American Dialect Society
Anaheim, CA Jan. 2006
The Impact of Dialect on the Rate and Order
of Phonological Development
Shelley L. Velleman*, Barbara Zurer Pearson*,
Timothy J. Bryant+ & Tiffany Charko@
*University of Massachusetts-Amherst
+University of New Hampshire
@Agawam Public Schools
Research supported by
NIH contract N01-DC-8-2104* and
NSF Award BCS-0318135
*webpage:www.umass.edu/aae
Contact for information:
velleman@comdis.umass.edu
With special thanks to
The Psychological Corporation,
who collected the data,
a host of dedicated graduate and
undergraduate students, and
our colleagues in the
UMass NIH Working Groups on AAE.
AAE: African American English
• Also called African American Vernacular English (AAVE),
Black English, Ebonics, etc.
– Spoken by many Blacks in the U.S.
– Pronunciation in some respects similar to Southern
American English
– Pronunciation and grammar in some respects similar to
West African languages
– Shares many characteristics with other Creole English
dialects spoken by Blacks
• Stigmatized in the U.S.
• Children who speak AAE are often referred for special
education or speech-language pathology services
Terminology
We are comparing MAE learners to “AAE
learners”
BUT
AAE learners are actually learning both
dialects;
AAE is their 1st dialect, so we are making the
assumption that it will have the most impact
on the order and rate of their phonological
development
Terminology, cont.
“Match”: child’s form matches adult MAE
form
“Non-match”: child’s form does not match
adult MAE match
Terminology, cont.:
CONTRASTIVE
ELEMENTS
NONCONTRASTIVE
ELEMENTS
• Specific to AAE
• Common to AAE
and
• NOT characteristic of
MAE
MAE
Seymour & Seymour, 1977
Key Segmental Features of AAE
Predicted to be Contrastive
Same phonemic repertoire (with possible exception of
voiced “th”) but
• Interdental fricatives replaced by labiodentals or
alveolars, depending on context
• Postvocalic liquids: Vowelized, absent; /r/
hyperarticulated (varies geographically)
• Final obstruents more weakened (devoiced,
glottalized), especially alveolars
• str-, “shr-”  skr- (lexical?)
Key Phonotactic Features of AAE
Predicted to be Contrastive
Same structural repertoire but
• Weak syllable deletion from iambics (or “stress
shift” to trochaic)
• Final consonant clusters reduced at higher rate,
especially /___##C
• Final obstruents and nasals omitted more
frequently, especially alveolars, especially
/____##C
• Avoid sonority violations (lexical “metathesis”,
very stigmatized)
Thus, phonotactic structures tend to be less complex
Impact of Ambient Language
Previous cross-linguistic research has shown
that frequency of occurrence impacts rate
and order of phonological acquisition:
–
–
–
–
–
Kehoe & Lleo, 2002
Demuth, 2002
Roark & Demuth, 2000
Pearson et al., 1995
Boysson-Bardies & Vihman, 1991
Research Question
What is the impact on rate and order of
phonological development of learning
two dialects that differ primarily with
respect to frequency of occurrence,
especially of complex phonotactic
structures?
Hypothesis 1
• Frequency will impact rate and order of
acquisition even in two dialects with the
same phonemic and phonotactic inventories
Non-contrastive elements  same exposure in
both  equivalent mastery in both
Contrastive elements  less exposure in one
dialect  later mastery in that dialect
Hypothesis 2
• Phonotactic and segmental frequency will
interact
Most segments will be contrastive only
in marked environments
For AAE, only interdental fricatives will
be contrastive in all environments,
marked and unmarked
Hypothesis 3
• In the dialect with less exposure to more
complex phonotactic structures (AAE),
phonetic development will outpace
phonotactic development (in comparison to
MAE).
– AAE will have more phonotactic nonmatches to MAE than segmental; MAE
vice versa
Study sample:
Female
Male
Total
AAE
286
251
537
MAE
182
135
317
Total
468
386
854
Children tested by The Psychological
Corporation as part of the standardization
process for the DELV.
Other characteristics of the sample:
• Selection criteria included demographics of
community of residence (predominantly African
American vs. European American)
• Region: South (60%), North Central (25%),
Northeast (6%), West (9%)
• Parent Education Level 77% ≤ HS
(overselected because AAE usage is higher in lowerincome homes)
Overall Match Score by Region and Dialect
# of matches (of 132)
112
108
WE
104
SO
NC
100
NE
96
92
AAE
MAE
Format
• Sentence repetition
• Target embedded in carrier phrase “I see:
a mask; ..that fish breathe under water; ..a dentist”
66 words, each containing 2 segmental targets = 132
targets
44 Contrastive: 88 Non-contrastive
Copyright 2000 The Psychological Corporation
Targets
Singletons
Clusters*
Initial
21
19
Medial
1
17
Final
19
15
Total
41
51
*Non-morphological cluster targets
Singleton stimuli
Initial 21
All (but /p/)
Non
Contrastive
All
Contrastive
types
31
tokens
Final
19
types
33
tokens
Cluster Stimuli
Types,
Tokens
Non-Contrastive
Contrastive
CC initial
16, 21
br-, dr-, kr-, fr-, pr-,
tr-, gr-,sm-, st-, sk-,
sp-, kr-, kl-, gl
r-, “shr-”
CCC initial
3, 4
skr-, spl-
str-
CC medial
14, 16
-nd-, -nt-, -st-, -l-,
-ld- -fr-, -sk-, -kt-,
-ft-, -br-, -t-, -rp-
CCC medial
4, 4
-r$d-, -$br-,
-n$tr-, -$str($=syllable break)
CC final
15, 19
-st, -sk, -r, -rd, -rt,
-rl, -rs, -lt, -nt, -ks,
-mp, -ft, -ld, -lt, -rf
Coding
• Match to MAE target = 1
• Nonmatch = 0
Phonetic (segmental) non-match:
– Substitution
– Distortion
Phonotactic non-match:
– Omission (consonant or syllable)
– Epenthesis (consonant or syllable)
– Movement (consonant or syllable)
Results for elements predicted to be
contrastive
Contrastive Elements by Age and Dialect
Number of Matches
58
56
54
52
AAE
50
MAE
48
46
44
42
4
5
6
8
Age in Years
10
12
Results for elements predicted to be
non-contrastive
Non-contrastive Elements by Age and
Dialect
Number of Matches
58
56
54
52
AAE
50
MAE
48
46
44
42
4
5
6
8
Age in Years
10
12
H1: Comparison of non-matches
per child by position
Initial
AAE
MAE
2.81
2.86
3.82
1.76
(noncontrastive)
Final
(contrastive)
Matches (of 31 tokens)
Non-contrastive Singleton Consonants
by Age and Dialect
31
29
AAE
MAE
27
25
4
5
6
8
Age in Years
10
12
Phonetic order of acquisition:
Initial consonants
Initial
Consonants
d
r, s
Voiced “th”
MAE Age of
Mastery
4
6
8
AAE Age of
Mastery
5
4
≥12
Dialects differ at p=.014 but p=.952 without voiced “th”.
All other initial consonants, including voiceless “th”,
acquired at the same time in both dialect groups.
Initial /r/ substitutions by age and dialect
p = .034 (chi-square)
Production of Final Consonants
Score for Final Singleton
Consonants by Age and Dialect
Percent of matches
1
0.9
0.8
AAE
MAE
0.7
0.6
0.5
4
5
6
7-8
9-10
1112
Phonetic order of acquisition: final C’s
Final
Consonants
MAE age of
mastery (90%)
AAE age of
mastery (90%)
b, “j”, l
k, g, v
d, t
4
4
4
5
6
8
s, z
Voiced,
voiceless “th”
6
10
4
≥12
p <.0001 for age and dialect, even without voiced “th”.
Unexpected result: Non-morphological final /s, z/
mastered earlier by AAE learners
Production of Initial Clusters (N.S.)
Initial Clusters
trkl-, pl
krgr-, pr-, sp-,
stskr“thr-” (vless)
“shr-”
str-
MAE Age of
Mastery
AAE Age of
Mastery
4
5
6
6
5
4
4
5
8
8
8
8
6
10
12
≥12
Initial Cluster Dialect Differences
Reminder: In AAE
•str-  skr
e.g., [skrit] street
•“shr-”  skre.g., [skrImp] shrimp
(Lexical?)
Note: Even in contrastive clusters such
as these, /r/ itself is relatively preserved.
Production of Final Clusters (p<.0001)
Final Cluster
-mp
-ks, -”ng”k, -rl
-rf, -nt
-ld
-lt
-rd
-rs
-rt
All others
MAE age of
mastery
4
4
4
4
4
5
6
6
various ≤10
AAE age of
mastery
4
5
6, 8
10
>12
8
5
10
>12
H2 Results: Some elements contrastive
in marked positions only
Singleton /n/ by dialect and position
1
% MAE matches
0.98
0.96
AAE
0.94
MAE
0.92
0.9
0.88
Initial
Final
Elements contrastive in marked positions
Singleton /d/ by dialect and position
1
% MAE matches
0.98
0.96
AAE
0.94
MAE
0.92
0.9
0.88
Initial
Final
/d/: less frequent in final position in AAE
(glottalized, devoiced, omitted)
• 4 years difference between AAE &
MAE in final position
• 1 year difference between AAE &
MAE in initial position
• More vulnerable in other marked
contexts, e.g., more frequent non-match
in unstressed syllables even in initial
position (dusty vs. destroy)
% match to MAE
Singleton /d/ by dialect and position
1
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.9
0.88
0.86
AAE
MAE
Initial
MAE
AAE
Final
H2 Results: Some elements contrastive
in all positions
Singleton /eth/ by dialect and position
1
% MAE matches
0.9
0.8
AAE
0.7
MAE
0.6
0.5
0.4
Initial
Medial
Final
H3: Phonotactic vs. Segmental Non-Matches
Phonotactic
Non-Match
Segmental NonMatch
AAE
2534 (49%)
2615 (51%)
MAE
514 (33%)
1046 (67%)
But that includes final consonants
and final clusters, both of which
tend to be omitted -- no surprise.
What if we focus our analysis only
on initial clusters, which are:
• Not significantly different in %
mismatches by dialect
• Not yet mastered by either group?
Initial cluster mismatch types
Mismatch Types by Age and Dialect
(Initial Position)
1.2
1
0.8
% of each type 0.6
subst
phon
0.4
0.2
0
AAE MAE
4
p<.0001
AAE MAE
5
AAE MAE
6
Summary
1. Certain segments (e.g., voiced “th”) and
positions (e.g., ___#) are contrastive between
dialects
2. A deficit model is inappropriate: Frequencies of
occurrence in the dialect influence order of
acquisition
• MAE speakers acquire certain phonemes (t, d,
interdentals) ahead of AAE speakers
• AAE speakers acquire certain phonemes (s, r)
ahead of MAE speakers
Summary, cont.
3. There are interactions between
phonotactic and segmental frequency
effects (e.g., /d/)
4. Focus on learning complex phonotactics
delays acquisition of more difficult
segments (MAE); decreased attention to
complex phonotactics lowers age of
acquisition of later segments, even in
more challenging contexts (AAE)
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Boysson-Bardies, B., & Vihman, M. M. (1991). Adaptation to language: Evidence from
babbling and first words in four languages. Language, 67, 297-319.
Charko, T. & Velleman, S. (2003, July). The influence of dialect of children’s phonotactic
constraint rankings (ND children). Poster presented at the Child Phonology Conference,
UBC.
Craig, H. K. & Washington,J. A. (2004). Grade-related changes in the production of African
American English. JSHR, 47(2), 450-463.
Kehoe, M., & Lleo, C. (2002). The acquisition of syllable types in monolingual and
bilingual German and Spanish children. Paper presented at the Boston University
Conference on Language Development 27, Boston, MA.
Pearson, B. Z., Navarro, A. M., & Gathercole, V. M. (1995). Assessment of phonetic
differentiation in bilingual learning infants, 18 to 30 months. In D. MacLaughlin & S.
McEwen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Annual Boston University Conference on
Language Development (pp. 427-438). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Roark, B., & Demuth, K. (2000). Prosodic constraints and the learner's environment: A
corpus study. In S. C. Howell, S. A. Fish & T. Keith-Lucas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th
Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 597-608). Somerville,
MA: Cascadilla Press.
Seymour, H.N. & Pearson, B. Z. (Eds.), 2004. Evaluating language variation:
Distinguishing dialect and development from disorder. Seminars in Speech and Language,
25 (1),
Seymour, H. N., Roeper, T., & de Villiers, J. (2003, 2005) Diagnostic Evaluation of
Language Variation DELV, Screening Test and DELV-Norm Referenced. The Psychological
Corp., San Antonio, TX.
Questions?
velleman@comdis.umass.edu