Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-g8tfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T12:52:18.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of production practice in lexical and phonological development – a commentary on Stoel-Gammon's ‘Relationships between lexical and phonological development in young children’*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 October 2010

MARILYN VIHMAN  and
TAMAR KEREN-PORTNOY
MARILYN VIHMAN*
Affiliation:
University of York
TAMAR KEREN-PORTNOY
Affiliation:
University of York
*
[*]Address for correspondence: Marilyn M. Vihman, Dept. of Language and Linguistic Science, V/C/210, 2nd Floor, Block C, Vanbrugh College, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK. e-mail: marilyn.vihman@york.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Carol Stoel-Gammon has made a real contribution in bringing together two fields that are not generally jointly addressed. Like Stoel-Gammon, we have long focused on individual differences in phonological development (e.g. Vihman, Ferguson & Elbert, 1986; Vihman, Boysson-Bardies, Durand & Sundberg, 1994; Keren-Portnoy, Majorano & Vihman, 2008). And like her, we have been closely concerned with the relationship between lexical and phonological learning. Accordingly, we will focus our discussion on two areas covered by Stoel-Gammon (this issue) on which our current work may shed some additional light.

Information

Type
Review Article and Commentaries
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 41 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

DePaolis, R. A. (2006). The influence of production on the perception of speech. In Bamman, D., Magnitskaia, T. & Zaller, C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Boston University Conference on Language Development, 142–53. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
DePaolis, R. A., Vihman, M. M. & Keren-Portnoy, T. (under review). The effect of production patterns on the processing of speech in prelinguistic infants.Google Scholar
DePaolis, R. A., Vihman, M. M., Nakai, S. & Lum, J. (in revision). The influence of babbling patterns on the perception of speech.Google Scholar
Fry, D. (1966). The development of the phonological system in the normal and deaf child. In Smith, F. & Miller, G. A. (eds), The genesis of language, 187–206. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gathercole, S. E. (2006). Nonword repetition and word learning: the nature of the relationship. Applied Psycholinguistics 27, 513–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keren-Portnoy, T., Majorano, M. & Vihman, M. M. (2008). From phonetics to phonology: the emergence of first words in Italian. Journal of Child Language 36, 235–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keren-Portnoy, T., Vihman, M. M. & DePaolis, R. A. (2005). Output as input: effects of production practice on referential word use. Paper presented at the Xth International Congress for the Study of Child Language, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
Keren-Portnoy, T., Vihman, M. M., DePaolis, R., Whitaker, C. & Williams, N. A. (in press). The role of vocal practice in constructing phonological working memory. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K. & Meltzoff, A. N. (1988). Speech as an intermodal object of perception. In Yonas, A. (ed.), Perceptual development in infancy. The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology, 20, 235–66. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Locke, J. L. (1986). Speech perception and the emergent lexicon: an ethological approach. In Fletcher, P. & Garman, M. (eds), Language acquisition: studies in first language development, 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCune, L. & Vihman, M. M. (2001). Early phonetic and lexical development. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 44, 670–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roy, P. & Chiat, S. (2004). A prosdically controlled word and nonword repetition task for 2- to 4-year-olds: evidence from typically developing children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47, 223–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vihman, M. M. (1991). Ontogeny of phonetic gestures: speech production. In Mattingly, I. G. & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (eds), Modularity and the motor theory of speech perception. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Vihman, M. M. (1993). Variable paths to early word production. Journal of Phonetics 21, 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vihman, M. M. (1996). Phonological development. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vihman, M. M., DePaolis, R. A. & Keren-Portnoy, T. (2009). A Dynamic Systems approach to babbling and words. In Bavin, E. (ed.), Handbook of child language, 163–82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vihman, M. M., Ferguson, C. A. & Elbert, M. (1986). Phonological development from babbling to speech: common tendencies and individual differences. Applied Psycholinguistics 7, 3–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vihman, M. M., Kay, E., Boysson-Bardies, B. de, Durand, C. & Sundberg, U. (1994). External sources of individual differences? A cross-linguistic analysis of the phonetics of mothers' speech to one-year-old children. Developmental Psychology 30, 652–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vihman, M. M. & Nakai, S. (2003). Experimental evidence for an effect of vocal experience on infant speech perception. In Solé, M. J., Recasens, D. & Romero, J. (eds), Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona, 1017–20.Google Scholar
Wood, N. & Cowan, N. (1995). The cocktail party phenomenon revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 21, 255–60.Google ScholarPubMed