1

Report on Child Articulation and Phonology Introduction The acquisition of the speech sound system in children can be viewed as development in two areas, namely, the phonetic and phonemic acquisition (Dodd, Holm, Hua, & Crosbie, 2003). Dodd and her colleagues described phonetic acquisition as the motor production of sounds, in other words, articulation, while phonemic acquisition as the conceptual use of the sound system, which is phonology. This suggests a close relation between articulation and phonology as being associated aspects that contribute to the overall language development. In fact, according to Carroll, Snowling, Stevenson and Hulme (2003), the development of phonological awareness in children is concomitant to the early sensitivity to segments of words and accuracy in articulation. These, in turn, pertain to phonological development which is the total process of acquiring the sound system of the target language and learning to manipulate them in speech and communication (Snowling & Hulme, 1994). Therefore this report aims to examine the development of articulatory and phonological skills of children. Pertaining to the aim, a 5-year-old male child, K. O., currently in preschool, was assessed, using two assessments, namely, an informal articulation test and a connected speech sample, with the entire session held in his childcare centre on 24/09/2010. The articulation test consisted of a pictorial set of 60 items with their names printed under the corresponding pictures. The words were categorised into consonantal sounds at the word-initial, medial and final positions, to elicit individual phonemes at three different phonological environments. Each response by the child was voice-recorded and an online phonetic transcription was done concurrently. In addition to the 60 phonemes, the entire set consisted of 138 consonantal sounds to which the percentage of consonants correct (PCC) was subsequently calculated as a percentage of target consonants produced correctly over the total number of consonants in test. The speech sample was a ten minute recording of the childs connected speech. By analysing

the sample, the phonotactic structures of the child were obtained and the level of intelligibility was estimated. In conjunction with the articulation test, a combined analysis of the data collected was conducted to obtain the childs phoneme inventory and to identify errors, such as omissions, substitutions, additions and distortions, and phonological processes. Results From the articulation test (refer to Appendix A), the child elicited five errors out of the 60 items, specifically, [fm] for thumb, [bfde] for birthday, [bf] for bath, [st] for that and [fed] for feather. Out of the 55 correct responses, nine items required the words to be read to the child which he could then accurately reproduce. To illustrate, he called the vase a pot and the pigeon a bird. From this data set, the percentage of consonants correct (PCC) (refer to Appendix B) is approximately 96.4%, which corresponds to the normally developing range of 94% and above for 5;0 to 5;11 (Austin & Shriberg, 1997). The phoneme inventory obtained (refer to Appendix C) shows that he did not display the sounds, // and //, for all three positions in the test, however, in speech he was observed to have accurately used // in the word-initial position and // in the word-final position, for example, this [s] and with [w] respectively. The child also used a complex level of phonotactic structures (refer to Appendix D) such as VCVCCVC (aeroplane), CVCVCVCC (different) and CVCCCVCC (hundreds). Analysing the errors abovementioned (refer to Appendix E), only substitutions occurred, namely, // to /d/ in the word-medial position and the articulatory shift of // to /f/ in all positions and /s/ for // in the word-initial position, while no distinct pattern was observable as the error sounds were inconsistent between the test and speech. Discussion Many studies have been conducted on the area of articulation and phonology, however, inconsistencies in the methods, procedures and documentation of the developmental stages for different age levels result in conflicting norms (Prather, Hedrick, & Kern, 1975). To illustrate,

according to Templin (1957), // and // are acquired in all positions by 6;0 and 7;0 respectively but Poole (1934) suggested that // is acquired by 7;6 and // by 6;6. Moreover, Kilminster and Laird (1978) reported that // is attained by 8;0 and // by 8;6. To be noted, the data from Templin, Kilminster and Laird were based on a requirement of 75% accurate elicitation of sounds while Pooles was based on a 100% requirement. Despite the inconsistency, the childs performance should be considered as expected for a normally developing child. As aforementioned in the results, the childs PCC of 96.4% corresponds to the norm of his age equivalent. He had also exhibited a complex range of phonotactic structures which places him at Stage VII for 4;6 and above (Grunwell, 1982). In fact, compared to Grunwells stages which indicated structures such as CCVC and CCVCC at Stage VII, the phonotactic structures produced by K. O. are seemingly more advanced. As for his phoneme inventory, the inconsistency between the sounds observed in test and in connected speech accentuates two particular sounds, specifically, // and //, which were inconsistently elicited. These two sounds have been reported in many studies to be the last few sounds acquired, with the emerging age at about 6;0 (Poole, 1934; Templin, 1957; Prather et al., 1975; Kilminster & Laird, 1978). This is likely to be reflective of his PCC as he had acquired all the earlier sounds, suggesting a low possibility to make errors other than in the two interdental sounds. The analysis on his phonological processes, as well, suggests that his development is age appropriate. According to Bowen (1998), most phonological processes would be eliminated by 5;0 with some variation due to individual differences. K. O., who had recently turned 5-year-old, was not observed to produce any error in his speech, albeit having substitution errors for // and // in the articulation test. This is also a possible factor contributing to his intelligibility such that minimal speech errors allow others to better understand his speech. From the connected speech sample and the usual conversations with him, the child was intelligible most of the time. Weiss (1982) suggested that children by the

age of 3 should be 71 to 80% intelligible, hence, K. O. would be considered age appropriate in comparison to the literature. In view of the inconsistent errors made between the articulation test and connected speech sample, it is crucial to consider the factors that might have contributed to the results obtained. Firstly, the // sound was misarticulated in all three positions when tested but properly elicited in the word-final position during speech, this shows that the source of error is not motoric and that the child is capable of producing it. The case for the // sound is similar with the difference in the word-initial position where the sound occurred during speech. Therefore, both errors were not articulatory. Secondly, the child had consistently shifted all the articulation of // to /f/ in the test which suggests that the error could be a phonological process or was cognitive-linguistic in nature. In the study by Grunwell (1982), this phonological process which is an articulatory shift is common after the process of stopping // is eliminated by 4;0. However, as he was able to articulate with [w] in conversation, there is a possibility that the child is in the progress of eliminating the phonological process such that the correct usage is beginning to emerge. On the other hand, the substitution for // differed in the two positions. Based on the misarticulation of the wordmedial // represented in test by feather and the occurrence of word-initial // in speech by this, the same explanation could be applied. As most sounds are acquired in word-initial positions prior to other positions (Owens, Metz, & Haas, 2006), this signifies that the child might have started to eliminate the phonological process thus producing such inconsistency. Regarding the articulation of that as [st], a third factor is taken into account. As the picture of this test item presented a mouse and an elephant accompanied by a question prompting the child to choose the bigger entity, while requiring him to elicit this or that, the child was apparently confused. The response provided was elephant, however, to elicit //, he was asked to repeat the word that instead of saying elephant. As a consequence of

the confusion, it was possible that he did not recognise the word that, resulting in an attempt to repeat a perceived new word which he subsequently produced as [st]. This highlights the possibility of an auditory perceptual error as well, which is the fourth factor. As opposed to the cognitive-linguistic reasoning aforementioned, there is a slight possibility that the child was not acute towards the phonemic difference between // and /f/. This could be the case as he did not seem to recognise the incorrect pronunciation of thumb, birthday and bath when repeated to him, such as saying Is this a [fm]? He paused before replying yes. Lastly, it is plausible that the child perceives the words thumb, birthday and bath to be pronounced as [fm], [bfde] and [bf] respectively while the articulation of feather as [fed] could be the result of coarticulation effects when the interdental fricative is intervocalic. In light of these factors, Sander (1972) proposes that assessment through sampling a childs spontaneous speech is more ideal as compared to a list of single words. This is to examine the childs phonological acquisition based on a pragmatic customary production, which is when he produces the correct sounds more often than the errors, instead of full mastery production. Conclusion Summarily, the development of articulatory and phonological skills in normally developing children is a gradual process that follows a series of stages as the various studies in this report have shown. Arguably, the multitude of studies report varying norms, however, a consensus still remains which describes the general development of a childs speech sound acquisition. With K. O. as an example of a normally developing child, by age 5;0, he has developed a high level of phonotactic structures and intelligibility, acquired the majority of the phonemes in English, and eliminated most of the phonological processes while those involving sounds such as // and // are in the progress of elimination. Nonetheless, the influence of individual differences causes slight deviations from the norm, proposing that these assessments are not absolute and should only serve as guidelines for evaluation.

References Austin, D., & Shriberg, L. D. (1997). Lifespan reference data for ten measures of articulation competence using the speech disorders classification system (SDCS). Madison, WI: Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Bowen, C. (1998). Developmental Phonological Disorders: A practical guide for families and teacher. Melbourne: ACER Press. Carroll, J. M., Snowling, M. J., Stevenson, J., & Hulme, C. (2003). The development of phonological awareness in preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 39(5), 913923. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.5.913 Dodd, B., Holm, A., Hua, Z., & Crosbie, S. (2003). Phonological development: A normative study of british english-speaking children. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 17(8), 617-643. doi:10.1080/0269920031000111348 Grunwell, P. (1982). Clinical phonology. London: Croom Helm. Kilminster, M. G. E., & Laird, E. M. (1978). Articulation development in children aged three to nine years. Australian Journal of Human Communication Disorders, 6, 23-30 Owens, R. E., Metz, D. E., & Haas, A. (2006). Introduction to communication disorders: A lifespan perspective. USA: Pearson Education, Inc. Poole, I. (1934). Genetic development of articulation of consonant sounds in speech. Elementary English Review, 11, 159-161. Prather, E. M., Hedrick, D. L., & Kern, C. A. (1975). Articulation development in children aged 2 to 4 years. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 40, 179191. Sander, E. K. (1972). When are speech sounds learned? Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 37(1), 55-63. Snowling, M., & Hulme, C. (1994). The development of phonological skills. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 346(1315), 21-27.

Templin, M. C. (1957). Certain Language Skills in Children. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Weiss, C. E. (1982). Weiss Intelligibility Test. Tigard, OR: CC. Publications.

Appendix B Percentage of Consonants Correct (PCC)

Name: Age: Date of assessment:

K. O. 5;0 24/09/2010

Appendix C Phoneme Inventory

Name: Age: Date of assessment:

K. O. 5;0 24/09/2010

Initial:

/m, p, b, k, , t, d, n, f, v, h, w, j, s, z, , , l, , / in test // in speech

Medial:

/m, p, b, k, , , t, d, n, f, v, s, z, , , l, , / in both

Final:

/m, p, b, k, , , t, d, n, f, v, s, z, , l, , / in test // in speech

10

Appendix D Phonotactic Structures

Name: Age: Date of assessment:

K. O. 5;0 24/09/2010

V CV VC CVC CCV VCV VCC CVCV CVCC CCVC VCVC CVCVC CVCCC CCVCV VCCVC CVCVCV CVCCVC

(I) (no) (art) (can) (grew) (over) (its) (really) (just) (bring) (about) (minute) (next) (flower) (outside) (gallery) (painting)

11

CVCVCC CVCCVCV CVCVCVC VCVCCVC CVCVCVCC CVCCCVCC

(weekend) (somebody) (beautiful) (aeroplane) (different) (hundreds)

12

Appendix E Errors and Patterns

Name: Age: Date of assessment:

K. O. 5;0 24/09/2010

Errors Omissions: Substitutions: none observed /f/ for // in word-initial, medial and final positions /s/ for // in word-initial position /d/ for // in word-medial position Additions: Distortions: none observed none observed

Patterns No observable pattern, inconsistent errors in the production of // and // between the articulation test and the connected speech sample.