Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T07:59:55.295Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discrimination of intonation by hearing-impaired children

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Trygg Engen ,
Elizabeth A. Engen ,
Richard L. Clarkson  and
Peter M. Blackwell
Trygg Engen*
Affiliation:
Brown University
Elizabeth A. Engen
Affiliation:
The Rhode Island School for the Deaf
Richard L. Clarkson
Affiliation:
The Rhode Island School for the Deaf
Peter M. Blackwell
Affiliation:
The Rhode Island School for the Deaf
*
Trygg Engen, Department of Psychology, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Earlier research has shown that sentence intonation involves frequencies of 500 Hz or less. The present research verified the hypothesis that most hearing-impaired children whose auditory input is limited to those low frequencies do perceive differences in intonation. Their performance was influenced by their response tendencies but was clearly evident across three different acoustic listening conditions and two psychophysical tests. The educational implications of this are discussed briefly.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , June 1983 , pp. 149 - 160
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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

Anderson, R. J., & Sisco, F. H. Standardization of the WISC-R performance scales for deaf children. Office of Demographic Studies, Gallaudet College, November 1977, Ser. T, No. 1.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. S.The ontogenesis of speech acts. Journal of Child Language, 1975, 2, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumstein, S., & Cooper, W. E.Hemispheric processing of intonation contours. Cortex, 1974, 10, 146–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, W. E., & Paccia-Cooper, J.Syntax and Speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D.Clinical Linguistics. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daneš, F.Sentence intonation from a functional point of view. Word, 1960, 16, 34–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, S.Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 23, 283–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engen, E. A., & Engen, T.The Rhode Island Test of Language Structure. Baltimore: University Park Press, in press.Google Scholar
Gårding, E.Contrastive prosody: A model and its application. Studia Linguistica, 1981, 35, 146–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A.Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: John Wiley, 1966.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.Intonation and Grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton, 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, E. An investigation of the perception of intonation by deaf high school subjects. Columbia University dissertation. Abstracts International, 1971, 32, 3121.Google Scholar
Kaplan, E. L.Intonation and language acquisition. Stanford Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 1970, 1, 1–21.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I.Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. M.Infant Speech. London: Routledge, 1951.Google Scholar
Lieberman, P.Intonation, Perception, and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1967.Google Scholar
Lieberman, P.Towards a unified phonetic theory. Linguistic Theory, 1970, 1, 307–322.Google Scholar
Nooteboom, S. G., Brokx, J. P. L., & deRooij, J. J. Contributions of prosody to speech perception. In Levelt, W. J. M. and d'Arcais, G. B. Flores (Eds.), Studies in the perception of language. New York: John Wiley, 1978.Google Scholar
Snow, C. E.The development of conversation between mothers and babies. Journal of Child Language, 1977, 4, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar