Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:15:28.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Precautions regarding nonword repetition tasks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2006

Bruce Smith
Bruce Smith
Affiliation:
University of Utah
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Using nonword repetition tasks as an experimental approach with both adults and children has become quite common in the past 10 to 15 years for studying lexical learning and phonological processing (e.g., Bailey & Hahn, 2001; Gathercole, Frankish, Pickering & Peaker, 1998; Munson, Edwards, & Beckman, 2005; Storkel, 2001; Vitevich & Luce, 2005). In her Keynote, Gathercole (2006) indicates that “The ability to repeat multisyllabic nonwords…probably represents the most effective predictor of language learning ability that is currently known” and that “nonword repetition…may also hold the key to understanding developmental disorders of language learning.” Her Keynote reviews many of the findings from a variety of nonword repetition studies with typically developing children and children with specific language impairment (SLI) or other language-related disorders. Despite the substantial benefits and interesting findings that nonword test paradigms have provided in addressing different issues, a number of questions and precautions should be kept in mind regarding such approaches. Researchers who routinely employ these procedures are likely to be well aware of these issues, and in fact, Gathercole points out some of the limitations. For those less familiar with nonword repetition tasks, it seems advisable to reinforce the need for a certain amount of caution in evaluating the results of such approaches.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , October 2006 , pp. 584 - 587
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

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

Bailey T. M., & Hahn U. 2001. Determinants of wordlikeness: Phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 568– 591.Google Scholar
Edwards J., Beckman M. E., & Munson B. 2004. The interaction between vocabulary size and phonotactic probability effects on children's production accuracy and fluency in non-word repetition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 421– 436.Google Scholar
Edwards J., & Lahey M. 1998. Nonword repetitions of children with specific language impairment: Exploration of some explanations for their inaccuracies. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 279– 309.Google Scholar
Gathercole S. E. 2006. Nonword repetition and word learning: The nature of the relationship [Keynote]. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 513– 543.Google Scholar
Gathercole S. E., Frankish C., Pickering S. J., & Peaker S. 1998. Phonotactic influences on short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 84– 95.Google Scholar
Munson B., Edwards J., & Beckman M. 2005. Relationships between non-word repetition accuracy and other measures of linguistic development in children with phonological disorders. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 61– 78.Google Scholar
Smith B. L., Sugarman M. D., & Long S. H. 1983. Experimental manipulation of speaking rate for studying temporal variability in children's speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 74, 744– 749.Google Scholar
Storkel H. L. 2001. Learning new words: Phonotactic probability in language development. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 1321– 1337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitevitch M. S., & Luce P. A. 2005. Increases in phonotactic probability facilitate spoken non-word repetition. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 193– 204.Google Scholar