learning is reciprocal (Bishop, 2006), since having an extensive vocabulary impacts on the ability to efficiently segment words and store them in the memory. As well as vocabulary level, a large number of other variables affecting repetition accuracy have been identified: lexical status (Hoff, et al, 2008;Mariscal & Gallego, 2013;Roy & Chiat, 2004; syllabic length (Ebert, Kalanek, Cordero & Kohnert, 2008;Hoff et al, 2008;Mariscal & Gallego, 2013;Roy & Chiat, 2004; prosodic structure (Chiat & Roy, 2007); phonotactic probability (McKean, Letts & Howard, 2013;Rispens, Baker & Duinmeijer, 2015); and wordlikeness (similarity of nonwords to actual words) (Frisch, Large & Pisoni, 2000). Thus, it is to be expected that the developmental trajectory of nonword repetition is influenced by a variety of factors (Chiat, 2006).…”