Developmental implications of nonlinear phonological theory

Abstract

For the past 20 years the field of linguistics has provided a basis for assessment and treatment methods for speech and language disorders. Since Goldsmiths (1976) dissertation showing tone as an independently functioning autosegment, new and robust phonological frameworks have become available, i.e. nonlinear phonological frameworks. This paper outlines major aspects of nonlinear phonology and its developmental implications. Based in generative phonology, nonlinear frameworks adhere to many of the tenets of the generative grammar tradition, such as markedness and autonomy of linguistic components. The major difference between classical and nonlinear generative phonology is the latters emphasis on representation rather than on rules or processes. This enriched representation is hierarchical and multitiered, rather than being strictly sequential as in classical generative phonology, and includes syllabic structure and segmental information. Phonological rules or processes result from, and are constrained by, principles of association between the various autonomous levels. If a child comes to the language-learning situation with a representional framework, a set of universal 'templates' are then available to utilize for decoding and encoding. The incorporation of both syllabic (prosodic level) and segmental information in representation suggests that the child will come to the language-learning process primed with expected syllable structure bases as well as with an expected segmental 'feature inventory'. The concept of autonomy implies possible independent learning for information on the various tiers, e.g. between the prosodic and segmental levels. The concept of hierarchy suggests that prominent system units in tree structure may have developmental precedence over deeply embedded units. These and other concepts are developed in the following pages.

Estudo do papel do contexto linguístico no tratamento do desvio fonológico

“…Quando o fonema era produzido corretamente em, no mínimo, 80% das possibilidades, era considerado adquirido (13) . Caso contrário, era dado início a um novo ciclo de tratamento, mantendo-se o /r/ em OM como som-alvo.…”

“…A aplicabilidade do modelo ABAB -Retirada e Provas Múltiplas foi evidenciada em estudos (12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17) realizados com DF com diferentes graus de severidade. Esse modelo foi escolhido pelo fato de ser o mais adequado para a proposta do estudo, pois a seleção de um som-alvo para o tratamento permitiu o controle do contexto linguístico.…”

Correlações entre aquisição do vocabulário e da fonologia: número de palavras produzidas versus consoantes adquiridas

“…From this analysis, the following criteria were used to establish the phonological inventory (18) : occurrence from 0% to 39% indicates that the phoneme is not acquired; occurrence between 40% and 79% indicates that the phoneme is partially acquired; occurrence equal to or greater than 80% indicates that the phoneme is acquired. To determine the features of the phonological systems of the individuals and the probabilities of producing each sound, the general phonological system of each individual was considered, analyzing consonants /p, b, t, d, k, g, f, v, s, z, ʃ, Ʒ, m, n, ɲ, l, ʎ, r, R/ at positions of simple onset, /l, r/ at the second position of complex onset and /s, r/ at the coda position.…”

Produção e discriminação do contraste de sonoridade das plosivas nos casos de desvio fonológico

“…This criterion was adopted according to the resolution of another study 12 , which suggests that a phoneme is considered to be acquired when their occurrence is from 80% to 100%; partially acquired when the instance is from 40% to 79%, and not acquired when its occurrence is equal to or less than 39%.…”