Homonymy and Sound Change in the Child's Acquisition of Phonology

Locke, John

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-608602-7.50011-0

Cited by 13 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Specifically, the phonological representation differentiates target /r/ from target /w/ and the lexical representation differentiate target “wait” from target “rate.” This pattern is consistent with evidence of covert contrasts (e.g., Gierut & Dinnsen, 1986; Locke, 1979; Maxwell & Weismer, 1982; Tyler, Edwards, & Saxman, 1990; Weismer, Dinnsen, & Elbert, 1981). When a covert contrast is present, acoustic measures of production show that a child consistently produces a sound differently when it is being used as a substitute (e.g., [w] as a substitute for target /r/ in /reɪt/) than when it is being used target appropriately (e.g., [w] for target /w/ in /weɪt/).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 86%

The Effect of Homonymy on Learning Correctly Articulated Versus Misarticulated Words

Storkel

Maekawa

Aschenbrenner

2013

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-The goal of the current study was to examine the effect of homonymy (learning a second meaning for a known word form vs. learning a novel meaning and novel word form) and articulation accuracy (IN vs. OUT sounds) on word learning by preschool children. An added goal was to determine whether word frequency altered the effect of homonymy on word learning.Method-Twenty-nine 3-to 4-year-old children were taught homonyms and novel words. Stimuli further varied in whether homonymy was present in both the adult input and the child's output (as for IN sounds) versus present only in the child's output (as for OUT sounds).Results-For IN sounds, children learned homonyms more rapidly than novel words. Moreover, the homonym advantage was modulated by word frequency, such that children learned a new meaning for a high frequency word more accurately than they learned a new meaning for a low frequency word. In contrast, for OUT sounds, there was no evidence that homonymy influenced learning.Conclusions-Homonymy in the adult input facilitates word learning by preschool children, whereas homonymy in the child's output alone does not. This effect is captured in a usage-based model of phonology and the lexicon.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 86%

The Effect of Homonymy on Learning Correctly Articulated Versus Misarticulated Words

Storkel

Maekawa

Aschenbrenner

2013

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Up until now it has not been possible to estimate the full extent of covert contrasts in child speech, although some researchers predicted their occurrence to be widespread (e.g. Locke, 1979;Hewlett & Waters, 2004). Alongside perceptual studies, evidence from instrumental studies can provide essential complementary data about the articulatory and acoustic characteristics of covert contrasts in future research.…”

Section: Fiona E Gibbon and Alice Leementioning

confidence: 99%

Preface to the special issue on covert contrasts

Gibbon

Lee

2016

Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Several researchers have viewed their occurrence as likely to be widespread. For example, Locke (1979) viewed phoneme omissions or substitutions as decreasing, but not eradicating, surface distinctiveness. He predicted that a large portion of children's contrasts that were judged by listeners as neutralisations would not turn out to be physiologically or acoustically neutralised.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Although these phonemes are judged by listeners as homophonous, instrumental data can reveal that in reality the child produces the phonemes, in this case /d/ and /ɡ/, differently. The child's different productions of a phonological contrast that are heard by listeners as homophonous have come to be known as covert contrasts (Hewlett, 1988), although the same phenomenon has also been called sub-phonemic contrast and pseudohomonymy (Locke, 1979;Priestley, 1980). These contrasts are covert in the sense that adult listeners do not readily detect them and as a result they pass unrecorded in standard phonetic transcription.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Electropalatographic (EPG) evidence of covert contrasts in disordered speech

Gibbon

Lee

2016

Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The phenomenon of covert contrasts has intrigued researchers and clinicians since it was first identified using instrumental data nearly 50 years ago. The term covert contrast refers to phonological contrasts that listeners do not readily identify and which therefore pass unrecorded in transcription-based studies. Covert contrasts are viewed as significant from theoretical and clinical perspectives. Although influential, there are relatively few instrumental studies of covert contrasts. The studies that do exist are limited to revealing contrasts that manifest in specific phonetic parameters or phonological processes. However, recent studies have provided convincing new evidence that covert contrasts are likely to be widespread in child speech. The purpose of this article is threefold: to review electropalatography (EPG) studies of covert contrasts; to provide EPG examples from the speech of individuals with speech disorders and to discuss the implications in child speech.

show abstract

Homonymy and Sound Change in the Child's Acquisition of Phonology

Cited by 13 publications

References 28 publications

The Effect of Homonymy on Learning Correctly Articulated Versus Misarticulated Words

The Effect of Homonymy on Learning Correctly Articulated Versus Misarticulated Words

Preface to the special issue on covert contrasts

Electropalatographic (EPG) evidence of covert contrasts in disordered speech

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About