Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:27:26.884Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Perception, production, and individual differences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 September 2018

Katherine Demuth*
Affiliation:
Macquarie University

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Bavin, E. L., Sarant, J., Prendergast, L., & Leigh, G. (2017). Predictors of early vocabulary development for children with CIs. Paper presented at the 14 Triennial meeting of the International Association for the Study of Child Language, Lyon, France, July 17–21, 2017.Google Scholar
Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realist perspective on cross-language speech perception. In W. Strange & J. J. Jenkins (Eds.), Cross-language speech perception (pp. 171204). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cissé, I., Demolin, D., & Vallée, N. (2011). The acquisition of plosives and implosives by a Fulfulde-speaking child aged from 5 to 10;29 months. Paper presented at the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Hong Kong, August 17–21, 2011.Google Scholar
Cristia, A., Seidl, A., Junge, C., Soderstrom, M., & Hagoort, P. (2014). Predicting individual variation in language from infant speech perception measures. Child Development, 85, 13301345.Google Scholar
Davies, B., Xu Rattanasone, N., & Demuth, K. (2017). Two-year-olds’ sensitivity to inflectional plural morphology: Allomorphic effects. Language, Learning and Development, 13, 3853.Google Scholar
Demuth, K. (1995). Markedness and the development of prosodic structure. In J. Beckman (Ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (Vol. 25, pp. 1325). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.Google Scholar
Demuth, K. (1996a). The prosodic structure of early words. In J. Morgan & K. Demuth (Eds.), Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition (pp. 171184). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Demuth, K. (1996b). Alignment, stress and parsing in early phonological words. In B. Bernhardt, J. Gilbert, & D. Ingram (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Phonological Acquisition (pp. 113–124). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Demuth, K. (2003). The acquisition of Bantu languages. In D. Nurse & G. Phillipson (Eds.), The Bantu languages (pp. 209222). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Demuth, K., Culbertson, J., & Alter, J. (2006). Word-minimality, epenthesis, and coda licensing in the acquisition of English. Language & Speech, 49, 137174.Google Scholar
Demuth, K., & McCullough, E. (2009). The prosodic (re)organization of children’s early English articles. Journal of Child Language, 36, 173200.Google Scholar
Demuth, K., Patrolia, M., Song, J. Y., & Masapollo, M. (2012). The development of articles in children’s early Spanish: Prosodic interactions between lexical and grammatical form. First Language, 32, 1737.Google Scholar
Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Bates, E., & Thal, D. (1994). Variability in early communicative development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, (Serial No. 242).Google Scholar
Fikkert, P. (1994). On the acquisition of prosodic structure (PhD dissertation. University of Leiden).Google Scholar
Gerken, L. A. (1996). Prosodic structure in young children’s language production. Language, 72, 683712.Google Scholar
Gerken, L. A., & McIntosh, B. (1993). The interplay of function morphemes and prosody in early language. Developmental Psychology, 29, 448457.Google Scholar
Gnanadesikan, A. (2004). Markedness and faithfulness constraints in child phonology. In R. Kager, J. Pater & W. Zonneveld (Eds.), Constraints in phonological acquisition (pp. 73109). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goad, H., & Rose, Y. (Eds.). (2003). Segmental-prosodic interaction in phonological development: A comparative investigation. Special issue of Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 48, 139452.Google Scholar
Gxilishe, S. (2004). The acquisition of clicks by Xhosa-speaking children. Per Linguam, 20, 112.Google Scholar
Iverson, J. (2010). Developing language in a developing body: The relationship between motor development and language development. Journal of Child Language, 37, 229261.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1941). Kindersprache, aphasie und allgemeine lautgesetze. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells boktryckeri a.-b.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W., Cutler, A., & Redanz, N. J. (1993). Infants’ preference for the predominant stress patterns of English words. Child Development, 64, 675687.Google Scholar
Klatt, D. H. (1976). Linguistic uses of segmental duration in English: Acoustic and perceptual evidence. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 59, 12081221.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I. (1973). Rhythmic units and syntactic units in production and perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 54, 12281234.Google Scholar
Levelt, C. C., Schiller, N. O., & Levelt, W. J. (2000). The acquisition of syllable types. Language Acquisition, 8, 237264.Google Scholar
Lin, S., & Demuth, K. (2015). Children’s acquisition of English onset and coda /l/: Articulatory evidence. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 58, 1327.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., & Tanner, D. (2017). Individual differences and retrieval interference in L2 processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1017/S136672891600095X Google Scholar
Pater, J. (1997). Minimal violation and phonological development. Language Acquisition, 6, 201253.Google Scholar
Peters, A. (1983). The units of language acquisition: Monographs in applied psycholinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rescorla, J., Roberts, J., & Dahlsgaard, K. (1997). Late talkers at 2: Outcome at age 3. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 556566.Google Scholar
Schwartz, R., & Leonard, L. (1982). Do children pick and choose? An examination of phonological selection and avoidance in early lexical acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 9, 319336.Google Scholar
Shi, R., Werker, J. F., & Cutler, A. (2006). Recognition and representation of function words in English-learning infants. Infancy, 10, 187198.Google Scholar
Smit, A. B. (1993). Phonologic error distributions in the Iowa-Nebraska articulation norms project: Consonant singletons. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 533547.Google Scholar
Song, J. Y., Sundara, M., & Demuth, K. (2009). Phonological constraints on children’s production of English third person singular -s . Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 623642.Google Scholar
Stites, J., Demuth, K., & Kirk, C. (2004). Markedness versus frequency effects in coda acquisition. In A. Brugos, L. Micciulla, & C. E. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 565–576). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Sundara, M., Demuth, K., & Kuhl, P. (2011). Sentence-position effects on children’s perception and production of English 3rd person singular –s . Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54, 5571.Google Scholar
Tsao, F.-M., Liu, H.-M., & Kuhl, P. K. (2004). Speech perception in infancy predicts language development in the second year of life: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 75, 10671084.Google Scholar
Vihman, M. M., & Velleman, S. L. (2000). The construction of a first phonology. Phonetica, 57, 255266.Google Scholar
Yavaʂ, M. (1995). Phonological selectivity in the first fifty words of a bilingual child. Language and Speech, 38, 189202.Google Scholar
Yeung, H. H., & Nazzi, T. (2014). Object labeling influences infant phonetic learning and generalization. Cognition, 132, 151163.Google Scholar