A Comparative Phonological Analysis of Guyanese Creole and Standard American English: A Guide for Speech-Language Pathologists

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 1813-1819
Author(s):  
Sulare L. Telford Rose ◽  
Kay T. Payne ◽  
Tamirand N. De Lisser ◽  
Ovetta L. Harris ◽  
Martine Elie
Keyword(s):  
American English ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
Educational Decisions ◽  
Standard American English ◽  
Language Difference ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Phonological Features ◽  
Study Support ◽  
Linguistic Groups ◽  
Available Resources

Purpose Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are responsible for differentially diagnosing a speech or language difference versus disorder. However, in the absence of data on particular cultural or linguistic groups, misdiagnosis increases. This study seeks to bridge the gap in available resources for SLPs focusing on the phonological features of Guyanese Creole (GC), a Caribbean English–lexified Creole. This study addresses the following question: What are the differences between the phonological features of GC and Standard American English (SAE), which may potentially cause SLPs to misdiagnose Guyanese speakers? Method A contrastive phonological analysis was conducted to identify the phonological differences of GC from SAE. Results The study results indicate differences in vowels, dental fricatives, voiced alveolar liquids, voiceless glottal fricatives, voiced palatal glides, consonant clusters, final consonants, and unstressed syllables. Conclusions The findings of this study support the literature that GC is distinct from SAE in its phonology. The results provide SLPs with data to make informed clinical and educational decisions when assessing the linguistic competencies of children from Caribbean backgrounds, specifically GC speakers.

Average Formant Trajectories

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 719-732 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Sandoval ◽  
Rene L. Utianski ◽  
Heike Lehnert-LeHouillier
Keyword(s):  
Time Course ◽  
American English ◽  
Single Point ◽  
Multiple Time ◽  
Standard American English ◽  
Formant Frequencies ◽  
Automated Method ◽  
Study Support ◽  
Multiple Time Points ◽  
Timit Database

Purpose The use and study of formant frequencies for the description of vowels is commonplace in acoustic phonetics and in attempts to understand results of speech perception studies. Numerous studies have shown that listeners are better able to distinguish vowels when the acoustic parameters are based on spectral information extracted at multiple time points during the duration of the vowel, rather than at a single point in time. The purpose of this study was to validate an automated method for extracting formant trajectories, using information across the time course of production, and subsequently characterize the formant trajectories of vowels using a large, diverse corpus of speech samples. Method Using software tools, we automatically extract the 1st 2 formant frequencies (F1/F2) at 10 equally spaced points over a vowel's duration. Then, we compute the average trajectory for each vowel token. The 1,600 vowel observations in the Hillenbrand database and the more than 50,000 vowel observations in the TIMIT database are analyzed. Results First, we validate the automated method by comparing against the manually obtained values in the Hillenbrand database. Analyses reveal a strong correlation between the automated and manual formant estimates. Then, we use the automated method on the 630 speakers in the TIMIT database to compute average formant trajectories. We noted that phonemes that have close F1 and F2 values at the temporal midpoint often exhibit formant trajectories progressing in different directions, hence highlighting the importance of formant trajectory progression. Conclusions The results of this study support the importance of formant trajectories over single-point measurements for the successful discrimination of vowels. Furthermore, this study provides a baseline for the formant trajectories for men and women across a broad range of dialects of Standard American English.

scholarly journals Phonological Features of Child African American English

2003 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 623-635 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holly K. Craig ◽  
Connie A. Thompson ◽  
Julie A. Washington ◽  
Stephanie L. Potter
Keyword(s):  
African American ◽  
American English ◽  
African American English ◽  
Read Aloud ◽  
African American Children ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Standard American English ◽  
Phonological Features ◽  
American Children ◽  
5Th Grade

The production of phonological features of African American English (AAE) was examined for 64 typically developing African American children in the 2nd through the 5th grade. Students read aloud passages written in Standard American English. Sixty of the students read the passages using AAE, and 8 different phonological features were represented in their readings. Phonological features were more frequent than morphosyntactic features. The findings as a whole support use of the taxonomy developed for this investigation in characterizing the phonological features of child AAE.

Backward mimicry and forward influence in prosodic contour choice in standard American English

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agustín Gravano ◽  
Štefan Beňuš ◽  
Rivka Levitan ◽  
Julia Hirschberg
Keyword(s):  
American English ◽  
Standard American English

scholarly journals Phonological Features of the Amharic Variety of South Wəllo

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Baye Yimam
Keyword(s):  
Word Boundary ◽  
Standard Variety ◽  
The South ◽  
Phonological Features ◽  
Linguistic Groups ◽  
Cultural Features ◽  
Phonological Rules

This paper examines the phonological features that characterize the Amharic variety spoken in South Wəllo, an area which has been influenced by the diffusion of linguistic and cultural features arising from longstanding contact situations between Semitic and non-Semitic linguistic groups. Data from eight districts of the zone have shown that the South Wəllo variety has 26 consonant and seven vowel phonemes. The consonants are four fewer than that reported of the standard variety. The co-occurrence restrictions of the consonants and the syllable structures are the same as those of the standard variety. However, the phonological rules that operate at morpheme internal, morpheme and word boundary levels are different in the degree of complexity and directionality. These include inter-vocalic lenition of velar stops, word-final weakening of alveo-palatals, coalescence of lowering diphthongs, centering, lowering and fronting of vowels, metathesis of coronals and anteriors, and lexeme specific alternations of homorganic consonants. The description of the facts provides more substantive arguments in favor of the long-held claim that Wəllo constitutes a distinct dialect area.

Nonstandardized Englishes in Mainstream Literacy Practice

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patriann Smith
Keyword(s):  
Literacy Instruction ◽  
English Language ◽  
American English ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Literacy Practice ◽  
Standard American English ◽  
Mainstream Classrooms ◽  
Cultural Boundaries ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
The Many

The term Englishes refers to the many different varieties of the English, and represents both standardized and nonstandardized forms. Nonstandardized Englishes is used to refer to Englishes that do not adhere to what has been determined to be Standard English within a given context, such that they are referred to as dialects, Creoles, or New Englishes (e.g., African American English). Standardized Englishes is used to refer to the counterparts of the nonstandardized Englishes that have been typically adopted for use in literacy classrooms (e.g., Standard American English). The field of literacy has addressed nonstandardized Englishes by either focusing on the nonstandardized varieties in isolation from standardized Englishes or by advancing literacy instruction in mainstream classrooms that emphasizes dialect-English speakers’ mastery of standardized Englishes. This approach reflects standard monolingual English ideology and traditional notions of the English language. Operating based on standard monolingual English perspectives implicitly reinforces the view that standardized Englishes and their users are privileged and that speakers of nonstandardized Englishes and their users are inferior. In addition, adhering to traditional notions of English based on their geographical and nation-based use, as opposed to their function based on school, offline, or online contexts regardless of geography, reinforces the concept of the English language as a system and fails to emphasize its communicative and contextual purposes as demanded by our postmodern era of globalization, transnationalism, and internationalization. A translingual approach to Englishes can serve as an alternative to current ways of thinking about literacy instruction because it addresses the needs of both standardized and nonstandardized English-speaking populations. Literacy instruction reframed based on this approach is critical for students’ successful interaction across linguistic and cultural boundaries in the context of the 21st century.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document