548
JOURNAL OF SPEECH AND HEARING DISORDERS
(front) contrasts (such as /p/-/b/) are unmarked whereas velar (back) contrasts (such as ]k/-/g/) are marked, with the opposite obtaining in syllable final or arresting position. Furthermore, according to Edwards, when assessing the relevance of predictions based on markedness, the effects of prevocalic voicing (for example, tie becoming die) in initial or syllable-releasing position must be assessed. T h e implication is that in assessing the relevance of markedness, the possible effects of markedness within as well as across contrasts as a function of position must be carefully analyzed. REFERENCES
CAIRNS, C. E., Markedness, neutralization, and universal redundancy rules. Language, 45, 863-885 (1969). EDWARDS, M., Perception and production in child phonology: T h e testing of four hypotheses. J. Child Lang., 1, 205-221 (1974). INGe,AM, D., Fronting in child phonology. 1. Child Lang., 1, 233-243 (1974). IRWlN, J., Review of research on articulation. In A. J. Weston (Ed.), Communicative Disorders. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas, 161-199 (1972). MCDONALD, E. T., A Deep Test of Articulation: Picture Form. Pittsburgh: Stanwix (1964). McREYNOLDS, L., ENGMANN, D., and DIMMIT, K., Markedness theory and articulation errors. J. Speech Hearing Dis., 39, 93-103 (1974). PERXZ, D., and BEVr~R,T., Sensitivity to phonological universals in children and adolescents. Language, 51, 149-162 (1975). SMITH, M. D., An applied generative phonology: T h e case of past tense morphology in English. Doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Kansas (1975).
Michael D. Smith Interdepartmental Program in Linguistics Texas Tech University Lubbock, Texas K. F. Ruder Bureau o/ Child Research University of Kansas Lawrence, Kansas Received May 12, 1975.
Reply to Smith and Ruder Smith and R u d e r have made some pertin e n t suggestions in regard to evaluating the
XL
544-549
1975
influence of context in articulation assessment. Unfortunately, the type of analysis they propose could not be conducted and does not apply to the error patterns of the children in the markedness study to which they direct their comments ("Markedness T h e o r y and Articulation Errors"). T h e children's substitutions were not context sensitive; they were consistent and stable over the items tested for any one particular phoneme. T h a t is to say, if a child substituted / d / for / s / and / z / , it was the only sound he produced on the / s / and / z / items although he may have omitted the substitution in some contexts. T h e voicing or unvoicing features of abutting consonants did not serve to change the substituted sound. It did not vary with contexts. Thus, the results obtained in the study would not be changed if the analysis suggested by Smith and R u d e r were applied to the articulation errors. For the most part, the children in the markedness study were children with severe articulation problems. Smith and Ruder's remarks may be more pertinent to evaluation of less severe articulation errors, that is, when substitutions show a pattern of inconsistency or variability from one context to another. We would like to correct the initial statem e n t made by Smith and R u d e r in their letter. In o u r article we referred to the results of o u r study and stated that the system proposed by Cairns and Cairns was n o t found to be useful for children with severe articulation errors. We did not question the potential of ma~kedness theory to refinement of language intervention techniques. In fact, we suggested on page 103 of o u r article that markedness theory continues to have such potential and that, " F u r t h e r research in the application of markedness theory may provide information that can be usefully applied to understanding articulation problems and developing articulation training programs."
Leija V. McReynolds, Deedra Engmann, and Kay Dimmitt University oI Kansas Medical Center Kansas City, Kansas Received J u n e 30, 1975.
Comment Concerning "Incidence of Chronic Hoarseness among School-Age Children" In a recent paper, Silverman and Z i m m e r (1975) reported that: (1) 23.4% of 162 children in kindergarten through eighth grade
Downloaded From: https://jshd.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of Texas, Austin User on 03/28/2018 Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
LETTERS 549 had chronically hoarse voices; (2) the incidence was higher in the primary grades, kindergarten through third grade; and (3) more boys than girls were hoarse. Results of a speech and voice survey of 93 first-grade children enrolled in a northeast Texas elementary school indicated that 8.6% had chronically hoarse voices. T h e school is located in a milling district for cotton and grains. Five of the eight children had articulation problems in addition to chronic hoarseness. All of the children were from large families, the average family size was 6.5 persons. T h e results of this survey and other studies (Baynes, 1966; James and Cooper, 1966; Pont, 1965; Senturia and Wilson, 1968; Wilson, 1971) indicate that approximately 6 to 9% of school-age children have hoarse voices. By contrast, Milisen (1957) and Johnson (1956) estimated that approximately one to two percent of the school-age population has some type of voice disorder. T h e apparent increase in the percentage of children reported as having voice disorders may reflect an actual increase, or improved identification procedures, or both. Silverman and Zimmer (1975) suggest that the incidence of hoarseness in their population is "strikingly high." Baynes (1966) felt that 7.1% was a conservative figure for chronic hoarseness among children, since children displaying mild hoarseness were excluded from his study. It would appear that data on the prevelance of hoarseness are in4:omplete.
REFERENCES
BAYNm, R., An incidence study of chronic hoarseness among children. J. Speech Hearing Dis., 31, 172-176 (1966). JAMm, H., and COOPER, E., Accuracy of teacher referrals of speech handicapped children. Exceptl Child., 33, 29-33 (1966). JohNsoN, W., Speech Handicapped School Children. N.Y.: Harper and Row (1956). MHJSaN, R., T h e incidence of speech disorders. In L. Travis (Ed.), Handbook o] Speech Pathology. NN.: Appleton-CenturyCrofts (1957). PONT, C., Hoarseness in children. West Mich. Univ. ]. Speech Ther.; 2, 6-8 (1965). SENTURIA, B., and WILSON, R., Otorhinolaryngic findings in children with voice deviations. Ann. Otol. RhinOl: Lar., 77, 1027-1041 (1968). SILVERMAN, E., and ZXMMi~R;C., Incidence of chronic hoarseness among school-age children. J. Speech Hearing Dis., 40, 211-215 (1975). WmsoN, F., T h e voice-disordered child: A descriptive approach. Lang., speech , Hearing Serv. Schools, II:4, 14-22 (1971).
Mary Pannbacker Texas Woman's University Speech and Hearing Clinic Denton, Texas Received June 16, 1975.
ERRATA Two lines were omitted from A. Damien Martin's letter to the editor, "Reply to Aten, Darley, Deal, and Johns," which appeared on pages 420-422 of the August, 1975, Volume 40, issue of this journal. T h e paragraph should read: T h e writers state flatly "But the simple fact, known to everyone . is that not all aphasic patients display phonologic impairment. Only some of them do. And some patients display phonological impairment in pure culture with no associated problems in the use of lexicon or syntax." There is not total agreement on this. Schuell (1965) pointed out that her Group I and II patients presented inconsistent misarticulation, while Group III patients presented phonological difficulties as a major presenting symptom. In some of my own research (Martin and Rigrodsky, 1974a, 1974b) patients who did not present phonological impairment as a major symptom showed it within certain tasks. In a later study (Martin et al., 1975) we found .
.
that the incidence, type, and position of error were related to the presence or absence of morphological inflection. T h e arguments presented by Aten et al. illustrate one of the dangers of categorization, especially dischotomous categorization. It can reflect "the old error of observing only the most obvious symptoms that fit some a priori assumption, or symptoms prominent at one point in time" (Schuell, Jenkins, and Jimenez-Pabon, 1964, p. 101). In August 1975 issue, the article by Marshall, Brandt, and Marston, "Anticipatory Middle-Ear Reflex Activity from Noisy Toys," contains an error. T h e sentence, "However, reflexes occurred to sounds with sufficient SPL to elicit a reflex that had been given anticipated loudness ratings as low as 3 (on a 1.-5 scale)" found in the full paragraph above the figures on page 324 should read "However, reflexes occurred to sounds with insufficient SPL to elicit a r e f l e x . . . "
Downloaded From: https://jshd.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of Texas, Austin User on 03/28/2018 Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
JOURNAL OF SPEECH AND HEARING DISORDERS
(front) contrasts (such as /p/-/b/) are unmarked whereas velar (back) contrasts (such as ]k/-/g/) are marked, with the opposite obtaining in syllable final or arresting position. Furthermore, according to Edwards, when assessing the relevance of predictions based on markedness, the effects of prevocalic voicing (for example, tie becoming die) in initial or syllable-releasing position must be assessed. T h e implication is that in assessing the relevance of markedness, the possible effects of markedness within as well as across contrasts as a function of position must be carefully analyzed. REFERENCES
CAIRNS, C. E., Markedness, neutralization, and universal redundancy rules. Language, 45, 863-885 (1969). EDWARDS, M., Perception and production in child phonology: T h e testing of four hypotheses. J. Child Lang., 1, 205-221 (1974). INGe,AM, D., Fronting in child phonology. 1. Child Lang., 1, 233-243 (1974). IRWlN, J., Review of research on articulation. In A. J. Weston (Ed.), Communicative Disorders. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas, 161-199 (1972). MCDONALD, E. T., A Deep Test of Articulation: Picture Form. Pittsburgh: Stanwix (1964). McREYNOLDS, L., ENGMANN, D., and DIMMIT, K., Markedness theory and articulation errors. J. Speech Hearing Dis., 39, 93-103 (1974). PERXZ, D., and BEVr~R,T., Sensitivity to phonological universals in children and adolescents. Language, 51, 149-162 (1975). SMITH, M. D., An applied generative phonology: T h e case of past tense morphology in English. Doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Kansas (1975).
Michael D. Smith Interdepartmental Program in Linguistics Texas Tech University Lubbock, Texas K. F. Ruder Bureau o/ Child Research University of Kansas Lawrence, Kansas Received May 12, 1975.
Reply to Smith and Ruder Smith and R u d e r have made some pertin e n t suggestions in regard to evaluating the
XL
544-549
1975
influence of context in articulation assessment. Unfortunately, the type of analysis they propose could not be conducted and does not apply to the error patterns of the children in the markedness study to which they direct their comments ("Markedness T h e o r y and Articulation Errors"). T h e children's substitutions were not context sensitive; they were consistent and stable over the items tested for any one particular phoneme. T h a t is to say, if a child substituted / d / for / s / and / z / , it was the only sound he produced on the / s / and / z / items although he may have omitted the substitution in some contexts. T h e voicing or unvoicing features of abutting consonants did not serve to change the substituted sound. It did not vary with contexts. Thus, the results obtained in the study would not be changed if the analysis suggested by Smith and R u d e r were applied to the articulation errors. For the most part, the children in the markedness study were children with severe articulation problems. Smith and Ruder's remarks may be more pertinent to evaluation of less severe articulation errors, that is, when substitutions show a pattern of inconsistency or variability from one context to another. We would like to correct the initial statem e n t made by Smith and R u d e r in their letter. In o u r article we referred to the results of o u r study and stated that the system proposed by Cairns and Cairns was n o t found to be useful for children with severe articulation errors. We did not question the potential of ma~kedness theory to refinement of language intervention techniques. In fact, we suggested on page 103 of o u r article that markedness theory continues to have such potential and that, " F u r t h e r research in the application of markedness theory may provide information that can be usefully applied to understanding articulation problems and developing articulation training programs."
Leija V. McReynolds, Deedra Engmann, and Kay Dimmitt University oI Kansas Medical Center Kansas City, Kansas Received J u n e 30, 1975.
Comment Concerning "Incidence of Chronic Hoarseness among School-Age Children" In a recent paper, Silverman and Z i m m e r (1975) reported that: (1) 23.4% of 162 children in kindergarten through eighth grade
Downloaded From: https://jshd.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of Texas, Austin User on 03/28/2018 Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
LETTERS 549 had chronically hoarse voices; (2) the incidence was higher in the primary grades, kindergarten through third grade; and (3) more boys than girls were hoarse. Results of a speech and voice survey of 93 first-grade children enrolled in a northeast Texas elementary school indicated that 8.6% had chronically hoarse voices. T h e school is located in a milling district for cotton and grains. Five of the eight children had articulation problems in addition to chronic hoarseness. All of the children were from large families, the average family size was 6.5 persons. T h e results of this survey and other studies (Baynes, 1966; James and Cooper, 1966; Pont, 1965; Senturia and Wilson, 1968; Wilson, 1971) indicate that approximately 6 to 9% of school-age children have hoarse voices. By contrast, Milisen (1957) and Johnson (1956) estimated that approximately one to two percent of the school-age population has some type of voice disorder. T h e apparent increase in the percentage of children reported as having voice disorders may reflect an actual increase, or improved identification procedures, or both. Silverman and Zimmer (1975) suggest that the incidence of hoarseness in their population is "strikingly high." Baynes (1966) felt that 7.1% was a conservative figure for chronic hoarseness among children, since children displaying mild hoarseness were excluded from his study. It would appear that data on the prevelance of hoarseness are in4:omplete.
REFERENCES
BAYNm, R., An incidence study of chronic hoarseness among children. J. Speech Hearing Dis., 31, 172-176 (1966). JAMm, H., and COOPER, E., Accuracy of teacher referrals of speech handicapped children. Exceptl Child., 33, 29-33 (1966). JohNsoN, W., Speech Handicapped School Children. N.Y.: Harper and Row (1956). MHJSaN, R., T h e incidence of speech disorders. In L. Travis (Ed.), Handbook o] Speech Pathology. NN.: Appleton-CenturyCrofts (1957). PONT, C., Hoarseness in children. West Mich. Univ. ]. Speech Ther.; 2, 6-8 (1965). SENTURIA, B., and WILSON, R., Otorhinolaryngic findings in children with voice deviations. Ann. Otol. RhinOl: Lar., 77, 1027-1041 (1968). SILVERMAN, E., and ZXMMi~R;C., Incidence of chronic hoarseness among school-age children. J. Speech Hearing Dis., 40, 211-215 (1975). WmsoN, F., T h e voice-disordered child: A descriptive approach. Lang., speech , Hearing Serv. Schools, II:4, 14-22 (1971).
Mary Pannbacker Texas Woman's University Speech and Hearing Clinic Denton, Texas Received June 16, 1975.
ERRATA Two lines were omitted from A. Damien Martin's letter to the editor, "Reply to Aten, Darley, Deal, and Johns," which appeared on pages 420-422 of the August, 1975, Volume 40, issue of this journal. T h e paragraph should read: T h e writers state flatly "But the simple fact, known to everyone . is that not all aphasic patients display phonologic impairment. Only some of them do. And some patients display phonological impairment in pure culture with no associated problems in the use of lexicon or syntax." There is not total agreement on this. Schuell (1965) pointed out that her Group I and II patients presented inconsistent misarticulation, while Group III patients presented phonological difficulties as a major presenting symptom. In some of my own research (Martin and Rigrodsky, 1974a, 1974b) patients who did not present phonological impairment as a major symptom showed it within certain tasks. In a later study (Martin et al., 1975) we found .
.
that the incidence, type, and position of error were related to the presence or absence of morphological inflection. T h e arguments presented by Aten et al. illustrate one of the dangers of categorization, especially dischotomous categorization. It can reflect "the old error of observing only the most obvious symptoms that fit some a priori assumption, or symptoms prominent at one point in time" (Schuell, Jenkins, and Jimenez-Pabon, 1964, p. 101). In August 1975 issue, the article by Marshall, Brandt, and Marston, "Anticipatory Middle-Ear Reflex Activity from Noisy Toys," contains an error. T h e sentence, "However, reflexes occurred to sounds with sufficient SPL to elicit a reflex that had been given anticipated loudness ratings as low as 3 (on a 1.-5 scale)" found in the full paragraph above the figures on page 324 should read "However, reflexes occurred to sounds with insufficient SPL to elicit a r e f l e x . . . "
Downloaded From: https://jshd.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of Texas, Austin User on 03/28/2018 Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
