Phonetic Inventory and Syllable Structure Types Amongst Typically Developing Children and Late‐Talkers Speaking Tamil at 2 Years of Age: A Cross‐Sectional Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Tamil is a member of the Dravidian language family, and it is spoken extensively in several South Asian countries, including India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Singapore. The phonological development of Tamil-speaking children is examined in the current study within the context of lexical development by including children with typical language development (TD) and late talkers (LTs). The current study was conducted amongst Tamil-speaking children in Tamil Nadu, a southern state of India. AIMS: The study aimed to compare the size and nature of the phonetic inventory, the proportion of consonants, vowels and syllable structure types amongst Tamil-speaking children with TD and LTs around 24 months. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: The study included 68 Tamil-speaking children, comprising 34 LTs and 34 age- and gender-matched TD children. All children were born preterm and were assessed after their second birthdays as per their adjusted age for prematurity (M = 24.38 months; SD = 1.45). Language samples were recorded during free play and interaction with the caregiver. The transcription of children's spontaneous speech was subjected to independent analyses of speech to derive the phonological characteristics. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: LTs produced a significantly lower phonetic inventory (Mdn = 8.5) than TD children (Mdn = 15.5). Only consonants /p/ and /m/ were produced by 90% of Tamil-speaking LTs. In comparison, 90% of TD children produced a wide range of consonants over different manners of articulation, including nasals, semi-vowels and stops. Tamil's retroflex consonants and geminate clusters emerged early in TD children's productions; fricatives and affricates were limited. LTs produced a significantly higher proportion of front vowels and a significantly lower proportion of mid- and back vowels than TD children. Syllable structures produced by LTs predominantly consisted of monosyllables and reduplicated syllables compared to TD children's wide range of complex structures. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The data contribute to an emerging database on early phonological development in Tamil as spoken in Tamil Nadu, India. Observations from 2-year-old LTs and TD children speaking Tamil revealed similarities with English (bilabials, alveolar stops, disyllable and monosyllable production) and differences in line with distinct phonological characteristics of Tamil (lesser production of fricatives, back vowels and closed syllables). The study provides clinical information relevant to the assessment and intervention of young children with phonological and lexical delays. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject Research from English and other Indo-European languages has revealed bidirectional relationships between phonological and lexical development, as evidenced by findings from typically developing (TD) children and children with language delays. Children identified as Late talkers (LTs) at 2 years of age demonstrate limited phonetic inventory and syllable shapes compared to TD children. What this paper adds to existing knowledge The current study is the first to report on the size and nature of the phonetic inventory, the proportion of consonants, vowels and syllable structure types amongst Tamil-speaking children born preterm who were TD and late-talking. There are considerable differences in TD children's and late talkers' early phonological abilities. The characteristics of Tamil influenced the phonological skills of both groups of children as the ambient language of exposure. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? The study contributes to the much-needed data corpus on early phonological skills, specifically the phonetic inventory and syllable structures from Tamil-speaking children. The data will aid in the identification of delays and atypical patterns in phonological development amongst children learning to speak Tamil. The information will guide intervention programs for children with early language delays. The findings strengthen existing cross-linguistic research on the relationship between early phonological skills and lexical development amongst children.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».