The intelligibility of children who have severe & persisting speech difficulties : Why phonological process analysis is not enough Jane Speake Sara Howard & Maggie Vance Department of Human Communication Sciences University of Sheffield RCSLT Manchester 2012
Aims • To consider how we assess children’s speech and how we analyse the data • To explore similarities and differences in single word (SW) and connected speech (CS) production in the speech of 3 children with severe & persisting speech difficulties (PSD) • To reflect on the implications of our findings, particularly in relation to intelligibility RCSLT Manchester 2012
Phonological assessment of children’s speech difficulties in the clinical context The most common approach is to collect data from a SW naming task, transcribing it more or less narrowly (or sometimes not at all), and to carry out a phonological process analysis (Skahan, Watson & Lof, 2007). RCSLT Manchester 2012
Phonological intervention for children’s speech difficulties in the clinical context • The process analysis results in a set of descriptions which support clinicians in planning and delivering intervention – e. g. Child is stopping, fronting and reducing clusters; targets will be x, y & z; activities a, b and c will enable SLTs to effect positive change • For most children this approach works well RCSLT Manchester 2012
However… This approach might imply that SW are the building blocks for utterance level productions and that ‘fixing the problem’ at that level, will simply ‘fix the problem’ (which of course for many children, over time, it does) But does it ‘fix the problem’ for all children and if not, why not? RCSLT Manchester 2012
“In learning to talk, children must gain knowledge of the phonological words and phrases of their native language and must learn the articulatory and phonatory movements required to produce these words and phrases in an adult-like manner” Stoel-Gammon & Sosa (2007) RCSLT Manchester 2012
Single word production versus connected speech production • “phoneticians who study casual speech phenomena have consistently noted reductions that involve extreme changes from citation forms…” Johnson (2004: 7 ) • “massive reduction in conversational English” Johnson (2004: 1) RCSLT Manchester 2012
Single word production versus connected speech production “Massive reduction” is not random: words typically retain key individual features, essential for listener recognition e. g. all variations of “until” retain /t/ Some segments (e. g. /t/, /ð/, and /ə/) are ‘incredibly vulnerable’, whereas /f/, /m/, /ʃ/, /ʧ/ and /ʤ/ are ‘practically invulnerable’ (Shockey, 2003: 15) RCSLT Manchester 2012
Implications • Speech development includes being able to handle the phonetics, phonology, and prosody of multiword utterances • For some children this may pose very different challenges from SW production • This may be one underlying factor in the failure of children with PSD to respond to intervention based on single words RCSLT Manchester 2012
Persisting speech difficulties (PSDs) • ‘Residual phonological errors’ Shriberg, Gruber & Kwiatkowski (1994) • ‘Intractable speech disorders’ Wood & Scobbie 2003 • ‘Persisting speech difficulties’ Pascoe, Stackhouse & Wells (2006) RCSLT Manchester 2012
Our participants • 3 children described as having PSD • 6 years+ • Have received SLT intervention for their speech production for 3+ years • Have significant intelligibility issues (typicallydeveloping children are reported to be intelligible by 4; 0: Coplan & Gleason, 1988) RCSLT Manchester 2012
Percent Consonants, Vowels, & Phonemes Correct PCC PVC PPC “Harry” (CA: 7; 5) 62. 11 95. 83 78. 97 “Lily” (CA: 7; 2) 44. 90 92. 06 68. 48 “Hamish” (CA: 6; 7) 32. 00 73. 06 52. 53 RCSLT Manchester 2012
Single words (SW) versus connected speech (CS) item Harry ‘spider’ Lily ‘sheep’ Hamish ‘aeroplane’ RCSLT Manchester 2012 SW CS
![Single word phonological process analysis Examples of common processes: Stopping SOCK /sɒk/ [t⁼ɒʔ] Hamish](https://present5.com/presentation/8e11aa2bbddf0740444b787a50d67af8/image-14.jpg "Single word phonological process analysis Examples of common processes: Stopping SOCK /sɒk/ [t⁼ɒʔ] Hamish")
Single word phonological process analysis Examples of common processes: Stopping SOCK /sɒk/ [t⁼ɒʔ] Hamish Deaffrication CHIPS /ʧɪps/ [t⁼ɪpsː] Harry Cluster Reduction FROG /fɹɒɡ/ [fɒkʼ] Harry [fɒʔ] Hamish [fːɒɡ ] Lily RCSLT Manchester 2012
Connected speech • Processes identified in SW also occur in CS but more frequently (particularly glottal realisations) • But this does not fully explain the speech patterns observed or the lack of intelligibility experienced by listeners • Further analysis of the connected speech data reveals longer domain patterns not identified in the SW data RCSLT Manchester 2012
Multiword utterances • • • “Hyperelision” “Hyperarticulation” Unusual juncture at word boundaries Unusual prosodic (rhythmic) patterns Utterance harmony patterns Howard, Wells & Local, 2008 RCSLT Manchester 2012
“Hyperelision” vs “Hyperarticulation” “Hyperelision” Harry - and shall I tell you what “Hyperarticulation” Lily - near my Dad’s house RCSLT Manchester 2012
Hyperelision vs Hyperarticulation Hyperelision Harry - and shall I tell you what Hyperarticulation Lily- near my Dad’s house RCSLT Manchester 2012
“Hyperelision” vs “Hyperarticulation” “Hyperelision” Harry - and shall I tell you what Hyperarticulation” Lily - near my Dad’s house RCSLT Manchester 2012
Hyperelision vs Hyperarticulation Hyperelision and hyperarticulation in the same utterance (Howard, 2007) Hamish - under my bed got a mattress Harry - and landed on the boat’s top and decided to peck it RCSLT Manchester 2012
Utterance harmonies Hamish you can read my book [ˈʔɒ n ə ˈmi ma ɪ ˈbʌʔ] Lily but I did get two and I kept them [bəʔ aɪ ˈdɪd ˈdɛʔ ˈdu ən aɪ ˈdɛʔː dɛn] RCSLT Manchester 2012
Intelligibility: Listener experience Single words % understood Conversational speech % understood Harry PCC 62. 11; PVC 95. 83 Mean: 59. 78 Range: 27. 6 -90. 9 Mean 54. 12 Range: 21. 8 -87. 5 Lily PCC 44. 9; PVC 92. 06 Mean: 23. 41 Range: 0 -63. 6 Mean: 40. 09 Range: 3. 57 -75. 00 Hamish PCC 32. 00; PVC 73. 086 Mean: 13. 33 Range: 0 -40 Mean: 45. 30 Range: 10 -73. 33 RCSLT Manchester 2012
Implications • Children's speech difficulties are typically described in terms of phonological processes in SW • The complex demands of multiword utterances increase the use and variability of phonological processes • In addition, phonetic and phonological behaviours associated with multiword utterances affect intelligibility with interactions between typical CS processes and segmental difficulties RCSLT Manchester 2012
Implications • The relationship between measures such as PCC and intelligibility, and the intelligibility of different types of utterance is neither predictable nor straightforward • Listeners’ ability to understand disordered speech is highly variable • Careful, detailed analysis of multiword utterances is essential in understanding and explaining the speech of individual children with PSD RCSLT Manchester 2012
Impact on intelligibility: a last word from Harry J: Do people ever say they can’t understand what you are saying? Harry: “Lots of times every day, a thousand times a day” RCSLT Manchester 2012
Acknowledgments • Thanks to ‘Harry’, ‘Lily’ and ‘Hamish’ and their families • This research constitutes part of the first author’s Ph. D study • This research was supported by an ESRC Research Fellowship (Grant No RES-070 -27 -0024) “Connected speech and word juncture in typical and atypical speech development” awarded to the second author jane. speake@nhs. net RCSLT Manchester 2012
Скачать презентацию The intelligibility of children who have severe
8e11aa2bbddf0740444b787a50d67af8.ppt