4.5 Article

The acquisition of speech rhythm by bilingual Spanish- and English-speaking 4- and 5-year-old children

Journal

JOURNAL OF SPEECH LANGUAGE AND HEARING RESEARCH
Volume 50, Issue 4, Pages 999-1014

Publisher

AMER SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOC
DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/070)

Keywords

bilingual phonology; speech rhythm; Spanish; English

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: In this study, the authors investigated speech rhythm acquisition by bilingual Spanish-English-speaking children, comparing their performance with functionally monolingual peers in both languages and to monolingual and bilingual adults. Method: Participants included younger children (3;9 [years;months] to, 4;5.1 5[years;months. days]), older children (4;6.18 to 5;2), and adults (over 18 years). Twenty-six sentences were elicited and analyzed using the normalized vocalic and intervocalic Pairwise Variability Indices (PVls) that express the level of variability in successive duration measurements, on the basis of E. Grabe and E. L. Low (2002). Results: Younger bilingual children displayed distinct speech rhythm patterns for their target languages, and they deviated from their monolingual English-speaking peers. Older bilingual children also separated speech rhythm by language, and differences between older bilingual children and their monolingual peers speaking English were also found. Younger and older bilingual children differed on the vocalic PVI, but not the intervocalic PVI, providing partial support for age differences. Bilingual adults showed separation of their languages and performed similarly to their monolingual peers. Conclusion: Bilingual children show distinct speech rhythm patterns for their target languages but with some early equal timing bias that diminishes overtime, on the basis of the vocalic measurements. Overall, the vocalic PVI is more robust than the intervocalic PVI, but further research is necessary.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available