Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T16:42:38.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vocal motoric foundations of spoken language – a commentary on Iverson's ‘Developing language in a developing body: the relationship between motor development and language development’*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2010

D.KIMBROUGH OLLER
D.KIMBROUGH OLLER*
Affiliation:
University of Memphis
*
Address for correspondence: D. Kimbrough Oller, School of Audiology and Speech–Language Pathology, The University of Memphis, 807 Jefferson Ave., Memphis, TN 38105. tel: 901 678 5841; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article and Commentaries
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , March 2010 , pp. 275 - 279
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.)

Footnotes

[*]

This work has been supported by a grant from NIDCD (R01DC006099 to D. K. Oller, PI) and by the Plough Foundation.

References

REFERENCES

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1966). Cartesian linguistics. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
de Saussure, F. (1968). Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Griebel, U. & Oller, D. K. (2008). Evolutionary forces favoring contextual flexibiliity. In Oller, D. K. & Griebel, U. (eds), Evolution of communicative flexibility: Complexity, creativity and adaptability in human and animal communication, 9–40. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hauser, M. (1996). The evolution of communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1941). Kindersprache, aphasie, und allgemeine lautgesetze. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Koopmans-van Beinum, F. J. & van der Stelt, J. M. (1986). Early stages in the development of speech movements. In Lindblom, B. & Zetterstrom, R. (eds), Precursors of early speech, 37–50. New York: Stockton Press.Google Scholar
Locke, J. L. (1983). Phonological acquisition and change. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
MacNeilage, P. F. (1998). The frame/content theory of evolution of speech production. Behavioral & Brain Sciences 21(4), 499–546.Google Scholar
Oller, D. K. (1980). The emergence of the sounds of speech in infancy. In Yeni-Komshian, G., Kavanagh, J. & Ferguson, C. (eds), Child phonology, Vol. 1: Production, 93–112. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Oller, D. K. & Griebel, U. (2005). Contextual freedom in human infant vocalization and the evolution of language. In Burgess, R. & MacDonald, K. (eds), Evolutionary perspectives on human development, 135–66. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Papoušek, M. (1994). Vom ersten Schrei zum ersten Wort: Anfänge der Sprachentwickelung in der vorsprachlichen Kommunikation. Bern: Verlag Hans Huber.Google Scholar
Snowdon, C. (2004). Social processes in the evolution of complex cognition and communication. In Oller, D. K. & Griebel, U. (eds), Evolution of communication systems: A comparative approach, 131–50. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stark, R. E. (1980). Stages of speech development in the first year of life. In Yeni-Komshian, G., Kavanagh, J. & Ferguson, C. (eds), Child phonology, Vol. 1: Production, 73–90. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Thelen, E. (1981). Rhythmical behavior in infancy: An ethological perspective. Developmental Psychology 17, 237–57.Google Scholar
Thelen, E. (1995). Motor development: A new synthesis. American Psychologist 50(2), 79–95.Google Scholar