intervocalic consonants in the speech of english-speaking canadian children with phonological...

clinical linguistics & phonetics, 2002, vol. 16, no. 3, 199± 214

Intervocalic consonants in the speech ofEnglish-speaking Canadian children withphonological disorders

BARBARA BERNHARDT² andJOSEPH PAUL STEMBERGER³

² School of Audiology and Speech Sciences, University of British Columbia,Vancouver, BC, Canada³ Department of Linguistics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC,Canada

(Received 15 April 2001; accepted 15 August 2001)

Abstract

Acquisition of intervocalic consonants has been insu� ciently studied, both interms of subject numbers, and in terms of diŒerentiating syllabi® cation patternsfrom those involving vowel feature assimilation. The question has remained: areEnglish intervocalic consonants syllable-initial (onsets), syllable-® nal (codas) orambisyllabic? This study addresses these issues in the speech of 44 English-speaking Canadian children with phonological disorders. Intervocalic consonantsresembled word-initial onsets in that they were deleted less often than word-® nalconsonants. When there was no deletion, intervocalic consonants were morelikely to be segmentally unique (ambisyllabic?) than like onsets or codas. Insegmental inventories, segments rarely appeared only in intervocalic position,and showed an equal a� nity to onsets and codas, with two exceptions. Sonorantcontinuants and, to a lesser extent, fricatives showed patterns in intervocalicposition that may have re¯ ected assimilation. For children with less severe dis-orders, velars and fricatives occurred intervocalically only if they also occurredin codas, suggesting a coda-like (ambisyllabic?) status.

Keywords: Intervocalic consonants, phonological disorders, assimilation,syllabi® cation.

Introduction

Children’s development of word-medial consonants has been insu� ciently studied.

Earlier studies have involved single subjects or small groups of children, limiting the

generalizability of the results (e.g., Waterson, 1971; Chervela, 1981; French, 1988;

Chiat, 1989; Davis, 1998). Singleton intervocalic consonants have not yet been

Address correspondence to: Dr Barbara Bernhardt, School of Audiology and Speech Sciences,5804 Fairview Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z3, Canada; e-mail: [email protected]

Clinical Linguistics & PhoneticsISSN 0269-9206 print/ISSN 1464-507 6 online Ñ 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journalsDOI: 10.1080/02699200110112583

Clin

Lin

guis

t Pho

n D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsita

t de

Gir

ona

on 1

1/03

/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.

B. Bernhardt and J. P. Stemberger200

examined in detail (as compared with word-medial consonants in general ), nor havepatterns of syllabi® cation been diŒerentiated from eŒects of assimilation in theinter-vocalic environment (e.g., assimilation of the vowel features [1 continuant],[1 sonorant] , etc.). As discussed in the editorial (Stemberger and Bernhardt, 2002),syllabi® cation of English medial consonant sequences tends to be less controversial.For example, because the /kt/ in tractor is not a permissible syllable-initial (onset)cluster, the /k/ is syllabi® ed as syllable-® nal (coda), and the /t/ as an onset.Syllabi® cation of English intervocalic consonants preceding stressed syllables is alsouncontroversial : the /t/ in guitar is an onset. However, there is disagreement aboutthe syllabi® cation of English singleton intervocalic consonants following stressedsyllables, both for the adult language and for child phonology. They have beenclassi® ed as (a) onsets, following an onset maximization principle (Jakobson,1968/1941; Grunwell, 1985), (b) ambisyllabic (Kahn, 1976; Ingram, 1981), i.e.,belonging to both onsets and codas, or (c) ambiguous (Crystal, 1982). More dataof various types are needed to address this issue, both for the adult language andfor child phonology. For development, more information is also needed about therole of the intervocalic environment, because of the potential for vowel featureassimilation into consonants surrounded by vowels.

A few patterns were observed in earlier studies that re¯ ect those controversies andbring up additional queries. Several studies have found more similar patterns (especi-ally more matches with adult targets) for fricatives word-® nally and intervocalicallyafter stressed syllables than word-initially (e.g., Chiat, 1989, single subject; French,1988, single subject; Edwards, 1996, single subject). French (1988: 47± 48) hesitatedto suggest that intervocalic consonants were therefore more coda-like, commentingthat intervocalic consonants `may be more open to a wider range of productionstrategies than word-initial or word-® nal ones’ . As noted above, assimilation of thefeature [1 continuant ] from the surrounding vowels might facilitate production offricatives in intervocalic position, independently of syllabi® cation strategies. In con-trast, Davis’s (1998) study with 10 subjects found that segments were not necessarilypresent word-medially when they were present word-initially or word-® nally.Furthermore, medial consonants were more often unique than like the same conson-ants in onsets or codas. Individual diŒerences appeared to re¯ ect severity of phono-logical disorder. Her study did not precisely diŒerentiate type of medial consonants ,however, and subject numbers were insu� cient to draw conclusions about eŒects ofseverity of phonological disorder. A side issue raised by both Davis (1998) andRockman (1983) was whether there is a diŒerence between morpheme-internal inter-vocalic consonants (e.g., the /n/ in money) and morpheme-® nal intervocalic consonants(e.g., the /n/ in sunny). Rockman reported that children generalized more readily tomorpheme-® nal intervocalic consonants from codas than from onsets.

The limited data on acquisition of intervocalic consonants and the controversiessurrounding them suggest the importance of examining them more closely, both fortheoretical reasons, and as a basis for future clinical application. This study set outto examine English intervocalic consonants following stressed syllables over a largersample, with the objectives of addressing issues of syllabi® cation, assimilation, andseverity of phonological disorder.

Method

Subjects

Data for this study came from initial assessment samples of 44 English-learningCanadian preschool children with moderate to severe phonological disorders. Data

Clin

Lin

guis

t Pho

n D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsita

t de

Gir

ona

on 1

1/03

/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.

English intervocalic consonants in disordered speech 201

were not collected speci® cally for this study but were available from initial assessment

samples of two phonological intervention studies conducted in British Columbia in

the 1990s (18 and 26 subjects respectively).

Subjects ranged in age from 36 to 71 months (mean age 47.7 months) . Language

comprehension appeared to be within normal limits for all subjects as indicated by(a) the Peabody Picture Vocabulary TestÐ Revised (Dunn and Dunn, 1981), and (b)

one of the Preschool Language Scale Ð 3 (Zimmerman, Steiner and Pond, 1992),

the Reynell Development Language Scales (Reynell, 1985) or the Clinical Evaluation

of Language Fundamental s Ð Preschool (Wiig, Secord and Semel, 1992). Some chil-

dren had delays in language production, as observed by reduced sentence lengthand/or omission of grammatical morphemes. (For more information on the children

in the 18-subject group, see Major and Bernhardt [1998]. A website is in preparation

by Bernhardt for all subjects.)

All subjects had reduced syllable and word shapes and limited segmental (phon-

etic) inventories. A percent consonant match (PCM) score was calculated for each

subject based on single word elicitations across word positions (% of consonantsand consonant clusters matching the adult targets, calculated as for the percent

consonants correct score of Shriberg and Kwiatkowski, 1982, but using single words,

not connected speech). Their PCMs ranged from 10.17% to 56.23% (with a mean

PCM of 32.34%, SD 10.74%).

Initial scanning of the data suggested that intervocalic consonant production

might vary across subjects, in accordance with the general proportion of consonantdeletion. Davis (1998) had also queried whether severity of phonological disorder

might aŒect results. For these reasons, and because a high proportion of deletion in

word-initial or word-® nal position might compromise possible comparisons of word

positions, subjects were assigned to one of two groups, i.e., `deleters’ and `non-

deleters’ . (It should be noted that no `deleters’ categorically deleted all consonants

in one word position.) Group assignment was based on an individual’s word shapematch for monosyllabic CVC words, a basic and frequent word shape in English,

and one often subject to consonant deletion during early phonological development.

The cut-oŒcriterion for group assignment was a 50% match for CVC. Even although

this criterion was arbitrary, it resulted in the formation of two groups of equivalent

size and age: 21 deleters and 23 non-deleters with a mean age one month apart. ThePCM of the deleter group ranged from 10.17%± 41.28%, with a mean PCM of 24.7%(SD 7.03%). The PCM of the non-deleter group ranged from 20.27% Ð 56.23%,

with a mean PCM of 39.31% (SD 8.61%). A t-test (unequal variance, two-

tailed) showed a highly signi® cant diŒerence between the groups in terms of PCM

(t(42) 5 Õ 6.186, p<0.001).

Phonological samples

For the study with 18 subjects (1993 ± 1994), a primarily single-word sample was

elicited with Bernhardt’s (1990) word list (164 words minimum). The Bernhardt

(1990) list includes 57 intervocalic consonants (token count) following stressed

syllables, 36 (63.2%) of which are succeeded by a syllabic morpheme (endings suchas -̀ing’ , -̀y’ , -̀es’ or -̀er’ ). For the 26-subject study (1996 ± 1998), the Photo

Articulation Test (PAT, Pendergast, Dickey, Selmar and Soder, 1984) was used

(which contains circa 80 words). The PAT includes 22 morpheme-internal inter-

vocalic consonants (token count). The Bernhardt (1990) list does not target /Z/, and

Clin

Lin

guis

t Pho

n D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsita

t de

Gir

ona

on 1

1/03

/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


the PAT does not target /T/ between vowels; otherwise, both lists target all English

phonemes in all relevant word positions. For the investigation reported here, only

phonemes that can occur in all word positions in English were analysed. Thus, /w/,/j/, /h/, /Î/ and /Z/ were automatically excluded from analysis. In addition, phonemes

were excluded from analysis for individual subjects if that child did not attempt atleast one word with that phoneme in each of the three word positions. Of the 19

phonemes available for analysis, children who received the Bernhardt list attempted

an average of 17 phonemes in all three positions (range of 11 ± 19). Children who

received the PAT attempted an average of 13 phonemes in all three positions (range

of 13± 15). Note that this diŒerence in degree of exclusion was signi® cant (t 5 5.0537,two-tailed, p<0.001). Respecting the diŒerences between the samples in morpheme

status and in data exclusion, analyses were ® rst carried out separately for the two

samples. If results were not signi® cantly diŒerent, results were pooled. Having the

two types of word lists decreased the homogeneity of the sample, but also allowed

an evaluation of the in¯ uence of sampling diŒerence on production.

The samples were audio-recorded in the clinic by each child’s speech-languagepathologist using a Marantz PMD430 tape recorder and a PMZ tabletop micro-

phone. Narrow transcriptions were done by Master’ s students in speech-language

pathology who were familiar with disordered speech. Each tape had one of ® ve

principal transcribers. A second person (usually Bernhardt) transcribed 10 ± 20% of

each child’ s samples. Where disagreements arose, a consensus transcription was

arrived at for the whole tape after discussion and further listening (sometimesinvolving a third listener). Bernhardt then made random checks on all transcripts

to con® rm the necessary changes. Reliability before discussion varied across children

and transcribers from 65% (item-by-item analysis for narrow transcription) to over

90%. After discussion, reliability was always over 90%. DiŒerences typically con-

cerned presence versus absence of glottal stops word ® nally or word initially, voice

onset time, and ¯ aps versus voiced [d ]. The analyses below take these points oftranscription uncertainty into account.

Data analysis

This study focused speci® cally on intervocalic singleton consonants occurring

between a stressed and an unstressed syllable, for which the syllabi® cation is at issue

(onset versus coda versus ambisyllabic). Intervocalic consonants occurring between

an unstressed and a stressed syllable are more di� cult to study because many

children (particularly with moderate to severe phonological disorders) omit the

initial unstressed syllable; we leave such words for another study. To assess whetherchildren treat intervocalic consonants like onsets or codas, intervocalic consonants

were compared with word-initial consonants (onsets) and word-® nal consonants

(codas) in monosyllables; codas in word-® nal unstressed syllables were excluded, as

they may be especially subject to deletion or substitution. The data are analysed in

three ways, starting broadly and ending narrowly. Analysis I addresses whether an

intervocalic consonant resembles an onset or a coda consonant because both aredeleted or both are present (regardless of phonetic realization) . Analysis II addresses

whether the intervocalic consonant is identical to an onset or coda consonant

segmentally (whether both match the adult target or both undergo the same substitu-

tion). Analysis III addresses whether segments belonging to sound classes that

Clin

Lin

guis

t Pho

n D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsita

t de

Gir

ona

on 1

1/03

/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


contain certain features (such as [Dorsal ], or [1 continuant ]) show a distribution

similar to the same segments in onsets or codas.

A phonological analysis program ® rst extracted phonetic and word shape invent-

ories and performed substitution analyses (Cam, Bernhardt and Major, 1996). The

computerized data were examined to determine whether intervocalic consonants`patterned like’ onsets or codas (or both or neither): i.e. whether they `had the same

phonetic realization’ , with both deleted, both matching the adult target, or both

undergoing the same substitution (e.g., /f/>[p]). Because the focus was on similarity

of production, match with adult target (`correctness’) was not treated as a privileged

type of pattern. In determining whether two phones were alike, phonetic character-istics that were least reliable in terms of transcription were ignored: voice onset time

([ph ] versus [p] in medial or ® nal position, or [b] versus [bÊ] anywhere), glottal stop

([?] versus deletion), and ¯ aps ( [Q] vs. [d] in medial position) . To be certain that mis-

transcription of glottal stops did not aŒect our results in the deletion analysis, data

were coded twice: once with [?] as a segment distinct from deletion, and once with

[?] equivalent to deletion; results were not aŒected, and the data are reported herewith [?] treated as a segment.

Analyses are based on type of pattern, rather than number of tokens. Because

words were elicited (allowing better control of the consonants attempted by the

children), the number of tokens for each phoneme that each child produced was

low and generally insu� cient for a percentage-based token analysis. The type-token

distinction matters only when there is variability, in which a given phoneme istreated in two or more distinct ways within the same position in the word. For

example, if /h/ is always pronounced [ f ] in intervocalic position and [t] in word-

initial position, this clearly counts as diŒerent treatment. However, consider the

following example, in which one variant of the intervocalic consonant is identical

to the same consonant in onset position, but the other variant is not:

Adult target: /h/

Child: Word-Initial: [t] Intervocalic: [t]~[ f ] Word-Final: Deleted

This was done in order to capture the fact that the intervocalic consonant was

sometimes the same as the onset consonant, but sometimes diŒerent. Thus, the less-frequent variant was not eliminated (as in Kehoe and LleoÂ , 2002); rather, both

variants were included as two types in the analysis. The intervocalic [t] variant was

coded as segmentally identical to the word-initial [t] substitution. The [f ] variant

was coded as segmentally diŒerent from the word-initial [t]. There was no deletion

for either medial variant, and the intervocalic consonant was coded once as being

diŒerent from coda in terms of deletion. This type of coding allowed variability tobe captured, but increased the number of type patterns for some subjects in some

analyses.

For the ® rst two analyses (deletion and segment identity) , realizations of the

adult target were examined within subject. Four patterns of identity were coded: (a)

identical patterns between intervocalic position and onsets, (b) identical patterns

between intervocalic position and codas, (c) identical patterns in all three wordpositions, or (d ) unique patterns for intervocalic consonants. The individual pro® les

were then summed across subjects. For the third (feature and sound class) analysis,

there were small sample sizes for some features within subjects. Thus, the number

of subjects showing a given pattern relative to presence of a given member of a

Clin

Lin

guis

t Pho

n D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsita

t de

Gir

ona

on 1

1/03

/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


feature-based sound class in the inventory were summed and reported across

sound classes.

In terms of statistical analyses, a sign test, a chi-square test, and a Wilcoxon’s

signed ranks test all yielded the same results for the ® rst two analysis types. Only

the non-parametric Wilcoxon’s test results are reported. Where subgroups haddiŒerent results (the non-deleters versus the deleters, the Bernhardt [1990] list data

versus the PAT [1984] data) , separate statistical comparisons were made; otherwise,

data were pooled. For the third type of analysis, there were only a small number of

categories (features) and thus a chi-square test was used.

Analyses are presented in the next three sections. Because of the complexity ofanalyses and results, individual results and discussions are presented for each of the

analyses, before integrating the information into a ® nal discussion.

Analysis I: is a segment present?

The broadest possible way that two consonants can be treated in a similar fashionis if they are both deleted or both present. A broad degree of similarity (non-

deletion) is present even if the two consonants undergo diŒerent types of substitution.

In some phonological theories (e.g., Bernhardt and Stemberger, 1998), it would be

said that part of each segment survives in the substitution: the consonant’s timing

unit (independent of actual phonetic content) and possibly its Root node.

Intervocalic consonants were examined in order to determine whether they resembledonsets or codas in terms of deletion. Note that the intervocalic consonant can also

pattern like both (e.g., if /k/ is correct in all three positions or undergoes the same

or diŒerent substitutions in at least one position) , or it may pattern uniquely. There

are only two possible unique patterns: the intervocalic consonant deletes but neither

word-initial nor word-® nal consonants do, or the intervocalic consonant is produced

while both word-initial and word-® nal consonants delete.

Results of Analysis I

The results of Analysis I are shown in tables 1 and 2.

Table 1 examines whether a given child tended to have patterns of just one type.

Table 1. Deletion and presence patterns on intervocalic consonants compared with onsets andcodas across subjects, qualitative analysis

Patterns Deleters Non-deleters

Consonant present in all three positions 21 23Deletion somewhere so that intervocalic is like:

Both, Onset, Coda, Uniquea 6 0Onset, Coda, Unique 9 10Onset, Coda 4 3Onset, Unique 0 3Onset 2 5Unique 0 1No deletion of any consonant 0 1

Note: Both 5 all three consonants deleted; Onset 5 intervocalic like onset; Coda 5 intervocalic like coda;Unique 5 intervocalic diŒerent from both onset and coda. Numbers represent number of subjects.

Clin

Lin

guis

t Pho

n D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsita

t de

Gir

ona

on 1

1/03

/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


Table 2. Deletion and presence patterns of intervocalic consonants compared with onsets andcodas across subjects, quantitative analysis

Deletion versus presence Deleters Non-deleters

More identical with onset than coda 20 18More identical with coda than onset 1 1Ties (onsetÐ coda) 0 4

More unique than identical with onset 2 3More identical with onset than unique 19 16Ties (unique Ð onset) 0 4

More unique than identical with coda 2 5More identical with coda than unique 16 4Ties (unique Ð coda) 3 14

All children had at least one pattern in which the phoneme was present (with orwithout substitution) in all three positions, i.e., the intervocalic consonant was

treated like consonants in both onsets and codas. When the phoneme was deleted

in at least one position, only a few of the children with the most severe disorders

showed any patterns in which the consonant was deleted in all three positions (`both’

in table 1).

The majority of the children showed three of the four types of patterns: theintervocalic consonant patterned like an onset (usually by being present), or like a

coda (usually by being deleted), or uniquely (usually by being deleted). A minority

of children showed patterns in which the intervocalic consonant patterned like an

onset or like a coda, but no unique patterns. Another minority lacked any phonemes

that patterned like codas, showing only patterning with onsets (with or without

some unique patterning) . Overall, there were only slightly more children showing atleast one pattern with the intervocalic consonant being treated like onset (n 5 42 )

than like a coda (n 5 32). However, no child showed patterning like codas but not

like onsets, while ten children showed patterning like onsets but not like codas; this

diŒerence is signi® cant (sign test, two-tailed, p<0.005 ).

Table 2 focuses on those phonemes which were deleted in at least one position,and asks whether a given child was more likely to show patterning with onsets,

patterning with codas, or unique patterning. Both deleters and non-deleters were

more likely to show patterning with onsets than either patterning with codas

(Wilcoxon, p<0.01) or unique patterning (Wilcoxon, p<0.01). Deleters were also

more likely to show patterning with codas than unique patterning (Wilcoxon,

p<0.01), but non-deleters showed no diŒerence. Inspection of the data reveals thatdeleters overall showed a higher proportion of patterning with codas (deleters: 0.225;

non-deleters: 0.143; x2 (1) 5 4.04, p<0.05). Inspection of the data also revealed that

the two lists diŒered in the same way: the Bernhardt (1990) list was associated

with a higher proportion of patterning with codas than was the PAT (1984):

x2 (1) 5 5.45, p<0.025.

Discussion of Analysis I

These results indicated that, when coda consonants deleted, intervocalic consonants

did not tend to delete, but rather were present and thus patterned like onsets.

Clin

Lin

guis

t Pho

n D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsita

t de

Gir

ona

on 1

1/03

/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


Bernhardt and Stemberger (1998: 377 ± 379) note that very young children often

have intervocalic consonants but no codas, and may epenthesize a ® nal vowel, with

the result that the word-® nal consonant becomes intervocalic, e.g., book [bUkO],

possibly implying that the intervocalic consonant is treated as an onset in early

acquisition. Results in Analysis I con® rm this patterning for older children withphonological disorders. Note, however, that a few subjects did show more unique

patterning than patterning with onsets or codas, and a few others showed more

patterning with codas. Further, children who showed a higher rate of deletion overall

were more likely to also delete the intervocalic consonant. Also, deletion of inter-

vocalic consonants was more likely with the Bernhardt (1990) list, where 63% ofthe intervocalic consonants were morpheme-® nal, suggesting that morpheme-® nal

consonants are more likely to be treated like word-® nal codas.

The next step was to ask: given that consonants were not deleted, was an

intervocalic consonant treated in the same way as word-initial consonants or as

word-® nal consonants?

Analysis II: segment identity

Analysis II focuses on those instances in which the child did not delete a consonant

in any of the three word positions. For each phoneme it was determined whether a

given subject’s intervocalic consonants had the same pronunciation as the same

consonant (a) in word-initial position only, (b) in word-® nal position only, (c) inboth positions, or (d) in neither position. Because the question was only whether

the child treated consonants in diŒerent positions in the same way, it did not matter

whether both matched the adult target, or both showed the same substitution.

Results of Analysis II

Within-subject data were examined, to determine whether individuals showed a

single and unique pro® le relative to identity of intervocalic consonants, that is,

whether intervocalic consonants were identical to onsets, codas, both, or neither.

Most subjects (32/44) showed at least one instance of all four types of patterns.

Seven subjects showed only three of the four types of patterns (with three subjectslacking coda-only patterning, three subjects lacking the onset-only pattern, and one

lacking patterning in which the consonants were the same in all three positions).

Five subjects showed no patterns with onsets-only or with codas-only (two with

only unique patterning, one with only patterns in which all three positions were the

same, and two subjects with both types of patterns). Most subjects showed all four

types of patterns; when a pattern was missing, there were no tendencies as to whichpattern was missing. No subject showed an absolute tendency for intervocalic conson-

ants to pattern like just onsets or just codas. Thus, the question became whether

there were relative tendencies in that direction: did an individual subject show more

phonemes in which intervocalic consonants patterned like onsets, or more phonemes

in which they patterned like codas? Results are shown in table 3.

There was no tendency across children for intervocalic consonants to patternmore with onset or coda consonants. Seventeen subjects showed more identity with

onsets, 15 showed more identity with codas, and 12 showed equal numbers of

identical patterns with codas and onsets. This diŒerence was not signi® cant, even

taking into account the magnitude of the diŒerences (Wilcoxon, n.s.). In terms of

Clin

Lin

guis

t Pho

n D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsita

t de

Gir

ona

on 1

1/03

/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


Table 3. Intervocalic consonant identity with onset and coda across subjects for non-deletedconsonants

Segment identity of intervocalic consonant Number of subjects

More identical with onset than coda 17More identical with coda than onset 15Ties (onsetÐ coda) 12

More unique than identical with onset 36More identical with onset than unique 3Ties (unique Ð onset) 5

More unique than identical with coda 35More identical with coda than unique 8Ties (unique Ð coda) 1

exact segmental identity, intervocalic consonants patterned with onsets as often asthey patterned with codas, across children.

A further set of analyses compared uniqueness (non-identity with either onset

or coda) of intervocalic consonants with identity to onset or coda (table 3). Unique

patterns were statistically more likely than identity with onset consonants (Wilcoxon,

p<0.01). Unique patterns were also statistically more likely than identity with codaconsonants (Wilcoxon, p<0.01). The dominant pattern within a subject was for

intervocalic consonants to be treated in a unique fashion diŒerent from the same

phoneme in word-initial or word-® nal positions (although there were some children

who showed more patterning like onsets, and some children who showed more

patterning like codas).

Discussion of Analysis II

Intervocalic consonants did not show an overriding tendency to pattern with either

onsets or codas, in terms of segmental identity. Individual subjects showed a wide

variety of patterns, for diŒerent phonemes. Intervocalic consonants had a strong

tendency towards unique pronunciations that diŒered from both onsets and codas.There was no tendency for intervocalic consonants to be identical to onsets more

often than codas, or vice versa. Deleters and non-deleters showed the same patterns,

and it did not matter whether the intervocalic consonant was morpheme-® nal or

morpheme-internal.

Analysis III: Sound Classes (Features)

It has frequently been reported that certain sound classes and features may have a

tendency to develop ® rst in one particular word position. Bernhardt and Stemberger

(1998: 428± 436, 570 ± 574) observe that the following have often been reported in

the literature:

(1) velars ([k, g, Î]), fricatives ([f, v, h, ð, s, z, S, Z]), and sometimes approxim-

ants [ l, r] may ® rst appear in codas, although it is not uncommon for children

to develop these same consonants ® rst in onsets;

(2) some segments develop early in both onsets and codas, e.g. nasals;

Clin

Lin

guis

t Pho

n D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsita

t de

Gir

ona

on 1

1/03

/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


(3) some consonants, particularly voiced obstruents, tend to develop later in

codas than in onsets; and

(4) there may be a tendency for early appearance of [1 sonorant, 1 continuant]

features in intervocalic position ([ j, l, h] ), which could assimilate from the

vowel context.

For this analysis, certain intervocalic phonemes were examined to determine whether

they patterned with codas or onsets. Phonemes of English were divided into seven

groups, re¯ ecting the generalizations above: consonants that may develop early incodas (velars, fricatives, and approximants /l, r/; plus aŒricates, which arguably are

fricative-like) ; consonants that may develop ® rst in onsets (other voiced stops) ; and

consonants that develop in both positions (other voiceless stops and nasals).

As noted above, a number of English phones were excluded from this analysis.

Consonants that tended not to appear as targets in all three positions were eliminated,

on the grounds that phones are more likely to appear in the inventory if they aretargets. For example, velars tend to appear only in words with velar targets; only

children with the most severe speech disorders tend to show `backing’ errors in

which velars appear in words without velar targets. For the relatively low-frequency

phonemes /v, h, ð, Z, dZ, b, Î/, it is di� cult to construct reasonable stimulus sets

containing real words with these phonemes in all three positions, leading to low

numbers of target words in at least one position. Children very often failed to target

at least one word in each position for these phonemes. The following were eliminated

from this analysis: /v, h, ð, Z, dZ, b, Î/. For all other phonemes, there were relatively

few instances in which a child failed to target the phoneme in all three positions.

Note that, as is standard in inventory analyses, all data were included for the

phonemes included in the analysis, even for those few children who did not target

a particular phoneme in all three positions.

Data were summed across subjects for each of the seven sound class categories.

(Because the numbers for a given phone were small when data were split into the

seven categories, data were summed across the diŒerent phonemes in each of the

four groups.) In addition to the limiting (and uninformative) cases (i.e., where a

phone was absent in all positions or present in all positions) , each phone was

categorized as appearing within a child’s sample in one of six ways: (a) word-initial

only, (b) intervocalic only, (c) word-® nal only, (d) word-initial and intervocalic (but

not word-® nal ), (e) word-initial and word-® nal (but not intervocalic), and (f ) inter-

vocalic and word-® nal (but not word-initial ). The numbers were too small to use

the Wilcoxon test, and so only sign tests and chi-square tests were conducted. Data

were summed across elicitation lists unless the two lists yielded diŒerent results.

Data from deleters and non-deleters were analysed separately, because they diŒered

substantially.

It was also asked whether the presence of a phone in one position was related

to the presence of that phone in some other position. If a phone appeared in word-

initial position, did it also appear in intervocalic or word-® nal position? If a phone

appeared in intervocalic position, did it also appear in word-initial or word-® nal

position? If a phone appeared in word-® nal position, did it also appear in word-

initial or intervocalic position? If intervocalic position shows a tendency towards

what are arguably more coda-like consonants Ð velars, fricatives, and/or approxim-

ants Ð there are two possible explanations: (1) the intervocalic consonant is coda-

like or at least ambisyllabic, and thus shows features that preferentially appear in

Clin

Lin

guis

t Pho

n D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsita

t de

Gir

ona

on 1

1/03

/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


codas, or (2) the intervocalic consonant is subject to plateauing (assimilation from

the surrounding vowels) of the vowel features [Dorsal ] (velar), [1 continuant], and

[1 sonorant] . This contingent analysis provides a means to distinguish between these

two explanations. If phones tend to appear in intervocalic position only if they also

appear in word-® nal position, this suggests coda or ambisyllabic status. If theycommonly appear in intervocalic position when they are absent from codas, this

suggests that their presence in intervocalic position has a source independent of

codas, such as vowel feature assimilation (`plateauing’ ).

Results of Analysis III

The results for the seven sound class categories are shown in table 4.

The ® rst observation is that intervocalic consonants were less well attested in the

data than word-initial or word-® nal consonants, summing across all patterns in

which a segment could have been present initially (i.e., word-initial only, word-

initial 1 intervocalic, word-initial1 word-® nal, all ), intervocalically, or ® nally. Forthe 14 comparisons in table 4, consonants were present in word-initial position more

than in intervocalic position in 12 cases; only two comparisons showed more inter-

vocalic consonants (Sign test, two-tailed, p<0.01; with two ties). Consonants were

present in word-® nal position more than in intervocalic position in nine comparisons;

only two comparisons showed more intervocalic consonants (Sign test, two-tailed,

p<0.05; with three ties).It was not uncommon to ® nd patterns in which phonemes were only word-initial

or only word-® nal. Intervocalic-only was the rarest category, less common than

word-initial-only (11 more word-initial-only, one more intervocalic-only, two ties;

Sign test, two-tailed, p<0.01) and than word-® nal-only (10 more word-® nal-only,

two more intervocalic-only, two ties; Sign test, two-tailed, p<0.01). No intervocalic-

only patterns were observed with [p, t, m, n]. Only one was observed with [k, g](1.6%). A few more were observed with fricatives (3.1%), aŒricates (4.5%), and [d ]

(4.5%; these may have been ¯ aps [Q], which are sonorant consonants) . The highest

rate of medial-only patterns was with approximants [ l, r] (11.4%).

A contingent analysis examined whether there were any patterns associated with

phones that occurred in word-initial position. Deleters and non-deleters did not

Table 4. Segment types occurring in diŒerent positions in the word in the phonetic inventoriesof deleters and non-deleters

k, g f, s, z, S tS r, l d p, t m, n

Position Del Non Del Non Del Non Del Non Del Non Del Non Del Non

I 11 3 13 8 5 1 2 2 4 1 10 2 3 1IV 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0F 3 2 12 18 2 6 1 8 0 0 5 5 0 1I1 IV 6 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 10 1 8 1 7 2I1 F 2 4 3 8 1 3 3 1 1 2 6 9 7 1IV 1 F 3 4 3 14 0 0 2 5 0 0 1 5 0 0All 5 20 2 11 1 2 2 1 5 18 9 24 25 41None 12 12 49 30 12 10 29 24 0 0 3 0 0 0Total 42 46 84 92 21 23 42 46 21 23 42 46 42 46

Note: I 5 Word-initial; IV 5 Intervocalic; F 5 Word-® nal; Del 5 Deleters; Non 5 Non-deleters.

Clin

Lin

guis

t Pho

n D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsita

t de

Gir

ona

on 1

1/03

/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


diŒer in the use of word-initial consonants (155 versus 169, n.s.), although, notsurprisingly, deleters showed a lower proportion of patterns in which a given phone

appeared in all three positions (0.316 vs. 0.692; x2 (1) 5 44.30, p<0.001 ). If aphone occurred in word-initial position, it additionally occurred in word-® nal posi-tion as often as in intervocalic position (with eight of the 14 cells showing moreco-occurrence with word-® nal, versus ® ve with intervocalic, and one tie).

A further contingent analysis examined patterns associated with phones thatoccurred in word-® nal position. Non-deleters were more likely than deleters toproduce a given sound class in word-® nal position, regardless of type (216 vs. 110;x2 (1) 5 53.40, p<0.001). Deleters and non-deleters did not diŒer in the proportionof these patterns in which the consonant was in all three positions (0.462 vs. 0.547;x2 (1) 5 2.33, n.s.). If a phone occurred in word-® nal position, it also occurred inword-initial position slightly more often than in intervocalic position (with eight ofthe 14 cells showing more co-occurrence with word-initial, versus four with intervo-calic, and two ties), although this diŒerence failed to reach signi® cance. However,for non-deleters there were two reversals, where a given phone was found in intervo-calic position more than in word-initial position. Fricatives and approximants diŒeredsigni® cantly from the other phone classes for non-deleters (x2 (1) 5 5.79, p<0.025 ).

Neither word-initial nor word-® nal position tended to be associated more withintervocalic position. The proportion of word-initial consonants that also occurredin intervocalic position was 0.542 for deleters and 0.728 for non-deleters, and theproportion of word-® nal consonants that also occurred in intervocalic position was0.558 for deleters, and 0.684 for non-deleters. Intervocalic consonants appeared withinitials and ® nals about equally for all phone types, although deleters show slightlylower proportions of medial consonants.

A further contingent analysis examined patterns associated with phones thatoccurred in intervocalic position. Non-deleters were more likely than deleters tohave a given class or phone in intervocalic position, regardless of type (160 vs. 95;x2 (1) 5 19.06, p<0.001). Deleters showed a lower proportion of patterns in whicha given class or phone appeared in all three positions (0.515 vs. 0.731; x2 (1) 5 11.25,p<0.001). If a phone appeared in intervocalic position, deleters were more likely tohave the phone in word-initial position than in word-® nal position (four out of ® venon-tied phoneme types), while non-deleters were more likely to have the phone inword-® nal position than in word-initial position (four out of six non-tied patterns) .

A few non-target phones also appeared in intervocalic position. The results areshown in table 5.

The glides [w] and [ j ] appeared in intervocalic position in over 75% of children(both deleters and non-deleters) . (Note that in the children’ s dialect area, someadults use [w] and [ j ] intervocalically, e.g., Xower [ ¯ aUw2 ], although no such wordswere used in this study.) In addition, [h] appeared intervocalically for eight children(mostly deleters), but appeared in word-® nal position for only two children. Threechildren had a general default in medial position: two children used [ j ], whereasone used [n]. Non-target fricatives and aŒricates were also observed in someintervocalic-only patterns.

Discussion of Analysis III

Results of the sound class analysis did not unambiguously implicate intervocalicposition as more closely resembling word-initial or word-® nal position. The appear-ance of a phone in either word-initial or word-® nal position did not automatically

Clin

Lin

guis

t Pho

n D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsita

t de

Gir

ona

on 1

1/03

/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


Table 5. Segments that appeared in the phonetic inventories that do not occur intervocalically(or occur variably)a in adult English

Non-English Non-Englishwa ja h fricatives aŒricates

Del Non Del Non Del Non Del Non Del Non

I 5 6 5 2 12 20 5 2IV 1 2 2 1F 1 1 2 7I1 IV 15 15 14 17 6 1I1 F 1 2 1IV 1 FAll 1 1 1None 1 2 1 2 2 1 18 20 12 12Total 21 23 21 23 21 23 21 23 21 23

a In the subjects’ dialect area, adults sometimes use [w] and [ j ] intervocalically.

result in the phone appearing in intervocalic position. In fact, a phone tended to

occur more often in both word-initial and word-® nal positions, and not in inter-

vocalic position, suggesting that intervocalic position is often the last position for a

phone to appear. This is consistent with Davis’s (1998) results on word-medial

consonants. There is some indication that intervocalic position has an a� nity for[1 continuant ] phones, especially sonorant continuants, and to a lesser extent fricat-

ives and perhaps aŒricates, as suggested in the literature (Bernhardt and Stemberger,

1998). However, the case was not as strong for velars. Non-deleters favoured velars

in intervocalic position (as they did in word-® nal position), but deleters did not.

It should also be noted that consonants that are highly favoured in codas were

restricted to word-initial position for some children. Non-deleters did show 32patterns in which a given fricative was present in word-® nal but not in word-initial

patterns. However, they showed eight patterns in which a given fricative was present

in word-initial but not in word-Wnal position (and this minority pattern occurred at

least once for each of the four fricative phonemes in our analysis). Deleters frequently

had velars and fricatives in word-initial position only (or in word-initial plus inter-vocalic position). Thus, it does not appear to be the case that velars and fricatives

necessarily develop ® rst in codas.

The a� nity of [1 continuant ] phones for intervocalic position (especially for

sonorants) suggests that there is some plateauing (assimilation) of the feature

[1 continuant ] between vowels. The relative lack of intervocalic-only patterns for

other segment types, including nasals and velar stops, suggests that there was little,if any, plateauing of [Dorsal ] or [1 sonorant] from the surrounding vowels. Non-

deleters showed 18 patterns where a velar or fricative phone appeared in both

intervocalic and word-® nal positions but not in word-initial position; conversely,

they never showed patterns where velars or fricatives appeared in both word-initial

and intervocalic positions but not in word-® nal position, even though such patterns

occurred with other phoneme types. This suggests that, for children with more adult-like syllable structure, features like [Dorsal ] and [-sonorant,1 continuant ] may gener-

alize from codas (where they often ® rst appear) to intervocalic position. Because

there is little indication of plateauing of [Dorsal ], this suggests that intervocalic

position may at least partly be parallel to a coda, most probably via ambisyllabicity.

Clin

Lin

guis

t Pho

n D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsita

t de

Gir

ona

on 1

1/03

/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


General discussion

Intervocalic consonants in the speech of 44 children with phonological disorders

were examined to determine whether they tended to pattern like onsets or codas.

Most children showed a variety of patterns for individual phonemes, in which the

intervocalic consonant patterned with onset-only, with coda-only, with both, and

with neither. In terms of deletion (survival of the consonant’ s timing unit), inter-

vocalic consonants rarely showed unique patterns, and were more likely to resemble

(non-deleted) onsets than (deleted) codas. In terms of segmental identity (either

both matching the adult target or both undergoing the same substitution) , inter-

vocalic consonants patterned like onsets and like codas equally often. However, the

most common pattern was one in which intervocalic consonants showed unique

patterns, in which the intervocalic consonant was pronounced diŒerently than either

onset or coda consonants. In terms of which phones were in the segmental inventory,

there was a strong a� nity between [1 continuant ] consonants, especially sonorant

continuants, and intervocalic position. The data suggest that intervocalic position

often has the most restricted segmental inventory, and that phones may generalize

from either onset or coda. Only non-deleters showed a tendency for greater general-

ization from codas, and then only for fricatives and velars, which often develop ® rst

in word-® nal position.

What do these data say about patterning of intervocalic consonants? (1) They

clearly pattern partly with onsets. When a coda consonant is deleted, an intervocalic

consonant most often is not deleted. (2) They clearly pattern partly with codas.

This is clear for velars and fricatives for non-deleters. There is also a tendency to

delete both coda consonants and morpheme-® nal intervocalic consonants, suggesting

that morpheme-® nal consonants are more coda-like. (3) They clearly pattern

uniquely, in terms of phonetic realization. They also pattern uniquely relative to the

feature [1 continuant] , especially for sonorants.

The data have implications for both syllabi® cation and assimilation. Some of

the special patterning of intervocalic consonants appears to derive from plateauing

(assimilation) of the vowels’ feature [1 continuant], leading to special preferences

for continuant sonorant phones in this position. Plateauing may also underlie some

of the preference for fricatives, especially for children who frequently delete codas.

However, plateauing does not appear to create any preference for velars or nasals

in intervocalic position. Non-deleters showed the same sort of preference for velars

and fricatives in intervocalic position as in codas, implicating a coda-like status for

intervocalic consonants. Conversely, the children designated as non-deleters did

sometimes delete word-® nal consonants, but rarely deleted the same consonant in

intervocalic position; this implicates a non-coda-like (or onset-like) status for some

intervocalic consonants. The data are most compatible with a representation in

which intervocalic consonants are ambisyllabic. Because the intervocalic consonant

is in both an onset and a coda, it can sometimes pattern with onsets, sometimes

pattern with codas, and sometimes be diŒerent from either onsets or codas.

The methodology and analysis used in this study diŒered somewhat from that

of the only previously reported larger group study of medial consonants in a

disordered population (Davis, 1998, 10 subjects). Nevertheless, results of the two

studies are quite similar, suggesting that the ® ndings are fairly robust.

There was some evidence in this study that morpheme-® nal intervocalic conson-

ants (as in Wshing and sunny) may be more likely to pattern with word-® nal

Clin

Lin

guis

t Pho

n D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsita

t de

Gir

ona

on 1

1/03

/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


consonants (in terms of deletion) than morpheme-internal intervocalic consonants.

Segmental identity and segmental inventory, however, did not seem to be aŒected

by whether the consonant was morpheme-internal or morpheme-® nal.

Intervocalic consonants were frequently realized in a unique fashion, which is

compatible with ambisyllabicity. However, uniqueness may also derive from the factthat in English the frequency of intervocalic position is lower than the frequency of

codas or onsets. It has been argued that low-frequency phones may be acquired

later (e.g., Pye, Ingram and List, 1987; Bernhardt and Stemberger, 1998; Munson,

2000). It is also possible that intervocalic consonants are onsets, but weak onsets

that are prone to phenomena that do not aŒect strong word-initial onsets (Bernhardtand Stemberger, 1998). Future research may be able to tease these alternatives apart.

We caution also that it is not possible to generalize from these results

with children to conclude that consonants are ambisyllabic in adult speech.

Ambisyllabicity may be a phenomenon that is restricted to child speech ( just as

Velar Fronting and Velar Harmony are found in child speech but not in adult

English). For these data to reveal anything about adult English, it is necessary tostudy phonological development where the adult language clearly does not allow

ambisyllabicity. Only if children acquiring such languages show strong statistical

diŒerences from children acquiring English or German can it be concluded that the

adult languages are likely to diŒer along the lines of ambisyllabicity.

These results have some implications for clinical practice. Given the level of

uniqueness of intervocalic consonants, and the commonness of patterns in which agiven phone occurs initially and ® nally but not medially, it cannot be assumed that

intervocalic consonants will t̀ake care of themselves’ if the phone is targeted in

word-initial or word-® nal position, even for velars and fricatives. There is a need

for special attention to intervocalic position in assessment and intervention. There

is also a need to elicit both morpheme-® nal and morpheme-internal intervocalic

consonants. For children with severe phonological disorders, even if they haveextremely restricted codas, it appears that it is reasonable to target velars and

fricatives in onset position, because such children in this study frequently developed

these phones in word-initial position ® rst. Finally, there are great individual diŒer-

ences between children, especially as a function of severity. There is a strong need

for individual treatment strategies, following the patterns observed for theindividual child.

References

Bernhardt, B. H., 1990, Application of Nonlinear Phonologica l Theory to Intervention withSix Phonologically Disordered Children (Unpublished doctoral thesis, University ofBritish Columbia, Vancouver, BC).

Bernhardt, B. H. and Stemberger, J. P., 1998, Handbook of Phonological Development:From the Perspective of Constraint-Based Nonlinear Phonology (San Diego, CA:Academic Press).

Cam, M., Bernhardt, B. and Major, E., 1996, Speech.App: A Computer Application Programfor the Analysis of Phonological Production [computer program] (Vancouver, BC:University of British Columbia).

Chervela, N, 1981, Medial consonant cluster acquisition by Telugu children. Journal of ChildLanguage , 8, 63± 73.

Chiat, S., 1989, The relation between prosodic structure, syllabi® cation, and segmentalrealization: evidence from a child with fricative stopping. Clinical Linguistics andPhonetics, 3, 223± 242.

Clin

Lin

guis

t Pho

n D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsita

t de

Gir

ona

on 1

1/03

/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.

English intervocalic consonants in disordered speech214

Crystal, D., 1982, ProWling Linguistic Disability (London: Blackwell ).Davis, B. L., 1998, Consistency of consonant patterns by word position. Clinical Linguistics

and Phonetics, 12, 329± 348.Dunn, L. and Dunn, L., 1981, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test ± Revised (Circle Pines, MN:

American Guidance Service).Edwards, M. L., 1996, Word position eŒects in the production of fricatives. In: B. Bernhardt,

D. Ingram and J. H. Gilbert (Eds) Proceedings of the UBC International Conferenceon Phonological Acquisition (Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press), pp. 149 ± 155.

French, A., 1988, What shall we do with medial sounds? The British Journal of Disorders ofCommunication, 23, 41± 50.

Grunwell, P., 1985. Phonological Assessment of Child Speech (Windsor: NFER-Nelson).Ingram, D., 1981, Procedures for the Phonologica l Analysis of Children’ s Language (Baltimore,

MD: University Park Press).Jakobson, R., 1968/1941, Child Language, Aphasia, and Phonologica l Universals.

[Kindersprache, Aphasie, und allgemeine Lautgesetze (Uppsala: Almquvist & Wiksell )].Translated by A.R.Keiler (The Hague: Mouton).

Kahn, D., 1976, Syllable-Based Generalizations in English Phonology (Doctoral dissertation,MIT; published 1980, New York: Garland Press.)

Kehoe, M. M. and LleoÁ , C., 2002, Intervocalic consonants in the acquisition of German:onsets, codas or something else? Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 16, 169± 182.

Major, E. and Bernhardt, B. H., 1998, Metaphonological skills of children with phonologicaldisorders before and after phonological and metaphonological intervention.International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 33, 413± 444.

Munson, B., 2000, Phonological pattern frequency and speech production in adults andchildren (Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota).

Pendergast, K., Dickey, S., Selmar, J. and Soder, A., 1984, Photo Articulation Test(Danville, IL: Interstate Printers and Publishers).

Pye, C., Ingram, D. and List, H., 1987, A comparison of word-initial consonant acquisitionin English and QuicheÂ . In K. E. Nelson and A. van Kleeck (Eds) Children’s Language,Vol. 6 (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum), pp. 175 ± 190.

Reynell, J., 1985, Reynell Developmental Language Scales ( Windsor: NFER-NelsonPublishing Company).

Rockman, B., 1983, An experimental investigation of generalization and individual diŒerencesin phonological training (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University,Bloomington, IN).

Shriberg, L. and Kwiatkowski, J., 1982, Phonological disorders III: a procedure for assessingseverity of involvement. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47, 256± 270.

Stemberger, J. P. and Bernhardt, B., 2002, Editorial: forum on intervocalic consonants inphonological development. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 16, 149± 154.

Waterson, N., 1971, Child phonology: a prosodic view. Journal of Linguistics, 7, 179± 211.Wiig, E., Secord, W. and Semel, E., 1992, Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-

Preschool (San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation).Zimmerman, I., Steiner, V. and Pond, R., 1992, Preschool Language Scale-3 (San Antonio,

TX: The Psychological Corporation).

Clin

Lin

guis

t Pho

n D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsita

t de

Gir

ona

on 1

1/03

/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.

intervocalic consonants in the speech of english-speaking canadian children with phonological...

Documents