12.2684, Qs: Phoneme Discrimination, Romanized Orthography

LINGUIST List linguist at linguistlist.org
Sat Oct 27 05:42:50 UTC 2001


LINGUIST List:  Vol-12-2684. Sat Oct 27 2001. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 12.2684, Qs: Phoneme Discrimination, Romanized Orthography

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
            Andrew Carnie, U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org):
	Simin Karimi, U. of Arizona
	Terence Langendoen, U. of Arizona

Editors (linguist at linguistlist.org):
	Karen Milligan, WSU 		Naomi Ogasawara, EMU
	Jody Huellmantel, WSU		James Yuells, WSU
	Michael Appleby, EMU		Marie Klopfenstein, WSU
	Ljuba Veselinova, Stockholm U.	Heather Taylor-Loring, EMU
	Dina Kapetangianni, EMU		Richard Harvey, EMU
	Karolina Owczarzak, EMU		Renee Galvis, WSU

Software: John Remmers, E. Michigan U. <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
          Gayathri Sriram, E. Michigan U. <gayatri at linguistlist.org>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.



Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen at linguistlist.org>
 ==========================================================================

We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually
best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is
then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was
instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we
would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.

In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it
is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have
taken the trouble to respond to the query.


=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Thu, 25 Oct 2001 16:33:23 +0100
From:  Ellen Gerrits <ellen.gerrits at let.uu.nl>
Subject:  Methods for testing phoneme discrimination of very young
	 children

2)
Date:  Sat, 27 Oct 2001 08:54:19 +0400
From:  "David Palfreyman" <David.Palfreyman at zu.ac.ae>
Subject:  Romanized orthography

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Thu, 25 Oct 2001 16:33:23 +0100
From:  Ellen Gerrits <ellen.gerrits at let.uu.nl>
Subject:  Methods for testing phoneme discrimination of very young
	 children

Dear Linguist readers,

I have some questions about testing the phoneme discrimination of very
young children.

I want to test two groups of children of 18-20 months old: one group
of 60 children at risk for developing dyslexia (they have dyslexic
parents) and another group of 30 age-matched controls. The goal of
this experiment is to see whether there are differences between the
fine-grained perceptual abilities of the at-risk children and the
controls. This experiment is part of a large study of early language
development in SLI and dyslexia (prospective and comparative). The
same children will also participate in a Dutch replication of the
Santelmann & Jusczyk (1998) experiment, using the Headturn Preference
Procedure.

The stimuli I want to present are phoneme contrasts in monosyllabic
meaningful words like 'pear-bear', but maybe it is better to use nonce
words or a more salient phoneme contrast. The infants are only
available for one test session. I was thinking of using the Headturn
Preference Procedure as in Jusczyk and Aslin (1995), but maybe it's
better to use Stager & Werker's (1997) Habituation 'Switch' paradigm
(the 'bih'-'dih' experiment with the checkerboard) or the Visual
Fixation task, as used by Swingly and Aslin (2000). I think all tasks
have advantages as well as disadvantages. I hope you can give me some
advice on this.

Many thanks in advance.
- Ellen Gerrits
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ellen Gerrits
Utrecht institute of Linguistics OTS, Trans 10, 3512 JK Utrecht, The
Netherlands
Oproep deelname taalonderzoek: http://www.let.uu.nl/~dyslexie/
Persoonlijke pagina:  http://www.let.uu.nl/~Ellen.Gerrits/personal/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------

Date:  Sat, 27 Oct 2001 08:54:19 +0400
From:  "David Palfreyman" <David.Palfreyman at zu.ac.ae>
Subject:  Romanized orthography

Hello list,

I'd like to ask about a phenomenon which I've noticed with Arab
university students, but I wondered if anyone has noticed it anywhere
else with a non-Roman orthography.  I work in a university in the
United Arab Emirates, where students have easy access to the internet.
Although their computers are enabled to deal with Arabic script, due
to the ASCII-orientation of much of the software and websites they
come across, they often write Arabic (on Internet Messenger, for
example) using the Roman alphabet.  However, they supplement this with
extra 'letters' for Arabic sounds which have no equivalent in the
Roman alphabet.  For example, "hello" would be "mar7aba" - here the
"7" represents a pharyngeal aspirate which in Arabic is distinct from
an English "h" sound - the reason they use 7 in particular is because
it looks a bit like the Arabic letter for this sound.  This convention
seems to be used fairly consistently but only by students - it's *not*
a standard Roman orthography for Arabic.  My question is: Does anyone
know of other cases of informal orthographies like this - maybe for
languages normally written in Cyrillic or Chinese or other
scripts... or even maybe languages which are normally not written down
at all?

Thanks!

:-D

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-12-2684



More information about the LINGUIST mailing list