Announcing 'Stammering Research' - Stammering Research - UCL

Recommendations

Info

Stammering Research. Vol. 1. Demuth, Katherine. (1996). The prosodic structure of early words. In James Morgan and Katherine Demuth (eds.), Signal to Syntax: Bootstrapping from Speech to Grammar in Early Acquisition, 171-184. Mahwah, N.J.: Laurence Erlbaum Associates. Demuth, Katherine. (2001). Prosodic constraints on morphological development. In Approaches to Bootstrapping: Phonological, Syntactic and Neurophysiological Aspects of Early Language Acquisition, Jürgen Weissenborn and Barbara Höhle (eds.), 3-21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Demuth, K. & Johnson. M. (2003). Truncation to Subminimal Words in Early French. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 48, 1002-1031. Fikkert, Paula. (1994). On the acquisition of prosodic structure. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. Levelt, Clara C., Schiller, Niels O., & Levelt, Willem, J. 2000. The acquisition of syllable types. Language Acquisition, 8, 237-264. Lleó, Conxita. (2001). The Interface of Phonology and Morphology: the Emergence of the Article in the Early Acquisition of Spanish and German. In Approaches to Bootstrapping: Phonological, Syntactic and Neurophysiological Aspects of Early Language Acquisition, Jürgen Weissenborn and Barbara Höhle (eds.), 23-44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nespor, Marina, & Vogel, Irene. (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Pater, Joe (1997). Minimal violation and phonological development. Language Acquisition, 6, 201-253. Roark, Brian, & Demuth, Katherine. (2000). Prosodic constraints and the learner's environment: A corpus study. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, S. Catherine Howell, Sarah A. Fish, and Thea Keith-Lucas (eds.), 597-608. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Savage, Ceri, & Lieven, Elena. (2004). Can the Usage-Based Approach to Language Development be Applied to Analysis of Developmental Stuttering? Stammering Research, 1, 83-100. Selkirk, Elisabeth. (1984). Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 298
Stammering Research. Vol. 1. AUTHORS’ RESPONSE TO CONTINUING COMMENTARIES Can the Usage-Based Approach to Language Development be Applied to Analysis of Developmental Stuttering? C. Savage 1 and E. Lieven 2 1 Department of Psychology, University College London, Gower St., London WC1E 6BT, England c.savage@ucl.ac.uk 2 Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig lieven@eva.mpg.de Abstract. The authors offer a response to commentaries by Julie Anderson & Julien Musolino and Katherine Demuth. They first clarify their position and then address the issues raised. The authors acknowledge that they do not provide conclusive answers, but they suggest that their paper provides an opportunity to open a dialogue among child language and childhood stuttering researchers that includes the contributions of the UB approach. Key Words: Usage-Based Approach, slot-and-frame schema, phonological word. We were pleased to receive responses from Anderson & Musolino and Demuth to our article (Savage & Lieven, 2004). Both raise important issues which need to be addressed. After briefly clarifying our position, we attempt to address the major issues raised, but we are certainly far from being able to give definitive answers. The Usage-Based (UB) approach considers abstract representations as developing out of usage. Initially, representations are local and lexically-specific (i.e. not abstract). These representations remain available while, during development, more complex and more abstract representations build up. A child’s early linguistic representations may constitute very lexically-specific slot-and-frame patterns, that cut across the abstract syntactic categories of syntactic theory, for example if want and to are fused together in ‘wanna X’. Determining what these representations are is an empirical issue, not a linguistic one. In so far as they do not vary between speakers this will result from the lexical statistics of the spoken language that children hear. In so far as they vary between speakers, this will depend on particular properties of the input that children hear and what they as individuals take from it. Our position is that the empirical evidence provides more support for this approach than for the idea that children possess abstract linguistic representations from the outset of language development. In addition, the evidence suggests that while different aspects of children’s linguistic representations start to generalise and become more abstract at different points in time, there is a major change in the representation of argument structure around the end of the third year. Here we are indeed at odds with a Generativist approach. From a UB perspective competence and performance are not radically distinct, as they are in Generativist theory. Anderson and Musolino (2004) are wrong, however, in suggesting that competence accounts within the Generativist tradition have nothing to say about performance. Whatever one’s view on whether they should have something to say, there is a long and interesting literature of attempts to account for performance facts in terms of competence theory (notably, for example, Valian’s 1986, 1991 performance limitations theory). Our article was an exploration of the possibility that the UB approach might have something to offer to the understanding of stuttering. As we understand it, the evidence suggests that when young children stutter they tend to do so on function words, whereas adults stutter on content words. We suggested that this might be due to the different nature of the linguistic representations that young children have compared to those of adults (less paradigmatic and more syntagmatic would be one way of thinking of it). The evidence also suggests that stuttering tends to onset at around 3;0, around the time when we suggest that children are moving from item-based usage to more abstract usage. As a stand alone hypothesis, the UB theory is incomplete. Of course we recognise that a full explanation for stuttering will need to account for its persistence into adulthood for some speakers and for the fact that not all children are diagnosed as having a stutter. However, if there is an increase in disfluency by most children around the age of 3;0, then the question is why this persists for some children and not for others. We were attempting to suggest where such an increase in disfluency might come from and thus to shift the question to asking how it persists and whether this relates to the nature of the linguistic representations that children who continue to stutter have. To be specific, there are three possible explanations for the high recovery rate for childhood stuttering: 1) All CWS represent the most disfluent end of a continuum of normal disfluency and their stuttering only persists into adulthood if a further change in their speech abilities occurs during adolescence (i.e. the EXPLAN model, Howell & Au Yeung, 2002); 2) CWS fall into two groups, with those who later recover representing the disfluent end of the normal fluency curve and those whose stutter persists representing 299
Page 2 and 3:
Stammering Research A Journal Publi
Page 4 and 5:
S. GHAZI & R. LICKLEY Bilingual iss
Page 6 and 7:
Stammering Research. Vol. 1. Notice
Page 8 and 9:
Stammering Research. Vol. 1. SUMMAR
Page 10 and 11:
Stammering Research. Vol. 1. Format
Page 12 and 13:
Stammering Research. Vol. 1. Stamme
Page 14 and 15:
S. GHAZI & R. LICKLEY Bilingual iss
Page 16 and 17: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. recove
Page 18 and 19: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. distin
Page 20 and 21: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. intera
Page 22 and 23: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. handic
Page 24 and 25: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. severe
Page 26 and 27: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. by Sac
Page 28 and 29: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. vocali
Page 30 and 31: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. recipi
Page 32 and 33: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. The ac
Page 34 and 35: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. exchan
Page 36 and 37: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. Duncan
Page 38 and 39: Appendix: Transcription notation St
Page 40 and 41: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. speech
Page 42 and 43: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. interp
Page 44 and 45: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. Questi
Page 46 and 47: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. compan
Page 48 and 49: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. Answer
Page 50 and 51: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. wasn
Page 52 and 53: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. The pa
Page 54 and 55: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. in suc
Page 56 and 57: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. 4. Imp
Page 58 and 59: RESEARCH COMMENTARY ON SAGE Stammer
Page 60 and 61: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. have a
Page 62 and 63: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. Finall
Page 64 and 65: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. On a m
Page 68 and 69: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. a subs
Page 70 and 71: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. includ
Page 72 and 73: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. Commen
Page 74 and 75: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. Vanryc
Page 76 and 77: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. Relati
Page 78 and 79: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. is pre
Page 80 and 81: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. factor
Page 82 and 83: Appendix A - Data description Stamm
Page 84 and 85: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. RESEAR
Page 86 and 87: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. There
Page 88 and 89: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. Make s
Page 90 and 91: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. is som
Page 92 and 93: When you start the application from
Page 94 and 95: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. ABSTRA
Page 96 and 97: Stammering Research. Vol. 1. PRELIM
show all

Announcing 'Stammering Research' - Stammering Research - UCL

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?