Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-07T03:52:29.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phonetic variation in consonants in infant-directed and adult-directed speech: the case of regressive place assimilation in word-final alveolar stops*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 February 2013

LAURA C. DILLEY ,
AMANDA L. MILLETT ,
J. DEVIN MCAULEY  and
TONYA R. BERGESON
LAURA C. DILLEY*
Affiliation:
Department of Communicative Sciences and Disorders, Department of Psychology, Department of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic, Asian and African Languages, Michigan State University
AMANDA L. MILLETT
Affiliation:
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Missouri
J. DEVIN MCAULEY
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Michigan State University
TONYA R. BERGESON
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Laura C. Dilley, Michigan State University, Department of Communicative Sciences and Disorders, 1026 Red Cedar Road, Rm. 116, Oyer Speech & Hearing Building, East Lansing, MI 48824-1220. tel: 517-884-2255; fax: 517-353-3176; e-mail: ldilley@msu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pronunciation variation is under-studied in infant-directed speech, particularly for consonants. Regressive place assimilation involves a word-final alveolar stop taking the place of articulation of a following word-initial consonant. We investigated pronunciation variation in word-final alveolar stop consonants in storybooks read by forty-eight mothers in adult-directed or infant-directed style to infants aged approximately 0;3, 0;9, 1;1, or 1;8. We focused on phonological environments where regressive place assimilation could occur, i.e., when the stop preceded a word-initial labial or velar consonant. Spectrogram, waveform, and perceptual evidence was used to classify tokens into four pronunciation categories: canonical, assimilated, glottalized, or deleted. Results showed a reliable tendency for canonical variants to occur in infant-directed speech more often than in adult-directed speech. However, the otherwise very similar distributions of variants across addressee and age group suggested that infants largely experience statistical distributions of non-canonical consonantal pronunciation variants that mirror those experienced by adults.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 155 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

Footnotes

[*]

This research is supported by NIH-NIDCD R01DC008581 to T. Bergeson. We thank Claire Carpenter, Erin Dixon, Dana Flowerday, Shaina Selbig, Kellie Voss, and Zach Zells for their assistance with data analysis and coding. We also express our gratitude to Jessica Gamache and Evamarie Cropsey for assistance with figures and references, respectively. Moreover, we gratefully acknowledge Chris Heffner, Erin Dixon, Elizabeth Wieland, and Tuuli Morrill for their valuable feedback on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

References

REFERENCES

Abramson, A. S. & Lisker, L. (1968). Voice timing: cross-language experiments in identification and discrimination. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 44(1), 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baran, J. A., Laufer, M. Z. & Daniloff, R. (1977). Phonological contrastivity in conversation: a comparative study of voice onset time. Journal of Phonetics 5, 339–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bard, E. G. & Anderson, A. H. (1983). The unintelligibility of speech to children. Journal of Child Language 10, 265–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bard, E. G. & Anderson, A. H. (1994). The unintelligibility of speech to children: effects of referent availability. Journal of Child Language 21, 623–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barry, M. (1992). Palatalisation, assimilation, and gestural weakening in connected speech. Speech Communication 11, 393–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergeson, T. R., Miller, R. J. & McCune, K. (2006). Mothers' speech to hearing-impaired infants and children with cochlear implants. Infancy 10, 221–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergeson, T. R. & Trehub, S. E. (2002). Absolute pitch and tempo in mothers' songs to infants. Psychological Science 13, 72–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ratner, N. Bernstein (1984a). Patterns of vowel modification in mother–child speech. Journal of Child Language 11, 557–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ratner, N. Bernstein (1984b). Phonological rule usage in mother–child speech. Journal of Phonetics 12, 245–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratner, N. Bernstein & Luberoff, A. (1984). Cues to post-vocalic voicing in mother–child speech. Journal of Phonetics 12, 285–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernthal, J. E., Bankson, N. W. & Flipsen, P. Jr. (2009). Articulation and phonological disorders: speech sound disorders in children. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Bowen, C. (2009). Children's speech sound disorders. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Breen, M., Dilley, L. C., Kraemer, J. & Gibson, E. (2012). Inter-transcriber agreement for two systems of prosodic annotation: ToBI (Tones and Break Indices) and RaP (Rhythm and Pitch). Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8, 277–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browman, C. P. & Goldstein, L. (1990). Gestural specification using dynamically-defined articulatory structures. Journal of Phonetics 18, 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, D., Kitamura, C. & Vollmer-Conna, U. (2002). What's new, pussycat? On talking to babies and animals. Science 296(5572), 1435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carletta, J. (1996). Assessing agreement on classification tasks: the Kappa statistic. Computational Linguistics 22, 249–54.Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. & Goodwin, J. (1996). Teaching pronunciation: a reference for teachers of English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clayards, M., Tanenhaus, M. K., Aslin, R. & Jacobs, R. A. (2008). Perception of speech reflects optimal use of probablistic speech cues. Cognition 108(3): 804–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cristia, A. (2009). Individual variation in infant speech processing: implications for language acquisition theories. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University.Google Scholar
de Boer, B. & Kuhl, P. (2003). Investigating the role of infant-directed speech with a computer model. Acoustics Research Letters Online 4, 129–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dilley, L. C. & Pitt, M. (2007). A study of regressive place assimilation in spontaneous speech and its implications for spoken word recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 122, 2340–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, L. & Hardcastle, W. J. (2002). Categorical and gradient properties of assimilation in alveolar to velar sequences: evidence from EPG and EMA data. Journal of Phonetics 30, 373–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Englund, K. (2005). Voice onset time in infant directed speech over the first six months. First Language 25, 220–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Englund, K. & Behne, D. (2006). Changes in infant directed speech in the first six months. Infant and Children Development 15, 139–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernald, A. (1992). Meaningful melodies in mothers' speech to infants. In Papoušek, H., Jürgens, U. & Papoušek, M. (eds.), Nonverbal vocal communication: comparative and developmental approaches, 262–82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fernald, A. & Simon, T. (1984). Expanded intonation contours in mother's speech to newborns. Developmental Psychology 20, 104–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaskell, G. M. & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1998). Mechanisms of phonological inference in speech perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24, 380–96.Google ScholarPubMed
Gow, D. (2001). Assimilation and anticipation in continuous spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 45, 133–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gow, D. (2002). Does English coronal place assimilation create lexical ambiguity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 28, 163–79.Google Scholar
Gow, D. (2003). Feature parsing: feature cue mapping in spoken word recognition. Perception and Psychophysics 65, 575–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hart, B. & Risley, R. T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Holst, T. & Nolan, F. (1995). The influence of syntactic structure on [s] to [ʃ] assimilation. In Connell, B. & Arvaniti, A. (eds.), Phonology and phonetic evidence: papers in laboratory phonology IV, 315–33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurtado, N., Marchman, V. A. & Fernald, A. (2008). Does input influence uptake? Links between maternal talk, processing speech and vocabulary size in Spanish-learning children. Developmental Science 11, F31–F9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, K. (2004). Massive reduction in conversational American English. In Yoneyama, K. & Maekawa, K. (eds.), Spontaneous speech: data and analysis. Proceedings of the 1st Session of the 10th International Symposium, 29–54. Tokyo: National International Institute for Japanese Language.Google Scholar
Kager, R. (1999). Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiesling, S., Dilley, L. C. & Raymond, W. (2006). The Variation in Conversation (ViC) Project: creation of the Buckeye Corpus of Conversational Speech. Department of Psychology. Ohio State University. Available at: www.buckeyecorpus.osu.edu.Google Scholar
Kohler, K. J. (1990). Segmental reduction in connected speech in German: phonological facts and phonetic explanations. In Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute on Speech Production and Speech Modelling, 69–92, Bonas, France. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, B. & Schneider, E. W. (eds.) (2005). A handbook of varieties of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K., Andruski, J. E., Chistovich, I. A., Chistovich, L. A., Kozhevnikova, E. V., Ryskina, V. L., Stolyarova, E. I., Sundberg, U. & Lacerda, F. (1997). Cross-language analysis of phonetic units in language addressed to infants. Science 277, 684–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhl, P. K., Williams, K. A., Lacerda, F., Stevens, K. N. & Lindblom, B. (1992). Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science 255, 606–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahiri, A. & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1991). The mental representation of lexical form: a phonological approach to the recognition lexicon. Cognition 38, 245–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landis, J. & Koch, G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lisker, L. & Abramson, A. S. (1964). A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: acoustical measurements. Word 20, 384–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, H.-M., Kuhl, P. K. & Tsao, F.-M. (2003). An association between mothers' speech clarity and infants' speech discrimination skills. Developmental Science 6, F1–F10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malsheen, B. (1980). Two hypotheses for phonetic clarification in the speech of mothers to children. In Yeni-Komshian, G., Kavanagh, J. F. & Ferguson, C. A. (eds.), Child phonology, 173–84. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Maye, J., Werker, J. & Gerken, L. (2002). Infant sensitivity to distributional information can affect phonetic discrimination. Cognition 82, B101–B111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nolan, F., Holst, T. & Kuehnert, B. (1996). Modelling [s] to [ʃ] accommodation in English. Journal of Phonetics 24, 113–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1990). The phonetics and phonology of aspects of assimilation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oviatt, S. (1980). The emerging ability to comprehend language: an experimental approach. Child Development 51, 97–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papoušek, M., Papoušek, H. & Bornstein, M. H. (1985). The naturalistic vocal environment of young infants: on the significance of homogeneity and variability in parental speech. In Field, T. & Fox, N. (eds.), Social perception in infants, 269–97. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Rietveld, T. & van Hout, R. (1993). Statistical techniques for the study of language and language behavior. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. & Turk, A. E. (1996). A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25, 193–247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shockey, L. (2003). Sound patterns of spoken English. Cambridge: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shockey, L. & Bond, Z. S. (1980). Phonological processes in speech addressed to children. Phonetica 37, 267–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, C. E. (1977). The development of conversation between mothers and babies. Journal of Child Language 4, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundberg, U. & Lacerda, F. (1999). Voice onset time in speech to infants and adults. Phonetica 56, 186–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar