Contents
Kathryn Kohnert: Foreword
PART I. FOUNDATIONS
Chapter1. David Ingram: Prologue: Cross-linguistic and multilingual aspects of speech sound disorders in children; Chapter 2. Madalena Cruz-Ferreira: Sociolinguistic and cultural considerations when working with multilingual children; Chapter 3. Carol Stow, Sean Pert, and Ghada Khattab: Translation to practice: Sociolinguistic and cultural considerations when working with the Pakistani heritage community in England, UK; Chapter 4. Cori J. Williams: Translation to practice: Sociolinguistic and cultural considerations when working with Indigenous children in Australia; Chapter 5. Martin J. Ball: Vowels and consonants of the world’s languages; Chapter 6. Sue Peppé: Prosody in the world’s languages
Chapter 7. Sue Peppé, Martine Coene, Isabelle Hesling, Pastora Martínez-Castilla, and Inger Moen: Translation to practice: Prosody in five European languages; Chapter 8. Susan Rvachew, Karen Mattock, Meghan Clayards, Pi-Yu Chiang, and Françoise Brosseau-Lapré: Perceptual considerations in multilingual adult and child speech acquisition
PART II. MULTILINGUAL SPEECH ACQUISITION
Chapter 9. Barbara L. Davis and Sophie Kern: A complexity theory account of canonical babbling in young children; Chapter 10. Brian A. Goldstein and Sharynne McLeod: Typical and atypical multilingual speech acquisition; Chapter 11. Karla N. Washington: Translation to practice: Typical bidialectal speech acquisition in Jamaica; Chapter 12. Thóra Másdóttir (Þóra Másdóttir): Translation to practice: Typical and atypical multilingual speech acquisition in Iceland
PART III. SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY PRACTICE
Chapter 13. Sharynne McLeod: Multilingual speech assessment; Chapter 14. Sharynne McLeod: Translation to practice: Creating sampling tools to assess multilingual children’s speech; Chapter 15. Seyhun Topbaş; Translation to practice: Assessment of the speech of multilingual children in Turkey; Chapter 16. Raúl F. Prezas and Raúl Rojas: Translation to practice: Assessment of the speech of Spanish-English bilingual children in the USA; Chapter 17. Carol Kit Sum To and Pamela Sau Ping Cheung: Translation to practice: Assessment of children’s speech sound production in Hong Kong; Chapter 18. Jan Edwards and Benjamin Munson: Transcription of the speech of multilingual children with speech sound disorders; Chapter 19. B. May Bernhardt and Joseph P. Stemberger: Translation to practice: Transcription of the speech of multilingual children; Chapter 20. Kathryn Crowe: Translation to practice: Transcription of the speech and sign of bimodal children with hearing loss; Chapter 21. Shelley E. Scarpino and Brian A. Goldstein: Analysis of the speech of multilingual children with speech sound disorders; Chapter 22. Minjung Kim and Carol Stoel-Gammon: Translation to practice: Acoustic analysis of the speech of multilingual children in Korea; Chapter 23. Helen Grech: Translation to practice: Phonological analysis of the speech of multilingual children in Malta; Chapter 24. Christina Gildersleeve-Neumann and Brian A. Goldstein: Intervention for multilingual children with speech sound disorders; Chapter 25. Annette V. Fox-Boyer: Translation to practice: Intervention for multilingual children with speech sound disorders in Germany; Chapter 26. Avivit Ben David: Translation to practice: Intervention for multilingual Hebrew-speaking children with speech sound disorders in Israel; Chapter 27. Isabelle Simard: Translation to practice: Intervention for multilingual children with speech sound disorders in Montréal, Québec, Canada; Chapter 28. Yvette Hus: Literacy and metalinguistic considerations of multilingual children with speech sound disorders; Chapter 29. Ruth Huntley Bahr and Felix Matias: Translation to practice: Metalinguistic considerations for Cuban Spanish-English bilingual children; Chapter 30. Brian A. Goldstein and Sharynne McLeod: Multilingual children with speech sound disorders: An epilogue

Author Information
Sharynne McLeod is professor of speech and language acquisition at Charles Sturt University, Australia. She is vice president of the International Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics Association, editor of the International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and author of a number of books including the International Guide to Speech Acquisition.
Brian A. Goldstein is professor in the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders at Temple University, USA. He currently serves on the editorial board of the Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics and has previously served as Associate Editor and Editor of Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools.
Description
Multilingual Aspects of Speech Sound Disorders in Children translates research into clinical practice for speech-language pathologists working with children. The book explores both multilingual and multicultural aspects of children with speech sound disorders. The 30 theoretical and clinical chapters have been written by 44 authors from 16 different countries about 112 languages and dialects.
Series: Communication Disorders Across Languages
Size(Size): 234 x 156 (R8vo) 312pp Pub Date: 21/02/2012
Hbk ISBN 9781847695130
Pbk ISBN 9781847695123
£99.95 / US$169.96 / CAN$169.96 / €119.95
£29.95 / US$49.95 / CAN$49.95 / €34.95
Level: Postgraduate Research / Professional
Cat: 60 Territory: World
Subject (BIC): MMZL Speech + Language, CFDM Bilingualism and Multilingualism

Back Unrounded Vowels

The back unrounded vowels are the unrounded equivalent of [u, o, , ], and are denoted by the symbols [µ, F, Ã, ɑ] . The open back unrounded vowel [ɑ] is, of course, found in all varieties of English (though in some it may be advanced quite considerably). We do not, therefore, include it in our list of disordered vowels.

Reynolds (2002) records usage of the close back unrounded vowel in disordered speech. For example, his Child M produces the following as variable realizations of the target words listed:

            book                [ɡµ?]                          shoes               [tsµùz]

            boots               [bµ>?s]                        out                   [«ƒµ?]

Bates, Watson and Scobbie (2002, quoting Fudge, 1969) give the example of doggie realized as [ɡÃɡµ] by a 1;4 normally developing child.

The close-mid back unrounded vowel is rare in the disordered data. Reynolds (2002) records it as a realization of vocalized dark-l in the word bubbles, which also contains an example of the close back unrounded vowel: [bbµƒF].

The Open Back Rounded Vowel

The open back rounded vowel [] is found in several varieties of English, for example, in both British and some New England varieties. In British English it is used in words such as cod and cot. This vowel can be counted as a disorder, however, when it occurs in varieties that do not have this vowel in their target systems. An example of such disordered usage is recorded by Pollock (2002) where, for example, a child in her study of Memphis vowels used [] for /ɑ«Õ/ in car, and Chin (2003) reports doggy realized as [dùhi] by one of his subjects. (That this was not part of the target accent is seen in the same subject’s pronunciation of dog: [dɑɡ]).

References

Bates, S., Watson, J. and Scobbie, J. (2002). Context-conditioned error patterns in disordered systems. In Ball, M. J. and Gibbon, F. (Eds.), Vowel Disorders. London: Butterworth-Heinemann. Pp. 146-185.

Pollock, K. (2002). Identification of vowel errors: methodological issues and preliminary data from the Memphis vowel project. In Ball, M. J. and Gibbon, F. (Eds.), Vowel Disorders. London: Butterworth-Heinemann. Pp. 83-113.

Reynolds, J. (2002). Recurring patterns and idiosyncratic systems in some English children with vowel disorders. In Ball, M. J. and Gibbon, F. (Eds.), Vowel Disorders. London: Butterworth-Heinemann. Pp. 115-143.

Dialectes décisifs, langues prototypiques

DISTINGUISHED DIALECTS, PROTOTYPICAL LANGUAGES

29 février-2 Mars 2012

Sorbonne Nouvelle, Maison de la Recherche, 4 rue des Irlandais, Paris 5e.

Jean Léo Léonard & Rachid Ridouane (UMR 7018, Paris 3-CNRS), Sylvie Archaimbault & Christian Puech (Laboratoire d’histoire des théories linguistiques – UMR 7597), Roland Noske (UMR 8163, Lille 3).

Paris,
29 février-2 Mars 2012
29th of February-2nd of March 2012,
IUF & Paris 3 University

Résumé en français :
La linguistique moderne a certes hérité ses modèles de la fertile confluence entre la grammaire gréco-latine, la grammaire de Port-Royal et la grammaire comparée du XIXe siècle. Au-delà de ces sources historiques et de ces cadres conceptuels, elle n’a cessé, surtout au cours du XXe siècle, de s’alimenter de découvertes sur les structures des langues du monde réalisées sur des langues de statut dialectal, ou dialectalisées, souvent à partir des données d’un dialecte particulièrement éminent, soit par le hasard du travail de terrain, soit en fonction d’une connaissance des structures les plus originales ou représentatives d’un type linguistique, au sein de familles de langues non indo-européennes. Le mazatec, le yawelmani, le chamorro, le dyirbal et tant d’autres langues, dont certaines actuellement vulnérables ou en danger, mais aussi des langues démographiquement très représentées et d’une indéniable vitalité, comme le tachelhit (ou chleuh), ont apporté des données d’un très haut degré de pertinence, changeant le cours ou la face de la linguistique mondiale, dans des domaines comme la phonologie, la morphologie ou même la syntaxe. Le présent colloque s’intéressera à ces “dialectes éminents”, qui ont eu un impact décisif sur les théories linguistiques, en particulier pour la phonologie et la morphologie, flexionnelle ou lexicale. Les communications porteront sur l’historiographie de ces rencontres décisives entre linguistes empiristes ou théoriciens et langues ou variétés dialectales aux structures originales, qui s’avérèrent heuristiques pour ouvrir de nouveaux horizons à la pensée linguistique du XXe siècle. Les contributions d’ordre théorique seront bienvenues, au même titre que les analyses portant sur les formes et les modalités de grammatisation de ces langues.

Call for Papers (now closed)

Descriptive linguistics relies on reliable surveys of languages, most of which happen to be dialect varieties included in a genetic continuum, such as Mazatec within Popolocan (Eastern Otomanguean) or Yawelmani (Yokuts, Penutian). Studies  on specific dialects had an enormous influence on the development of lihphonological theory.
Huautla, a central dialect of Mazatec, provides a good example. Eunice & Kenneth Pike’s 1947 paper on Immediate Constituents in Mazatec, which is generally considered as a major breakthrough in modern phonology for the emergence of syllabic constituency models, is based on the the Huautla dialect. The dialect is also the basis for Pike’s chapter 8 of Tone Languages (1948), which provided a thorough analysis of tone and inflectional patterns in Mazatec..Both contributions had an enormous impact on linguistics, and have been quoted ever since in hundreds of further contributions on syllable structure and tone patterns in inflectional systems.
A second example is provided by the Penutian languae of Yokuts, more particularly the dialect of Yawelmani Kisseberth’s dissertation on Yawelmani phonology (1969, cf. Noske 1993) proved seminal for underspecification theory in, as well as for other fields of linguistics, such as syllabic theory and templatic morphology.
A third example is Warlpiri (an Australian lanuage belonging to the Ngarkic languages, Pama-Nyungan family) suggested the importance of notions such as (non )configurationality (Legate 2002).
Yet another example is Mohawk (Iroquoian), which has been considered as a prototypically incorporative language since Baker’s major essay on incorporation (Baker 1988).
To a certain extent, one can say that these languages, regardless of their number of speakers, have highly contributed to the advancement of linguistic science in the 20th Century.
The Distinguished Dialects, Prototypical Languages Conference (DDPLC) will focus on languages and dialect varieties which one could call distinguished dialects/languages. The meeting will also give an opportunity to revisit data, and to address a basic question for contemporary and typological linguistics: what have linguists done with empirical evidence from distinguished dialects/languages?
Mazatec provides a striking example of this challenge: although the language is still widely spoken (over 200 000 speakers), with over 8 typologically fairly different dialects (Gudschinsky 1948), there are few studies with fresh, up to date data available since the late forties and early eighties. Data on a dialect spoken 18 km north of Huautla – San Jeronimo Tecoatl (see Kirk 1966) – show a considerable neutralization of most complex features described in Pike & Pike 1947 and revisited in Golston & Kehrein 1998. However, this epiphenomenon is hardly taken into account on the literature. This becomes all the more striking when one considers that data on Mazatec collected in the forties is still eagerly debated, but that very few linguists are currently doing fieldwork in the Mazatec area. Instead, the Huautla and Chiquihuitlan monographs by Kenneth Pike (1948) and Carol Jamieson (1982, 1988) are duly referenced and taken into account in major cross-linguistic surveys as the The World Atlas of Language Structures (Haspelmath & al. 2005-8: see http://wals.info/ ) or UPSID/,without further inquiry or verification. One could even dare say paradoxically that while phonological typology still pays special attention to Mazatec, especially for its voice quality correlation (see Golston & Kehrein 1998, 2004, Silverman 1997), Mazatec in 2010 turns out to be a neglected language, as far as fieldwork and empirical linguistics are concerned.
The Distinguished Dialects, Prototypical Languages Conference (DDPLC) will therefore address the following questions:

1) Historiography of famous EL or distinguished dialect: what languages and linguistic stocks have had a noticeable impact on descriptive and typological linguistics? This issue concerns phonology as much as morphology, syntax and semantics. Any historiographic survey of the description of languages such as Mazatec, Zoque, Yawelmani, Warlpiri, Mohawk, Tachelhit, Hanti or Mansi (Ostyak or Vogul) within the framework of general linguistics, that takes into account the prerequisites and phonological or grammatical theories, is welcome. The historiography of linguistic stocks can also be taken into account (e.g. the Algonquian or the Uralic paradigms, as opposed to the overwhelming weight of Indo-European studies in the 19th century).

2) Revisiting and contrasting data from famous distinguished dialects or prototypical languages. to what extent were data on these languages or varieties accurate and still hold nowadays? Would the results have been quite different if other varieties had been scrutinized? Why have alternative data from other varieties been drawn apart? What are the consequences of revisiting or enlarging data for fine-grained linguistic typology?

3) The distinguished dialect/prototypical languages potential bias: to what extent available descriptions of these varieties/languages had a decisive impact on the way linguists describe languages of various stocks and types, or infringed on the way they make reconstructions of protolanguages? To what extent do some protolanguages turn out to be no more than prevalent varieties? In Uralic linguistics, for instance, empirical research on vowels in the Ob-Ugrian languages by Eastern German and Hungarian scholars after World War 2 powerfully challenged previous knowledge on Finno-Ugric reconstruction, which had been previously neglected by Finnish scholars – though Toivo Lehtisalo had previously endeavoured to take into account Samoyedic data (1933). The Steinitz’s model (1944) opposed the Itkonen’s model (1946), contrasting Mordvin evidence with Ob-Ugric data (see Gheno & Hajdú 1992: 175)
Paying tribute to famous prototypical languages or distinguished dialect, revisiting and contrasting data and competing arguments, uncovering potential empirical bias should contribute to the debate on how empirically grounded cross-linguistic typology actually is. The three issues raised by the Distinguished Dialects, Prototypical Languages Workshop aim at answering this Borgesian question (cf. Jorge Luis Borges’s novel The Library of Babel), which not only challenges the mere state of the art and current practice of empirical and typological linguistics, but also addresses the linguist’s ethics, as even prototypical languages happen to be neglected, at least empirically.

The first day of the conference (2012-02-29) will be devoted to one major issue, following the track of Uriel Weinreich over 50 years ago, with particular focus on multimedia databases: is a worldwide structural dialectology possible?

The languages of the conference will be French, English and Spanish. Talks in Russian or Portuguese or another lingua franca will be accepted, provided that the hand out or the Power Point presentation will make the contents intelligible for the audience, in French or English).

Comité d’organisation et de coordination scientifique :
Jean Léo Léonard (IUF & UMR 7018, Paris 3-CNRS), Sylvie Archaimbault (Laboratoire d’histoire des théories linguistiques – UMR 7597), Christian Puech (Paris 3), Roland Noske (UMR 8163, Lille 3), Rachid Ridouane (UMR 7018, CNRS).

References:
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Golston, Chris & Kehrein, Wolfgang. 1998. Mazatec onsets and nuclei, International Journal of American Linguistics 64.4: 311-337.
Golston, Chris & Kehrein, Wolfgang. 2004. A prosodic Theory of laryngeal contrasts, Phonology 21: 1-33. < http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~chrisg/>
Gudschinsky, Sarah C. 1958. Mazatec dialect history, Language 34: 469-481.
Haspelmath, Martin; Dryer, Matthew S.; Gil, David & Comrie, Bernard (eds.) [2005]-2008. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, cf. http://wals.info/feature/).
Gheno Danilo & Hajdú Peter. 1992. Introduzione alle lingue uraliche, Turin, Rosenberg & Sellier (a revised translation from Hungarian of Hajdú P. 1981 UNyA coursebook on Uralic Linguistics).
Jamieson, Carole Ann. 1982. Conflated subsystems marking person and aspect in Chiquihuitlán Mazatec verb, IJAL 48(2), 139-167.
- 1988. Gramática mazateca del Municipio de Chuiquihuitlan, Oaxaca. Mexico: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano, A.C.
Kirk, Paul Livingston. 1966. Proto-Mazatec phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington.
Kisseberth, Charles W. 1969. Theoretical implications of Yawelmani phonology. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Illinois. Urbana-Champaign.
Legate, Julie Anne, 2002. Warlpiri: Theoretical Implications, Ph. D. dissertation, M.I.T.
Noske, Roland G. 1993. A Theory of Syllabification and Segmental Alternation. With studies on the phonology of French, German, Tonkawa and Yawelmani. Tübingen: Niemeyer. XIX, 248 p. (Linguistische Arbeiten, n°296)
Pike, Kenneth 1948. Tone Languages. A Technique for Determining the Number and Types of Pitch Contrasts in a Language, with Studies in Tonemic Substitution and Fusion, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press. NB : Rééditions : 1949, 56, 57, 61.
Pike, Kenneth L. & Pike, Eunice. 1947. Immediate constituents of Mazatec Syllables, IJAL 13: 78-91.
Silverman, Daniel. 1997. Laryngeal complexity in Otomanguean vowels, Phonology 14: 235-261.
Weinreich, Uriel. 1954. Is a structural dialectology possible? Word, 10:388-400.

Meeting Dates: 6-8 September 2012

Location: University of Oxford 

Call for Papers

The TIE conference series has been bringing together researchers biennially since 2004. The focus has been on tone, intonation and all aspects of sentence prosody in a wide variety of languages, employing different methodologies. TIE5 – to be hosted by the Faculty of Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics at the University of Oxford – is now welcoming abstracts for papers and posters dealing with any topic within these areas. No more than two abstracts should be submitted per author, including joint abstracts.

Invited Speakers:

Laura Downing (ZAS, Berlin)
Carlos Gussenhoven (Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen & Queen Mary UL) & Jörg Peters (Oldenburg Universität)
Pilar Prieto (Universitat Pampeu Fabra)
Tomas Riad (Stockholms Universitet)
Elisabeth Selkirk (University of Massachusetts Amherst)

Abstracts

Abstract submission deadline: 11.59 (EST) 26 April 2012

Notification of abstract acceptance: 1 June 2012

Abstract Submission:

• The deadline for abstract submission is midnight (GMT) 26 April 2012
• Abstract submission will be through the LinguistList’s Easy Abstract System (http://linguistlist.org/confcustom/TIE5)
• Abstracts should be submitted in pdf or Word (.doc) formats
• Abstracts should not be longer than one A4 page for text and examples with 2 cm or equivalent margins, single-spaced, with a font size no smaller than 12pt, and with normal character spacing. One extra page solely for references may also be submitted.
• Your abstract should be anonymous. Please do not use your name in the file name of your abstract. You will be asked to submit a separate version with your name and affiliation if your abstract is selected for presentation.
• If using phonetic fonts in your abstract, please submit a pdf file or use Doulous SIL font.
• Abstracts may be submitted either for a “talk/poster“, or as a “poster only“.
• Authors may submit a maximum of one single-authored and one co-authored abstract or two co-authored abstracts.

Join SpeechPathology.com March 5-9, 2012 for part or all of this exciting five day, online Virtual Conference Series.

The Conference will showcase practical issues for children with SSD, highlighting the latest evidence-based assessment and treatment strategies. All courses are offered for ASHA CEU.

Daily presentations conducted by leading clinical experts from 12:00-1:00 ET.

Gregory L. Lof, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, is Guest Editor of this exciting conference series. Speakers: Elise Baker, Ph.D.,  Raul Prezas, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, Peter Flipsen, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, Jonathan Preston, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, and Steven Skelton, Ph.D., CCC-SLP.

Full details, including costs, here.