![]() ![]() The more recent third and fourth epochs reflect the utilization of advances in neurolinguistics (1990s) and human genome sequencing (post-genomic era 2000s) and these approaches address both distal and proximal causes ( Shriberg, 2010). While the first epoch (1920s-1950s) was driven by psychosocial and structuralist views aimed at uncovering distal causes, the second epoch (1960s to 1980s) was driven by psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic approaches and focused on proximal causes. The history of causality research for childhood SSDs encompasses several theoretically motivated epochs ( Shriberg, 2010). The present definition describes SSD as a range of difficulties producing speech sounds in children that can be due to a variety of limitations related to perceptual, speech motor, or linguistic processes (or a combination) of known (e.g., Down syndrome, cleft lip and palate) and unknown origin ( Shriberg et al., 2010 McLeod and Baker, 2017). The theory-neutral term Speech Sound Disorders (SSDs) is currently used as a compromise to bypass the constraints associated with the articulation versus phonological disorder dichotomy ( Shriberg, 2010). ![]() In clinical speech-language pathology (S-LP), the distinction between articulation and phonology and whether a speech sound error 1 arises from motor-based articulation issues or language/grammar based phonological issues has been debated for decades (see Shriberg, 2010 Dodd, 2014 Terband et al., 2019a for a comprehensive overview on this topic). Although other theories may be able to provide alternate explanations for some of the issues we will discuss, the AP framework in our view generates a unique scope that covers linguistic (phonology) and motor processes in a unified manner. Specifically, we discuss how the AP model can provide an explanatory framework for understanding SSDs in children. We present evidence supporting the notion of articulatory gestures at the level of speech production and as reflected in control processes in the brain and discuss how an articulatory “gesture”-based approach can account for articulatory behaviors in typical and disordered speech production ( van Lieshout, 2004 Pouplier and van Lieshout, 2016). The articulatory “gesture” serves as a unit of phonological contrast and characterization of the resulting articulatory movements ( Browman and Goldstein, 1992 van Lieshout and Goldstein, 2008). In the present paper, we intend to reconcile the phonetic-phonology dichotomy and discuss the interconnectedness between these levels and the nature of SSDs using an alternative perspective based on the notion of an articulatory “gesture” within the broader concepts of the Articulatory Phonology model (AP Browman and Goldstein, 1992). There have been some theoretical attempts made towards understanding these interactions (e.g., McAllister Byun and Tessier, 2016) and characterizing speech patterns in children either solely as the product of speech motor performance limitations or purely as a consequence of phonological/grammatical competence has been challenged ( Inkelas and Rose, 2007 McAllister Byun, 2012). It is critical to understand the complex interactions between these levels as they have implications for differential diagnosis and treatment planning ( Terband et al., 2019a). Thus, in many current SSD classification systems the complex relationships between the etiology (distal), processing deficits (proximal) and the behavioral levels (speech symptoms) is under-specified ( Terband et al., 2019a). The foundations of clinical assessment, classification and intervention for children with SSD have been heavily influenced by psycholinguistic theory and procedures, which largely posit a firm boundary between phonological processes and phonetics/articulation ( Shriberg, 2010). Speech Sound Disorders (SSDs) is a generic term used to describe a range of difficulties producing speech sounds in children ( McLeod and Baker, 2017). ![]() ![]() 5Rehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.3Independent Researcher, Surrey, BC, Canada.2Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.1Oral Dynamics Laboratory, Department of Speech-Language Pathology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.Aravind Kumar Namasivayam 1,2*, Deirdre Coleman 1,3, Aisling O’Dwyer 1,4 and Pascal van Lieshout 1,2,5 ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |