Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Nonlinear phonological analysis in assessment of phonological development in Tagalog Lim, Rachelle Kay 2014

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2014_november_lim_rachellekay.pdf [ 1.27MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0166067.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0166067-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0166067-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0166067-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0166067-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0166067-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0166067-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0166067-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0166067.ris

Full Text

   NONLINEAR PHONOLOGICAL ANALYSIS IN ASSESSMENT OF PHONOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN TAGALOG  by Rachelle Kay Lim   A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF  THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF   MASTER OF SCIENCE   in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES  (Audiology and Speech Sciences)    THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  (Vancouver)  October 2014  © Rachelle Kay Lim, 2014 ii Abstract  Nonlinear phonological theories emphasize a hierarchical and multi-tiered representation, which describe all aspects of a phonological system. In terms of clinical application, a client's system-wide strengths and needs can be evaluated, and, where necessary, addressed through intervention (Bernhardt, 1992). The population of Tagalog-speaking individuals outside the Philippines is increasing, yet research regarding the language is limited, placing clinicians in a difficult situation during the assessment and treatment of Tagalog-speaking children.  This paper aims to bridge the gap by creating a Nonlinear Phonological Scan Analysis (Tagalog) in conjunction with a Tagalog word list, in order to allow clinicians to evaluate a child’s phonological system. The full Tagalog word list (109 words) consists of three separate sets, each containing words with different characteristics (e.g., Extension A contains multisyllabic words, Extension B includes mainly disyllabic words). In order to evaluate the word sets and analysis method, the word list was administered to a 4-year-old child who primarily speaks Tagalog in a picture-naming activity on the computer. The same list was administered to the child’s mother, whose pronunciations then served as the adult targets for analysis. The child’s productions were recorded, transcribed and analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively using the Scan Analysis (Tagalog), which was adapted from the English version (Bernhardt & Stemberger, 2000).  Data collected from the child exhibited some similarities and differences in terms of expected patterns from both monolinguals and bilinguals. The child showed evidence of typical development due to the high matches for different evaluations of prosodic  iii structure (e.g. word length, word shape). On the other hand, he exhibited difficulties with whole word, word stress and vowel matches, /r/ and clusters involving /r, l/. Difficulties were suggested to be a result of the child’s Tagalog-English bilingual environment or because of the balance of the word list in terms of /r/ targets, a phoneme which he had not yet mastered.  This paper provide some initial steps toward understanding phonological development of typically developing Tagalog-speaking children in a bilingual context outside the Philippines, and by extension, as a basis for future research with children with typical and protracted phonological development.            iv Preface  Under the guidance of my supervisor, Dr. Barbara May Bernhardt, I planned the research study in this thesis. The current study is part of a crosslinguistic study in phonological development headed by Dr. Barbara May Bernhardt, and Dr. Joseph Stemberger of the University of British Columbia. The study received approval from the University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board (UBC BREB certificate number H13-03113). My contributions included: (i) designing the research study, (ii) recruiting and collecting data from a Tagalog-speaking child and adult, (iii) analyzing and interpreting data, (iv) adapting the English version of the Nonlinear Phonological Scan Analysis form to fit the Tagalog language, and (v) writing drafts of all sections of the thesis, with editorial comments from Dr. Barbara May Bernhardt and the committee members, Dr. Joseph Stemberger and Dr. Stefka Marinova-Todd.      v Table of Contents   Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Preface................................................................................................................................ iv Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ v List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... x Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. xi 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Nonlinear Phonological Theories ............................................................................. 1 1.3 Tagalog ..................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Prosodic Structure: Syllable and Word Shapes, Word Length and Stress ................ 3 1.5 Segmental Inventory ................................................................................................. 5 1.6 Vowels ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.6.1 Diphthongs ......................................................................................................... 7 1.7 Consonants ................................................................................................................ 8 1.7.1 Phonemes by Word Position ............................................................................ 10 1.7.2 Cluster Sequences ............................................................................................ 11 1.8 Acquisition of Tagalog within the Philippines ....................................................... 12 1.9 Bilingual Context of Acquisition ............................................................................ 14 1.9.1 Categories of Tagalog Use ............................................................................... 14 1.9.2 Relationship of Spanish-English to Tagalog-English Acquisition .................. 16 1.10 Consonant and Word Structure Development ...................................................... 18 1.10.1 Whole Word Match ........................................................................................ 21 1.11 Phonological Assessment in Tagalog ................................................................... 22  vi 1.12 Motivation, Purpose and Research Questions of the Study .................................. 23 2 Method ........................................................................................................................... 26 2.1 Word List Creation ................................................................................................. 26 2.2 Participants .............................................................................................................. 29 2.3 Data Collection Procedures for the Child ............................................................... 30 2.4 Data Collection Procedures for the Mother ............................................................ 31 2.5 Transcription ........................................................................................................... 32 2.6. Phonological Analysis ........................................................................................... 32 2.6.1 Nonlinear Phonological Analysis (Qualitative) for Tagalog ........................... 33 2.6.2 Quantitative Phonological Analysis ................................................................. 37 2.6.3 Analysis Procedures for the Child ................................................................... 37 3 Results ............................................................................................................................ 40 3.1 Reactions to the Word List ..................................................................................... 40 3.2 Mother’s Pronunciations ......................................................................................... 41 3.3 Analysis of the Child's Pronunciations ................................................................... 41 3.3.1 Nonlinear Phonological Analysis (Qualitative) ............................................... 42 3.3.1.1 Word Structure: Length, Stress, Word Shape in CV Sequences .............. 42 3.3.1.2 Consonants ................................................................................................ 44 3.3.1.3 Variability and Sequences ......................................................................... 45 3.3.1.4 Vowels ...................................................................................................... 46 3.3.1.5 Summary of the Nonlinear Analysis ......................................................... 47 3.3.2 Quantitative Analysis ....................................................................................... 47 4 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 50 4.1 Child’s Pronunciations and Word Use .................................................................... 50 4.2 Child’s Use of Tagalog ........................................................................................... 54 4.3 Reflection on Clinical Application of the Procedures ............................................ 56 4.3.1 Word List: The Child's Reactions and their Implications ................................ 56  vii 4.3.1.1 Screener..................................................................................................... 58 4.3.1.2 Extension A ............................................................................................... 59 4.3.1.3 Extension B ............................................................................................... 60 4.3.2 Nonlinear Phonological Analysis .................................................................... 62 4.3.3 Other Considerations ....................................................................................... 62 4.4 Limitations and Future Research ............................................................................ 63 4.5 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 63 References ......................................................................................................................... 72 Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 81 Appendix A. Tagalog Word List .................................................................................. 81 Warm-up and Screener ............................................................................................. 81 Extension A ............................................................................................................... 83 Extension B ............................................................................................................... 85 Appendix B. Warm-up and Screener Phoneme Counts ................................................ 86 Consonants: Singleton .............................................................................................. 86 Consonants: Clusters ................................................................................................. 87 Vowels: Singleton ..................................................................................................... 87 Vowels: Diphthongs.................................................................................................. 88 Appendix C. Extension A Phoneme Counts ................................................................. 89 Consonants: Singleton .............................................................................................. 89 Consonants: Clusters ................................................................................................. 90 Vowels: Singleton ..................................................................................................... 90 Vowels: Diphthongs.................................................................................................. 90 Appendix D. Extension B Phoneme Counts ................................................................. 91 Consonants: Singleton .............................................................................................. 91 Consonants: Clusters ................................................................................................. 92 Vowels: Singleton ..................................................................................................... 92  viii Vowels: Diphthongs.................................................................................................. 92 Appendix E. Story Line ................................................................................................ 93 Warm-up: Tagalog .................................................................................................... 93 Warm-up: English translation ................................................................................... 93 Screener: Tagalog ..................................................................................................... 94 Screener: English Translation ................................................................................... 95 Extension A: Tagalog ............................................................................................... 96 Extension A: English Translation ............................................................................. 97 Extension B: Tagalog ................................................................................................ 98 Extension B: English Translation ............................................................................. 99 Appendix F. Transcriptions of the Child’s Productions ............................................. 100 Warm-up and Screener ........................................................................................... 100 Extension A ............................................................................................................. 102 Extension B ............................................................................................................. 104 Appendix G. Nonlinear Phonological Scan Analysis: Tagalog .................................. 105 Appendix H. Characteristics of the Words Recommended for Removal ................... 113         ix List of Tables   Table 1. Tagalog Vowels .................................................................................................. 65 Table 2. Tagalog Diphthongs ............................................................................................ 66 Table 3. Tagalog Consonants ............................................................................................ 67 Table 4. Quantitative Data Tables in % Match ................................................................. 68 Table 5. Analysis of /r/ as a Singleton and in Clusters ..................................................... 69                  x List of Figures   Figure 1. Hierarchical Representation .............................................................................. 70 Figure 2. Feature Geometry .............................................................................................. 71                  xi Acknowledgments  I am offering my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Barbara May Bernhardt for her continuous guidance and dedicated involvement in every step of this research study. She raised numerous discussion points that helped to deepen my understanding of the topic.  I am also grateful for my thesis committee members, Dr. Joseph Stemberger and Dr. Stefka Marinova-Todd for their thought-provoking comments that helped me look at my research from a different perspective.  I thank Jennifer Soriano and Ivan Bondoc from the University of the Philippines Manila Speech Pathology Department for their endless input towards my understanding of Tagalog phonology. They also assisted me with the data transcription process. I am thankful for Dr. Jocelyn Marzan and Dr. Teresita Ramos for directing me towards available research in Tagalog phonology. I appreciate the input of Jenea Peralejo and Marilou Carrillo regarding Tagalog-speaking children in Vancouver. I am also grateful for everyone, too numerous to list, that has helped me with the recruitment process.  I am thankful for Lauren Quinn who has given me constructive feedback with my proposal, which helped me organize my thoughts. She also willingly filled out the Nonlinear Phonological Scan Analysis form to serve as a reliability comparison. She was a tremendous support throughout the study.  A special thanks to my family for their constant presence and encouragement in my life; to my dad, Roberto Lim, who helped me tremendously in the creation of the word list and the translation process. Finally, to my significant other, Tony Chen, who showered me with his unwavering love and support in every step of the way.  1 1 Introduction 1.1 Introduction  A crosslinguistic study on phonological development aims to understand the phonological patterns of children within and across languages (Bernhardt & Stemberger, 2010). The current study is part of that larger investigation and focuses on Tagalog, a minimally studied language in terms of phonological development. The study aims to provide clinicians with information about the phonological development of Tagalog speaking children in a bilingual Tagalog-English environment and also a means to evaluate their phonology. The framework of analysis used is Nonlinear Phonology (Bernhardt & Stemberger, 1998; Bernhardt & Stoel-Gammon, 1994).  The introduction begins with an overview of nonlinear phonological theories and a description of Tagalog. A discussion about Tagalog acquisition and the phonological assessments available in the language are then described. The section concludes with an explanation of the motivation and purpose of the thesis.  1.2 Nonlinear Phonological Theories  Nonlinear phonological theories differ from classic linear phonological theories (e.g., Chomsky & Halle, 1968; Jakobson, Fant & Halle, 1952) in that they emphasize a hierarchical and multi-tiered representation as opposed to analyzing individual sequential components, as in, e.g., distinctive feature analysis (Bernhardt, 1992). A representational framework consisting of the phrase, word structure, and segments and features provides a structure for capturing the relationship among different elements of a child’s speech (see Figure 1) (Bernhardt & Stoel-Gammon, 1994). For example, in a hierarchical  2 representation, the prosodic word pusa /ˈpusa/ ‘cat’ includes one left-prominent foot (Stressed-unstressed), two syllables (/pu/, /sa/), two onsets (/p/, /s/), two rimes (/u/, /a/) and no codas; each segment (/p/, /u/, /s/, /a/) is composed of features that are organized within the feature geometry (see Figure 2). To illustrate, the segment /p/ consists of the following features: [+consonantal], [-continuant] (Root node: Manner of articulation), [Labial] (Place of articulation node), and [-voiced] (Laryngeal node). By analyzing all levels of the phonological hierarchy, the clinician can observe the client’s strengths and needs across the phonological system, and provide intervention that exploits strengths to address needs (Bernhardt, 1992; Bernhardt, Bopp, Daudlin, Edwards & Wastie, 2010). Nonlinear Phonology allows for a holistic analysis of a child’s phonological development as opposed to theories focusing on only linear sequential patterns at single levels of the phonology. In terms of clinical application, a nonlinear analysis also provides a way to determine both strengths and needs of a phonological system, in contrast, to, e.g., phonological process analysis, which focuses on error patterns. For further discussion of Nonlinear Phonology, the readers are directed to Bernhardt (1992), Bernhardt and Stemberger (1998; 2000) and Bernhardt and Zhao (2010). The next section describes key aspects of Tagalog phonology as a basis for the demonstration analysis that follows.  1.3 Tagalog  The Republic of the Philippines has a population of over 92 million people, with an estimated 185 different languages spoken (National Statistics Office, 2012). Filipino (formerly known as Pilipino) is the official language and is based on Tagalog, with the  3 addition of some borrowed words (Malabonga & Marinova-Todd, 2007). Tagalog belongs to the Malayo-Polynesian language family (Malabonga, 2009). It is most widely used by Filipinos (Lewis, Simons & Fennig, 2013) and is native to the capital city, Manila, and surrounding provinces. Other important regional dialects include Bataan, Bulacan, Tanay-Paete and Tayabas (Schachter, 2013). A description of Tagalog phonology follows.  1.4 Prosodic Structure: Syllable and Word Shapes, Word Length and Stress  The most common syllable shapes in Tagalog are CV and CVC (Himmelmann, 2005). The simplest syllable shape is CV. In vowel-initial words, there is debate as to whether or not a glottal stop acts as an onset (e.g., itlog /ɪtˈlɔg/ or /ʔɪtˈlɔg/ ‘egg’) (Kaufman, 2007; Ramos, 1971). In this paper, glottal stops in word-initial position will be marked optional (i.e., enclosed in parentheses) because there is no contrast between the presence and absence of glottal stops before vowels (Yap, 1956). However, glottal stops in other word positions must be marked because it is contrastive (e.g, paso /paˈsɔ/ ‘expired’ and paso /paˈsɔʔ/ ‘clay pot’).  Most lexical roots (90%) are disyllabic (Schachter & Otanes, 1972), but affixes and clitics are often monosyllabic (e.g., mang- /maŋ/ ‘to do something’, na /na/ ‘that’) (Himmelmann, 2005). In Tagalog, the frequent use of reduplication and infixes in verbs result in the common occurrence of polysyllabic words (Himmelmann, 2005), e.g., repeating the first syllable of the root (to denote an action to occur in the future) kain /ˈkaʔɪn/ ‘eat’ results in kakain /kaˈkaʔɪn/ ‘will eat’; adding the infix -um- (to denote an  4 action that occurred in the past) to the root takbo /takˈbo/ ‘run’ results in tumakbo /tumakˈbo/ ‘ran’.   Tagalog has phonemic stress. Word meaning changes depending on where the stress is placed, e.g., bukas /buˈkas/ ‘open’, bukas /ˈbukas/ ‘tomorrow’. Typically, stress falls on either the final syllable (e.g. buhok /buˈhɔk/ ‘hair’) or the penultimate syllable (e.g., regalo /reˈgalo/ ‘gift’) (Himmelmann, 2005). However, loan words may have atypical stress patterns (e.g., telepono /tɛˈlɛpono/ ‘telephone’) (Kaufman, 2007). The current literature is unclear with regards to the predominant stress pattern in Tagalog (I. Bondoc, personal communication, September 13, 2014), but some native Tagalog speakers consider an iambic stress pattern to be more common (J. Peralejo, personal communication, September 11, 2014). Stressed syllables are identified by changes in pitch, duration and/or loudness (Himmelmann, 2005). Several authors (e.g., French, 1988; Schachter and Otanes, 1972) discussed stress to be closely related to vowel length; however, results have been unclear (Himmelmann, 2005). For certain words, both word-final glottal stops and stress result in a change in meaning, e.g., basa /ˈbasa/ ‘read’ and basa /baˈsaʔ/ ‘wet’. It is also possible to have multiply stressed words, and stress shifts as a result of reduplication (e.g., punta /punˈta/ ‘go’, pupunta /ˈpupunta/ ‘will go’) and use of affixes (e.g., tawag /ˈtawag/ ‘call’, tawagan /taˈwagan/ ‘to call someone’) (Himmelmann, 2005). Secondary stress in Tagalog has been investigated in a variety of ways (French,  5 1991) but remains unclear; in the current paper, secondary stress will not be designated specifically, but will be considered as unstressed (weak).  1.5 Segmental Inventory  The long period of colonization by Spain and the United States of America resulted in the incorporation of Spanish and English phonemes into Tagalog phonology. Traditionally, Tagalog is described as having 21 phonemes (16 consonants and 5 vowels) (Ramos, 1971); however, it now includes six additional phonemes, i.e., /f, v,           t / (Malabonga & Marinova-Todd, 2007). The expanded segmental inventory is recognized as Filipino.  1.6 Vowels  Tagalog originally had three phonemic vowels, namely [i], [u] and [a], where [i] and [e] were variants and [u] and [ɔ] were also variants; it then expanded into a five-vowel system following the incorporation of loan words (see Table 1) (Schachter, 2013). This resulted in both [i], [e], [u] and [ɔ] becoming phonemic in loan words (e.g., misa /ˈmisa/ ‘mass’, mesa /ˈmɛsa/ ‘table’) and, less commonly, in native vocabulary (e.g., iwan /ˈ(ʔ)iwan/ ‘leave’ and ewan /ˈ(ʔ)ɛwan/ ‘not known’) (Schachter, 2013). There is some discussion that these alternations may be morphophonemic, i.e., alternations of phonemes within morphemes, rather than allophonic because they do not alternate in all instances (Yap, 1956); however, discussion of morphophonemics is beyond the scope of the paper.   6 Tagalog vowels have no tense-lax or vowel length distinction (Schachter & Otanes, 1972). The phoneme /i/ has two variants, [i] and [ɪ], and these high front vowels can be used interchangeably without a corresponding change in meaning. There are also words with word-final /i/ that allow use of [e], e.g., gabi [gaˈbi] or [gaˈbe] ‘night’, although these only occur in native Tagalog words (Schachter & Otanes, 1972). The vowel /e/ has two variants, [e] and [ɛ], and the vowel /u/ has [u] and [ʊ] (Schachter & Otanes, 1972). The variants for the phoneme /a/ are less clear-cut; Llamzon (1966) reported [a], [ə] and [ɑ] while Schachter and Otanes (1972) included [a], [ə] and potentially [ʌ]. However, these variations do not change the meaning of the word. The phoneme /o/ has the two variants [o] and [ɔ], either of which can be used in most phonological environments (Llamzon, 1966). In native Tagalog words, /u/ and /o/ can alternate in certain conditions, but not in loan words (Schachter & Otanes, 1972).   All vowels are generally nonnasal but frequently become nasalized when they occur before or after nasal consonants /m, n  ŋ/ (Schachter & Otanes, 1972). Where vowels are lengthened, they are also stressed (Yap, 1956). Himmelmann (2005) pointed out that some authors believe that stress simply results in lengthening of vowels (French, 1988), while others argue that the vowel length itself attracts stress (Schachter & Otanes, 1972).     7 1.6.1 Diphthongs   Tagalog diphthongs (see Table 2) are characterized by a vowel followed by a glide /j/ or /w/ in a syllable (Ramos, 1971). Crosslinguistically, diphthongs are most often represented with two ad acent vowels (e.g., / aɪ/); however, the Tagalog literature generally represents diphthongs as a vowel followed by a glide (e.g., /aj/). Even if glides are used to represent Tagalog diphthongs, the word shape of diphthongs is still considered to be VV in this work, e.g., baboy /ˈbabɔj/ ‘pig’ CVCVV. In the literature, there is disagreement concerning the number and type of Tagalog diphthongs because of the influx of loan words (see Llamzon, 1966; Ramos, 1971; Schachter & Otanes, 1972). According to Schachter and Otanes (1972), Tagalog has eight diphthongs, four ending with front /j/ ("y") (i.e., /ey/, /ay/, /oy/, /uy/ based on Schachter and Otanes (1972)) and four ending with back /w/ (i.e., /iw/, /ew/, /aw/, /ow/ based on Schachter and Otanes (1972)). As discussed above, Tagalog vowels do not have a tense-lax distinction. The same principle applies for Tagalog diphthongs, e.g., [ej] ~ [ɛj], [iw] ~ [ɪw], are considered functionally equivalent.  The diphthong [ej] occurs as an alternant of [aj], but can also occur as a primary diphthong in loan words (e.g., reyna /ˈrɛjna/ ‘princess’) (Schachter & Otanes, 1972). The diphthong [aj] can also alternate with [ej] or [e] (e.g., kay [kaj] ~ [kej] ~ [ke] ‘(possessive marker)’) (Schachter & Otanes, 1972). Because of the inconsistencies with alternation,  8 Yap (1956) considers the phenomenon to be morphophonemic. The diphthong [uj] alternates with [oj] (e.g., baboy [ˈbabɔj] ~ [ˈbabuj] ‘pig’), though both are rare in Tagalog.  The diphthong [ew] is an optional alternant of [iw] (e.g., baliw [baˈliw] ~ [baˈlew] ‘crazy’). Some native English speakers who are learning Tagalog produce two syllables for the one-syllable diphthong [iw] (e.g., sisiw *[ˈsisijew] ~ *[ˈsisijiw] ‘chick’) (Ramos, 1971). The diphthong [ow] can sometimes replace [aw] (Schachter & Otanes, 1972), although rare in Tagalog.    1.7 Consonants  Tagalog has 16 consonant phonemes that occur in native words (see Table 3 and Appendix G). They are grouped in terms of manner, place and laryngeal features below.  Manner features (Bernhardt & Stemberger, 1998) and corresponding consonants include [+nasal] /m, n, ŋ/, [-continuant] stops /p, b, t, d, k, g, ʔ/, [+continuant, -sonorant] fricatives /s, h1/, [+consonantal, +sonorant], [+trilled] /r/, [+lateral] /l/ and glides /w, j/. Most speakers produce /r/ as an alveolar trill similar to the Spanish /r/ (Malabonga & Marinova-Todd, 2007), probably because Tagalog was greatly influenced by Spanish. According to Schachter & Otanes (1972), alveolar tap [ɾ] is the most common variant of the Tagalog /r/. [d] and [r] were likely former allophones of a single phoneme, e.g., daw [daw] ~ [raw] (“to indicate she/he said”) (Schachter & Otanes, 1972). Currently, /d/ and                                                         1 /h/ can also be considered  [-consonantal]   9 /r/ can be used contrastively (e.g., maramdamin /maramˈ amɪn/ ‘sensitive’ and madamdamin /ma amˈ amɪn/ ‘moving’) (Schachter, 2013), but the earlier status of these sounds explains the frequent non-meaningful alternations between /d/ and /r/ that are allowed in Tagalog (Schachter & Otanes, 1972). For further explanation about the alternation of /d/ and /r/, the readers are referred to the works of Kaufman (2007) and Schachter and Otanes (1972).  Places of articulation (Bernhardt & Stemberger, 1998) include [Labial] /m, p, b/, [Labial-Dorsal] /w/, [Coronal, +anterior] /t, d, n, s, r/[ɾ], l/, [Coronal-Dorsal] (palatal) /j/ and Dorsal /k, g, ŋ/. The coronals /t/ and /d/ are produced with the tongue touching the back of the upper front teeth (i.e., dental).  Laryngeal features (Bernhardt & Stemberger, 1998) include [-voiced] (for stops and fricatives), and [+voiced] (contrastive for stops, and redundant for tap, trill, lateral and glide). All stops are unaspirated (Malabonga & Marinova-Todd, 2007). Relative to the glottis, [+spread glottis] is relevant for /s/ and /h/ and [+constricted glottis] for glottal stop. Glottal stops can occur in all word positions. Word initially, they can occur before vowels non-phonemically. Word finally, they can account for a change in meaning, e.g., paso /paˈsɔ/ ‘expired’ and paso /paˈsɔʔ/ ‘clay pot’. Glottal stops also occur word medially when two vowels are adjacent to each other, e.g., uod /ˈ(ʔ)uʔɔd/ ‘worm’. In connected speech, word-medial and word-final glottal stops are usually dropped (Ramos, 1971).   10 Some phones are not found in native Tagalog words, but are commonly used in loan words (Schachter, 2013). Manner features and corresponding consonants for these borrowed sounds include [+continuant, -sonorant] fricatives /f, v, z,  / and [-continuant, +continuant] affricates /t ,   /. Place of articulation includes [+labiodental] /f, v/, [Coronal, +anterior] /z/ and [Coronal, -anterior] / , t ,   /. Tagalog speakers may substitute native phones for these borrowed ones (Malabonga & Marinova-Todd, 2007), e.g., [p] for /f/ ([paˈbɔr] for ‘favor’), [b] for /v/ [ˈberɪ] for ‘very’) and [s] for /z/ ([su] for ‘zoo’). The palatoalveolars vary somewhat: /t / can be produced as [t ],  t ɕ] or   ts]; /  / as    ], [  ], [dij], or [  z]; and / / as [ ], [sij] or [s j]. Word-final / / is usually replaced by [s] (e.g., [bras] for ‘brush’) (Schachter & Otanes, 1972).  1.7.1 Phonemes by Word Position   All native Tagalog phonemes can occur in all word positions, except possibly for /h/, while borrowed sounds are more limited depending on one’s exposure to those sounds. The glides /j/ and /w/ occur word initially, medially and also finally, as the second part of diphthongs. /h/ occurs word initially and word medially, but there is an ongoing discussion whether or not /h/ occurs word finally when words end with a vowel, e.g., aso [ˈ(ʔ)asoh] ~ [ˈ(ʔ)aso] ‘dog’) (Schachter & Otanes, 1972). Borrowed sounds are less likely to occur across all word positions. The fricative /z/ occurs only word initially.  11 The affricates /t / and /  / can occur word initially and word medially, but not word finally. The palatoalveolar / / only occurs word initially.   All monophthongal vowels can occur in all word positions. Diphthongs usually occur word finally in native words (e.g., araw /ˈaraw/ ‘sun’), but may appear in non-final syllables in borrowed words (e.g., ays krim /ˈajskrim/ ‘ice cream’; reyna /ˈrɛjna/ ‘queen’). Diphthongs occur in both stressed and unstressed syllables.  1.7.2 Cluster Sequences   In native Tagalog, consonant clusters are limited to two consonants, where the second consonant is a glide (e.g., /j/, /w/) (Ramos, 1971). In these clusters, variation between the consonants /j/ or /w/ and the vowel-consonant sequences [ij] or [uw] is permitted, e.g., siya [sja] ~ [siˈja] ‘her’ (Schachter & Otanes, 1972); at times, clusters can be reduced to a single phoneme, e.g., [ a]. However, certain words are customarily produced with an initial cluster (e.g., buwan /bwan/ ‘moon’) by Tagalog speakers. Again, this alternation can be treated as morphophonemic (Yap, 1956), although to our knowledge, there have been no studies distinguishing between /j, w/ as part of a cluster versus as part of a diphthong (e.g., [bw] vs. [wa] in [bwan]) (J. Soriano & I. Bondoc, personal communication, August 19, 2014), differing in whether they create complexity in the onset or in the nucleus. The current paper will treat glides as part of the cluster. In loan words, the second consonant in a cluster can be /r/ or /l/ in addition to glides, e.g.,  12 /pr/, /tr/, /kl/. Vowel epenthesis can occur between the two consonants of a diconsonantal cluster in onset position (e.g., klase [ˈk(ə)lase] ‘class’), probably because such clusters were not originally present in native Tagalog. On the other hand, some native speakers argue that vowel epenthesis can only occur in certain circumstances; it is uncertain if there are specific clusters or features that allow for vowel epenthesis  (J. Soriano, personal communication, June 1, 2014). When loan words have three consonant sequences in initial position, epenthesis of a vowel can be used to break up an s-cluster (e.g., strike [(ʔ)ɪsˈtra k] ‘strike’) (French, 1988).  Elsewhere in the word, word-medial consonant clusters are usually found across syllable boundaries, e.g., suklay /ˈsuklaj/ ‘comb’ (Ramos, 1971), but also in onset position, e.g., sombrero /somˈbrero/ ‘hat’. Word-final consonant clusters rarely occur in native Tagalog; most are found in loan words, e.g., nars /nars/ ‘nurse’, komiks /ˈkomiks/ ‘comics’. Some speakers have alternative pronunciations for selected word-final clusters such that one consonant of the cluster is dropped (e.g., absent [ˈabsɛn(t)] ‘absent’) (Schachter & Otanes, 1972).  1.8 Acquisition of Tagalog within the Philippines    The Filipino child’s language learning environment in the Philippines is very complex; not only is he or she living in a multilingual environment, but there are different types of multilingualism (Marzan, 2007). Socio-economic status (SES) appears to be a factor that determines language exposure. For example, those from higher SES often  13 come from families that speak English as a first language before learning Tagalog; on the other hand, those from lower SES learn Tagalog at home first before learning English in school (Marzan, 2007). Geographic location also influences language exposure such that children who grow up in bigger cities (e.g., Manila) are more likely to be simultaneous Tagalog-English bilinguals, while children from the rural communities are more likely to be sequential bilinguals (e.g., learn their community’s language before learning Tagalog and English) (Marzan, 2007).  After the 1987 constitution that declared Filipino to be the national language of the Philippines, along with English (Gonzales, 1996), both English and Filipino have been taught in schools and used prominently in the mass media (Department of Education, 1987). This has resulted in the common occurrence of code mixing, where one language serves as a grammatical base while words from another language are integrated into that sentence (Marzan, 2007). In addition, English and Spanish borrowings are used frequently, and in some cases more often than their Tagalog counterparts (e.g., Spanish estudyante instead of Tagalog mag-aaral /magˈʔaʔaral/ ‘student’), suggesting that these words have been integrated phonologically, morphologically and grammatically (French, 1988). Tagalog has a shallow orthography and was believed to be similar to other languages of the Philippines in terms of sound system and grammatical structure than it is to English or Spanish (Marzan, 2003). However, at the time Marzan (2003) wrote her paper, the documentation of Philippine languages had just started; hence, this was speculative (J. Marzan, personal communication, August 18, 2014).    14 1.9 Bilingual Context of Acquisition   The original goal of the current study was to explore the phonological development of monolingual Tagalog-speaking children. However, the study was conducted in Canada, where Tagalog is not the primary language; thus, understanding the linguistic context of these Filipino children is necessary to obtain a better picture of their Tagalog development. To date, research regarding monolingual Tagalog development is limited, and studies about Tagalog development in a bilingual context are even more limited. In contrast, there have been numerous studies conducted on bilingual Spanish-English children. Because Spanish has greatly influenced Tagalog, the current paper will utilize in section 1.9.2 studies conducted on bilingual Spanish-English children as a basis for discussing Tagalog acquisition of Filipino children in a bilingual Tagalog-English context.  1.9.1 Categories of Tagalog Use   In a recent survey conducted in Canada, one of the top ten immigrant languages most often spoken is Tagalog (Statistics Canada, 2012). Within Vancouver schools, Tagalog belongs to the top five languages spoken at home, or about 5% of the student population (Vancouver School Board, 2012). However, there appear to be three typical language use patterns among Filipino families (M. Carrillo, personal communication, September 14, 2014). In one pattern of use, parents speak Tagalog to each other and to their children, but their children respond in English. In an ethnographic study of a Filipino immigrant family in Canada, the parents felt that the strong influence of school and society made it difficult for them to preserve their language (Li, 2000). Li (2000) also  15 mentioned that the parents tried to adopt 'Canadian' ways by encouraging children's freedom in language choice at home. From the perspective of the children, they all preferred to use English because it indicated their Canadian identity; using Tagalog made them different from mainstream culture. The second pattern of use involves families electing to use only English as their mode of communication. One study found that Filipinos in America do not teach Tagalog to their children because they do not want to hinder their children’s academic progress (Espiritu, 1994). Similarly, Filipino mothers in Australia reported that they did not have time to teach their children Tagalog and that Tagalog would have been detrimental to their English education (Chan, 2003). The third pattern of use involves parents speaking Tagalog to their children and their children responding in Tagalog; however, the said pattern is rarely observed among Filipino families living outside of the Philippines (J. Peralejo, personal communication, September 11, 2014).   For children learning Tagalog in a bilingual environment (i.e., Canada), the family must take responsibility for teaching Tagalog, because Tagalog classes are limited. As mentioned earlier, there is a prevalence of loan words in Tagalog; thus, it is difficult to teach pure Tagalog. In addition, there are some concepts where Filipinos are used to using English words (e.g., animal names, clothing items), while using Tagalog for other concepts, e.g., family members (J. Peralejo, personal communication, September 11, 2014). Moreover, some parents may find it easier to teach the English counterpart for some words, when the English word is simpler in terms of word length. For example, the word for 'shoes' in Tagalog is sapatos /saˈpatɔs/, which consists of three syllables, but the English word has only one syllable. In certain situations, there is no Tagalog term for a  16 concept; hence, Filipinos use the English term (e.g., computer) (M. Carrillo, personal communication, September 14, 2014). It is also common for children learning Tagalog in an English-dominant society to apply English patterns (e.g., word stress patterns) when they speak Tagalog and to apply Tagalog patterns when they speak English (e.g., Tagalog phonology) (J. Peralejo, personal communication, September 11, 2014). 1.9.2 Relationship of Spanish-English to Tagalog-English Acquisition   With the increase in numbers of Spanish-speaking individuals in the United States, Spanish-influenced English and English-influenced Spanish have become common (Goldstein, 2001). Goldstein (2001) found that the dialect of the child’s community (e.g., parents, peers) influences the acquisition of both Spanish and English. The Tagalog language has similarities with Spanish in terms of the vowel inventory and liquids and clusters; thus, it will not be surprising to see both Tagalog-influenced English and English-influenced Tagalog, especially for a child growing up in a Tagalog-English bilingual environment.  Spanish and Tagalog both have similar vowel inventories, which are different from English. This can cause a potential area of difficulty for both Spanish- and Tagalog-speaking children who are learning English, because they cannot rely on their vowel knowledge to help them learn English vowels. Gildersleeve-Neumann, Peña, Davis and Kester (2009) found that Spanish vowels of emerging sequential Spanish-English bilingual 3-year-old children were more vulnerable to mismatches than consonants because of potential reorganization caused by exposure to English vowels. On the other hand, Goldstein and Washington (2001) found that 4-year-old simultaneous Spanish-English bilingual children had almost no vowel mismatches. The difference in results  17 from the two studies could be due to differences in the type of bilingualism in the two studies. Participants in Gildersleeve-Neumann, Peña, Davis and Kester (2009) were emerging sequential bilinguals; hence, relying on their knowledge of Spanish to learn English vowels was insufficient, leading to vowel mismatches. However, children in Goldstein and Washington (2001) were simultaneous bilinguals; thus, their exposure to the two languages for a longer period of time allowed them to develop a broader range of vowel representation. Given that Tagalog vowels are similar to Spanish, it is hypothesized that the presence of vowel mismatches in the child’s first language, in this case Tagalog, will be dependent on the time and amount of exposure to a second language, English.  In terms of consonants, Goldstein and Washington (2001) observed that when Spanish-English bilingual children were tested in Spanish, they found liquid simplification to be the only substitution process that had a percentage of occurrence greater than 10%. In particular, the majority of the mismatches involved /ɾ/ and /r/, not /l/: percentage match for /l/ was 95.8%, compared with only 71.8% for /ɾ/ and 77.3% for /r/. A high percentage match for /l/ was also found by Bernhardt et al. (in press) in their study of typically developing monolingual Spanish-speaking children and those with protracted phonological development. The flap was either substituted by [l] or deleted, while different substitution patterns were used for the trill [r], e.g., substitution of [ɹ], [l], [ɾ] or [j]. The authors acknowledge, however, that rhotics are later developing (between the age of 3 to 6 years (Sander, 1972)) for both monolingual speakers in both English and  18 Spanish. Nonetheless, Bernhardt et al. (in press) have observed similar substitutions, i.e., the use of [ɹ] for /r/, in monolingual Spanish-speaking children from Southern Spain, even without English exposure.  1.10 Consonant and Word Structure Development   A number of student projects from the University of the Philippines Manila form the basis for knowledge about Tagalog phonological development (Cheng, Olea & Marzan, 2002). These studies were unpublished undergraduate theses. They were gathered from various communities, followed different elicitation protocols, and used a variety of stimuli (e.g., pictures, words). Individual studies were not accessible, thus, an annotated bibliography by Marzan (2009) was utilized.  Riguer and Panganiban (2004) conducted a study on monolingual Tagalog-speaking children within Metro Manila, 40 males and 40 females, with 10 children in each age of 4 groups (i.e., 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds).  The authors selected 45 words from the Pagsala ng Larawang Pagsusulit ng Kaayunan sa Pagbigkas sa Antas ng Kataga [The Screening Picture Test of Articulation Consistency in the Word Level] (Sabir, 1992) to include in a Picture Articulation Test (PAT). The PAT is a self-constructed articulation tool that changes in content depending on the authors. The test varies in the number of words included, the frequency of occurrence of each phoneme, and the pictures used. To date, the PAT is not standardized. No information is available regarding the criteria used in the selection of words, but it appears that each phoneme was represented at least once in all word positions whenever applicable. Test procedures involved eliciting words through spontaneous naming. If the child did not respond, a  19 sentence cue (e.g., a short description of the target) was provided. If the child needed more support, delayed imitation (e.g., providing two choices where the target is first mentioned) or direct imitation were used. In another study, Silva (1985) studied the speech development of 153 monolingual Tagalog-speaking children aged 2 (n= 53), 3 (n= 50) and 4 (n= 50). He used a self-created PAT consisting of 34 items that were selected based on age-appropriateness and opportunity to produce each phoneme in all word positions; however, only 12 phonemes were included (/b, p, n, h, w, d, t  g  k  ŋ     n/) and a diphthong was used for word-final /w/ and /j/. There was no description of how the words were elicited.  In terms of consonant acquisition by age, Riguer and Panganiban (2004) found that, at 2 years of age, Filipino children’s speech included many differences from the adult target. Mastery was defined as 75% or more of the children in an age group producing the phoneme in all word positions and near-mastery or customary acquisition as 75% or more of the children in an age group producing the phoneme in any two word positions. Mastery was observed at age 2 for /b, p, m, n, d, j,   / and near-mastery for /w, t  l  ŋ  k/. On the other hand, Silva (1985) only found the mastery of /b, p, h/ and near-mastery of /   t  ŋ   / at age 2. By 3 years of age, Riguer and Panganiban (2004) reported mastery of all phonemes with the exception of /r/, while Silva (1985) noted the additional mastery of /m, w/ and near-mastery of /n, g/. By age 4, all sounds were mastered by both genders (Riguer & Panganiban, 2004; Silva, 1985). Silva (1985) also observed that the  20 accuracy of production progressed generally from word-initial to word-medial and then word-final position.  In a study of word structure, Agustin and Soriano (2007) collected speech samples through play from typically developing monolingual Filipino 2-year-olds (n= 20) until 45 to 60 minutes passed or 100 utterances were collected. They found that the most frequent word structures used included CV, CVCV and VCV. Children at this stage had not mastered cluster production but had started to use two-element clusters (e.g., ‘blue’).  In addition to the age of acquisition of phonemes, two studies examined mismatch patterns. Silva (1985) reported on phonological processes, i.e., mismatch patterns used to simplify adult targets. Results were difficult to interpret because there was no explanation as to how data were analyzed; the results section only contained information on how many times the whole age group used a particular phonological process. Nonetheless, the most common speech production mismatch patterns included unstressed syllable deletion, cluster reduction, substitution and final consonant deletion. In general, there was a downward trend in the frequency of mismatch patterns, with 2-year-olds showing the highest proportion and 4-year-olds, the lowest. However, in a study of 20 monolingual Tagalog-speaking 3-year-olds, Cheng and Sison (1996) found only cluster reduction to be a persisting speech mismatch pattern (used more than 20% of possible times by more than 75% of the children); all other patterns had resolved. It should be noted that Cheng and Sison (1996) collected data using the PAT instead of a spontaneous speech sample, which may account for the difference in results.     21 1.10.1 Whole Word Match   Moving beyond studies on Tagalog phonological development, the following section will discuss Whole Word Match (WWM) and its potential use in phonological assessments. Schmitt, Howard and Schmitt (1983) suggested using Whole Word Accuracy to compare children with articulation difficulties to those who are typically developing. Whole Word Accuracy is a measure similar to WWM where every segment of the child’s productions must match the adult target.  Ayyad (2011) conducted a study on 80 typically developing monolingual Kuwaiti children with ages ranging from 3 years and 10 months to 5 years and 2 months. Testing procedures included eliciting single words through picture naming. The author found that most children in her study had a high WWM with a mean of 80.7%. On the other hand, some children had WWM scores lower than 57%, with a mean of 48.5%, and these children were identified as at-risk for protracted phonological development (Ayyad, 2011). Schmitt, Howard and Schmitt (1983) found similar results for English with a high WWM for both 4-year-olds (80%) and 5-year-olds (83.77%).  Bernhardt et al. (in press) investigated the word structure development of 3- to 5-year old monolingual Granada-Spanish speaking children. Focusing on the WWM results, they found a high WWM (85.4%) among typically developing 4-year-olds, while a low WWM (37.5%) for children with protracted phonological development. Again, results were consistent with those found among Kuwaiti- and English-speaking children.  Further research is needed to confirm the results of these preliminary studies. Moreover, only monolinguals were included in these studies. There is evidence that bilinguals may differ from monolinguals in the development of their phonological system,  22 e.g., they may tend to exhibit more mismatches initially, but these differences decrease over time (Goldstein & Washington, 2001). 1.11 Phonological Assessment in Tagalog   Despite the large number of Tagalog-speaking individuals living outside the Philippines, research regarding the language is very limited. No normative data exist concerning the speech and language development of Filipino children (Cheng, Olea & Marzan, 2002). There are also no published studies on acquired sounds, percent correct, phonological processes, phonetic inventory, common mismatches, syllable structure and prosody of Filipino children (Malabonga & Marinova-Todd, 2007). The lack of research results in speech-language pathologists relying on non-standardized procedures (e.g., language sampling, narratives) during speech and language assessment and intervention (Malabonga & Marinova-Todd, 2007). Though non-standardized procedures offer invaluable information, they do not provide norm-referencing for making clinical decisions about typical speech development.  Speech-language pathologists need to identify children with phonological disorders and one way to assess phonological development is through phonological assessments. Phonological assessments are used to determine the need for intervention, to identify factors that affect the child’s phonological system, to make prognostic statements, to direct treatment, and to monitor change (Bernthal, Bankson & Flipsen, 2012). There are two currently known phonological assessments in Tagalog. One is the PAT (Soriano, 2008) which is a self-constructed list of single words that are represented by drawings. The words are elicited through spontaneous naming, cued sentences, delayed imitation and direct imitation. Some PATs have target words that were approved by preschool  23 teachers as recognizable for a certain age range, while some were pilot-tested on a small group of children. As discussed above, there is currently no standard Tagalog word list that clinicians use when administering the PAT. The other tool is the Halo-Halo Espesyal passage (De la Cruz, Rubite & Ulan, 2005), which assesses speech sounds in connected speech. The faculty and students at the University of the Philippines Manila developed the tool and they have been revising and updating the passage; however, normative data are still lacking.  As discussed, Tagalog vocabulary includes many loan words from English, which is one of the national languages. However, English exposure differs for each individual, thus resulting in varying levels of English influence across speakers. The difference in English exposure also leads to different variations of Tagalog.  With this variation in mind, it is crucial then to consider the adult targets to which the child’s productions will be compared when creating phonological assessment tools. What are considered acceptable variations and what are included as incorrect productions may differ depending on the variations for adult targets (Goldstein & Iglesias, 2001). This can directly affect one’s analysis, with typically developing children categorized as having protracted phonological development or children with protracted phonological development being identified as typical. Furthermore, the presence of different variations may influence the clinician’s ability to select appropriate intervention targets.  1.12 Motivation, Purpose and Research Questions of the Study   Because of the increase in the population of Tagalog-speaking individuals outside the Philippines coupled with the lack of a consistent and published Tagalog phonological assessment tool, clinicians are placed in a difficult situation during the assessment and  24 treatment of Tagalog-speaking individuals. Thus, the following study was undertaken in order to bridge the gap between the need for services and the lack of standardized tools. Nonlinear Phonology was used as a basis for constructing the assessment tools, taking advantage of the descriptive and holistic information that it provides. The aims of the study were to: (1) describe Tagalog in terms of nonlinear phonological theories; (2) to create and describe a standard word list for Tagalog assessment, and a nonlinear phonological analysis tool based on Bernhardt & Stemberger (2000) for English, (3) to collect and analyze data from a typically developing 4-year-old Tagalog-speaking child to illustrate the clinical application of the assessment tools, and (4) to evaluate and refine the tools after use.  A 4-year-old was selected because previous studies in the Philippines suggest that at this age, monolingual Tagalog-speaking children have mastery of all Tagalog phonemes and have (nearly) all phonological processes resolved. The decision was made to collect data from a Tagalog-speaking child living in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, Canada, in order to begin the process of examining the bilingual context of acquisition; his data may or may not be comparable with data from primarily monolingual Tagalog speakers in the Philippines, but may be representative of 4-year-olds who primarily speak Tagalog in Canada. Expectations might be that the age of acquisition of the different forms (e.g., phonemes, syllable structure) may differ, and that language patterns may reflect interaction of the two languages. As mentioned, the prevalence of the first and second pattern of language use outside of the Philippines is higher than the third pattern, where the whole family uses Tagalog. Thus, there is a need to provide an analysis method for speech-language pathologists outside of the Philippines  25 to accurately assess Tagalog-speaking children’s phonological development in a bilingual Tagalog-English context. In addition, speech-language pathologists in the Philippines can also benefit from this tool because both Tagalog and English are the national languages (Gonzales, 1996).  The current study set out to describe Tagalog in terms of nonlinear phonological theories, to create a Tagalog word list and an accompanying nonlinear phonological analysis tool to use during Tagalog assessment, to pilot test the said tools with a typically developing 4-year-old and finally, to revise the tools based on the results obtained from the child.       26 2 Method   This section describes the methodology used for creation of a phonological assessment tool, the procedures for administering the tool to a 4-year-old typically developing child and his mother, and data analysis, including phonetic transcription and both qualitative and quantitative analyses, both in general, and specifically for the participant.  2.1 Word List Creation  A set of criteria was adopted for development of a list of words familiar to children that sampled all levels of the nonlinear hierarchy (based on Bérubé, Bernhardt & Stemberger, 2013).  Specific criteria were: 1. Inclusion of exemplars of each phoneme in all word positions at least twice. 2. Targeting of a full range of place and manner features plus different sequences.  3. Inclusion of at least two instances of each major word structure component, i.e., stress pattern, syllable and word shape.  4. General adherence to the statistical properties of the language in terms of word length and form, i.e., in Tagalog, 90% of words are disyllabic (Schachter & Otanes, 1972).   According to Grunwell (1985), a sample size of at least 100 words is needed to provide enough opportunities to produce adult targets and to account for production variability. For Tagalog, the researcher started with a previously existing list of 49 words  (Soriano, 2008) plus words from unpublished undergraduate theses (Riguer &  27 Panganiban, 2004; Silva, 1985). These original words were first evaluated based on lexical characteristics (e.g., length, familiarity); those that did not meet the criteria were eliminated. In consultation with multiple native Tagalog speakers, words that met the criteria were added until the word list was deemed sufficiently representative of the language. The Tagalog word list (see Appendix A) used for the current study consisted of 109 words (94 different words plus 15 words elicited twice), which were divided into four sections, namely, Warm-up, Core or Screener, Extension A and Extension B. The list was categorized into four subsets, following the structure of the Computerized Articulation and Phonology Evaluation System for English (Masterson & Bernhardt, 2001), which has a basic list and several supplemental lists pertinent for the individual client (Bernhardt & Holdgrafer, 2001). The Warm-up section (see Appendix B) consisted of eight words, five of which are repeated in the actual word list. The goal was to familiarize the child with the task; furthermore, repeated words can provide additional insight into difficulties the child is having, i.e., in terms of consistent or inconsistent production (Holm, Crosbie & Dodd, 2007). In addition, three words were included for familiarization purposes (i.e., klase /ˈklase/ ‘class’; dyaryo  /ˈ  arjo/ ‘newspaper’, hikab /ˈhikab/ ‘yawn’) because they are more difficult to illustrate and are less well-known to preschool-aged children. A Core section or Screening list (see Appendix B) consisting of 38 words (4 repeated words from the Warm-up) was designed to provide an overview of the child’s phonological skills, which then could guide the selection of either Extension A or B. The Core list words varied in syllable length (e.g., disyllabic, multisyllabic) and  28 word shape (e.g., basic consonant-vowel syllable structure, consonant clusters), and incorporated both early and late developing sounds and loan words.    Extension A (see Appendix C) consisted of 34 words (1 repeated word from the Warm-up, 10 words also in Extension B). Repeated words between Extension A and B were allowed because only one of Extension A or B would be administered to a given client during an actual assessment. Some targets had limited exemplars that fit the criteria (e.g., / , z/) for both lists because Tagalog lacks that certain feature. Extension A includes more multisyllabic and complex forms such as consonant clusters, later developing sounds (e.g., palatoalveolars), less familiar vocabulary, and loan words. A 5-syllable word (i.e., hipopotamo /hipoˈpotamo/ ‘hippopotamus’) was initially included, but in consultation with native Tagalog speakers, there was confusion as to whether or not the word is Tagalog; hence, hipopotamo was omitted from the list. Extension B (see Appendix D) focuses on more exemplars of basic targets, which allows clinicians to probe further into specific manners and places of articulation that the child might be finding challenging. The list consisted of 29 words (10 words also being in Extension A) with 2 monosyllabic words and 2-, 3- or 4-disyllabic or trisyllabic words depending on the child’s production (i.e., bituwin ‘stars’ could be pronounced as a disyllabic word [bitˈwin] or as a trisyllabic word [bituˈwin]).   After the list was finalized, pictures corresponding to each word on the list were chosen. Images were collected through public domain sites (i.e., Google images, Flickr), and copyright restrictions were respected. The images were chosen based on their representativeness to the actual object, ease of identification and cultural appropriateness  29 (Bérubé, Bernhardt & Stemberger, 2013); thus, cartoon images were not selected with the exception of buwan /ˈb(u)wan/ ‘moon’, bituwin /bit(u)ˈwin/ ‘stars’ and radyo /ˈra  o/ ‘radio’ because the actual images were difficult for children to identify. Whenever possible, the researcher took pictures of actual objects (e.g., eroplano /(ʔ)ɛrɔˈplano/ ‘airplane’, kotse /ˈkɔt e/ ‘car’, saging /ˈsagiŋ/ ‘banana’). Pictures were arranged in Microsoft PowerPoint with one, two or three pictures per slide.  2.2 Participants  For the study, a typically developing boy (aged 4;0) with normal hearing, who was born and raised in British Columbia, Canada, was recruited. He is an only child who lives with his parents. His parents are native Tagalog speakers who immigrated to Canada from Manila 12 years ago. Their family follows the third pattern of use, where Tagalog is the primary language used at home by both the parents and the child. The child grew up in a community where English is the primary mode of communication, and Tagalog is not a supported language in his local environment. Thus, the child was also exposed to English at a very young age. His parents reported that he formally learned English at 3;6 when he started attending Strong Start, a program for preschool children to play and learn together (run by a local school district). Information about the study was discussed with the parents and testing commenced after the parents signed the informed consent.  The child’s mother, a native Tagalog speaker, was also recruited to provide the adult targets to be used as a basis for analyzing the child’s productions. Following informed consent, her pronunciations were audio-recorded.   30 2.3 Data Collection Procedures for the Child   The word list was organized into themes (e.g., food, animals) whenever possible, to make the testing more engaging. A story line (see Appendix E) was created to provide a purpose for the child to participate (e.g., “Anna received a lot of gifts, let’s see what they are”). Anna is the main character for the story. The Warm-up was about Anna going to school, while the Screener talked about Anna’s trip to the zoo. Both Extension A and B were about Anna’s birthday party.    Testing started with a warm-up activity in which the child was oriented to the story and structure of the activity. After the warm-up, the Screener and Extension A were administered. Before proceeding to Extension B, a 10-minute break was scheduled. The child was given both Extension lists in order to pilot test the whole word list and later determine whether the words met the criteria used to select them (e.g., representativeness, ease of identification). The child named pictures presented on the computer. Cues were provided as needed. The following protocol was observed: sentence cue (i.e., fill in the blanks, further information about the picture), phonemic and syllabic cue (i.e., providing the first sound or syllable), delayed imitation (i.e., mentioning the target first before the distractor in a choice of two) and direct imitation (i.e., asking the child to repeat the target). A number of studies have reported that imitated responses were not significantly different from spontaneous productions when results of articulation and phonological assessment were conducted (Bernthal, Bankson & Flipsen, 2012; Goldstein, Fabiano & Iglesias, 2004); thus, imitated responses were accepted. The child’s productions were recorded using an iPhone5 (i.e., voice memo), which has three built-in microphones (i.e., one in the front, one in the back and on on the bottom) to provide directional coverage  31 from all angles and specialized processors to eliminate background noises (P. Daniel, 2012). The built-in microphone captures sounds within the frequency range of 20Hz-20kHz to ensure a wide range of coverage (dsp mobile, n.d.). Voice memo recordings are compressed audio files with a .MP4 file extension (Oster, n.d.). It is acknowledged that the built-in microphones of the iPhone5 may not be sensitive to subtle acoustic changes that may be necessary to distinguish slight differences in pronunciations. Audio files were immediately deleted after being transferred to a password-protected computer in order to be transcribed later. No identifying information was included in the file (e.g., name).  A connected speech sample was gathered through play with toys to determine intelligibility and overall language competency, but this was not transcribed. At the end of testing, the child was given a small token of appreciation (i.e., stickers).  2.4 Data Collection Procedures for the Mother   The child's mother was audio-recorded while saying the words from the list. The mother named pictures one after the other without the story; when necessary, the researcher pointed to the target or showed the written word (e.g., the picture showed two elephants, and the targets were elepante /(ʔ)ɛlɛˈpante/ ‘elephant’ and dalawa / alaˈwa/ ‘two’).      32 2.5 Transcription  To ensure data reliability, the researcher, who is a native Tagalog speaker, first transcribed the adult sample, followed by the child’s data, using a transcription sheet2. A consensus-building transcription method was employed wherein the two team leaders of the crosslinguistic study (of which Tagalog is a part) went through the researcher’s transcription and discussed any discrepancies until a consensus was reached. A transcription convention3 for Tagalog was also developed. As discussed above, there are certain Tagalog phonemes that have multiple acceptable variants and words that have different pronunciations. Following the transcription consensus session, the researcher consulted three native Tagalog speakers to confirm optional ways of producing specific phonemes and words. These were included in the transcription and were either marked with parentheses or a footnote.  Similar to the adult data, the child’s productions were transcribed independently by the student researcher and then a consensus-building transcription session was arranged with the crosslinguistic team leaders. The adult data and the transcription conventions served as a guide. Final transcriptions (see Appendix F) were determined when the group reached 100% agreement.  2.6. Phonological Analysis   Phonological analysis offers a way to understand what the child is able to do and how the child’s performance compares to the language targets. It evaluates a variety of parameters (e.g., word structure, singletons, clusters, WWM) that can be analyzed                                                         2 The Tagalog transcription sheet is free and available upon request from the authors.  3 The authors can be contacted for a copy of the transcription conventions for Tagalog.   33 qualitatively and quantitatively. Each of the following subsections describes the overall methods for the analysis, before describing specific procedures for this particular participant.  2.6.1 Nonlinear Phonological Analysis (Qualitative) for Tagalog  For a child with phonological difficulties, speech data can be examined using a Nonlinear Phonological Scan Analysis form (based on Bernhardt & Stemberger, 2000 for English) (see Appendix G). The child’s strengths and areas still to develop are identified. Once identified, these can be used to determine whether or not there is a need for intervention and if so, what types of goals would be appropriate in what order. Although the participant for this study was deemed to be typically developing, his data were evaluated as would happen in a clinical phonological assessment in order to provide a tutorial on this type of analysis for Tagalog speech therapy practice. The scan analysis (Bernhardt & Stemberger, 2000) evaluates a child's phonology in terms of word structure, segments and features, and sequences both from the point of view of strengths and possible needs. A preview is provided to determine relative strengths and areas to probe further. Both independent (inventory) and relational (compared to adult target) analyses are included that will help guide treatment planning, if a need is observed. Key areas examined include word structure, singleton inventory, and consonant sequences. Supplemental analyses evaluate consonant substitution patterns, vowels and include an overall summary of strengths and needs. Based on the analyses, clinicians are able to create goals and strategies that maximize the child’s skills in order to extend phonological development.   34 The Nonlinear Phonological Scan Analysis form (Tagalog) is a modification to the original English version (Bernhardt & Stemberger, 2000). The researcher for this thesis, a native speaker of Tagalog, made changes to the English form to include aspects of Tagalog phonology. One of the team leaders of the crosslinguistic study verified that the form reflected important features of Tagalog phonology. The following section explains page by page what is in the scan analysis.  The first page (see Appendix G) contains background information, an optional percentage match of different components (e.g., whole word, word shape), and a summary of the treatment goals and strategies based on the clinician’s evaluation. The ‘Preview’ (see p. 2 of Appendix G) provides information regarding the child’s strengths and areas that require further analysis (i.e., inconsistent or absent forms) for word structure, segments and sequences. It also guides the clinician in determining sections of the analysis that are most relevant. The table at the bottom of Page 2 allows the clinician to include other information about the child (e.g., language comprehension, social skills).  The ‘Word Structure’ section (see p. 3 of Appendix G) includes independent and relational analyses of syllable length, shape, stress and clusters. It employs an optional color-coding method to determine which forms are well-established (strengths), inconsistent, absent and/or present but not for the adult target. In mono- and disyllabic Tagalog words, consonant vowel (CV) sequences commonly used in Tagalog are listed, e.g., CV, (ʔ)VCVC, CVCV(C). Segments (e.g., single C) and sequences (e.g., CC, CCC) in different word positions, i.e., word-initial (WI), word-medial (WM) and word-final (WF) are also included. The most common stress patterns, e.g., Strong-weak (Sw), weak-Strong (wS), are listed for disyllabic words. The structure for words with three or more  35 syllables follows that of the disyllabic section with the exception of examples of CV sequences, where clinicians are asked to provide exemplars. For each word length category, i.e., mono-, di- and multisyllabic, a summary is provided to help clinicians determine what the next steps are. The summary also includes the most complex CV shapes and structures that were not elicited. The bottom of the page is for description of client mismatch patterns relative to structure, and contains queries on types of deletions, epentheses and overuse of certain segments by word length and position. An optional percentage match of different parameters (e.g., % word length match) was included.  The next section, ‘Client’s Singleton Consonants’ (see p. 4 of Appendix G) identifies which phones are established and which are still developing or absent from the client's repertoire. Native Tagalog consonants and consonants commonly used in loan words are listed.  The table at the bottom of Page 4 provides a summary of needs with respect to absent or inconsistent phones in specific word positions.  To analyze consonant sequences, the ‘Neighbouring Consonant Sequences’ (see p. 5 of Appendix G) is used for analysis of neighboring and distant (cross-vowel) sequences. Consonant clusters of Tagalog are listed (e.g., with /j/, /w/, nasal, /l/, /r/, and /s/). Exemplars of Tagalog mismatch patterns such as assimilation (e.g., /gatas/ > [datas]) and metathesis (e.g., /sp/ > [ps]) are given. The bottom section of this page focuses on analyzing possible place sequence constraints (e.g., Labial-Labial, Coronal-Dorsal).  The ‘Singleton Substitutions’ section (see p. 6 of Appendix G) is an optional analysis of the child’s substitutions by feature in order to determine general types of patterns. Default segments are also identified, i.e., the most frequently occurring features  36 in a language or phonological system; they are often used in place of other features (Bernhardt & Stemberger, 1998). To date, there are no studies that have looked into default segments in Tagalog; but based on crosslinguistic evidence, it is likely that Tagalog defaults are similar to English which are [+consonantal], [-continuant], [-nasal] and [-lateral] for manner, Coronal [+anterior] for place, and [-voiced] for laryngeal (Bernhardt & Stemberger, 1998). For this chart, phones were added or deleted depending on Tagalog phonology and these were categorized into two options, native or borrowed sounds, e.g., /f, v, z/.   If the clinician sees a need to investigate a child’s vowel inventory and compare it with adult targets, a ‘Vowels’ section (see p. 7 of Appendix G) is included. Tagalog only has five vowels, but each has its own variations; the second table lists the target vowels and the allowed variations (both native and borrowed vowels and diphthongs).  The last page, ‘Strengths and Needs/Goals’ (see p. 8 of Appendix G) is a summary of all the analyses, which guides the clinician in coming up with treatment goals and strategies (to be entered on p. 1 of Appendix G). Clinicians enter the client’s strengths and needs noted throughout the scan analysis form and categorize them according to word structure (e.g., stress patterns), word positions or sequences (e.g., WI, WF) and features and segments (e.g., manner, place).  There are three components included in the bottom section of the first page namely goal type, goal order and treatment strategies. These are further classified into three ma or divisions, “word structure”, “positional, sequences”, and “features, segments”; in each division, goals are identified. These goals are then ordered according to priority. Finally, therapy strategies will incorporate information from the analyses. For  37 example, if a child is having difficulty producing words with more syllables, but is able to produce one-syllable words consistently, the clinician can focus on activities that capitalize on the child’s strength (i.e., production of one-syllable words) to target multi-syllabic words, e.g., fluency strategies (Bernhardt & Stemberger, 2000). For further discussion on the Nonlinear Phonological Scan Analysis, the readers are directed to the work of Bernhardt and Stemberger (2000). 2.6.2 Quantitative Phonological Analysis   After the Nonlinear Phonological Scan Analysis form is completed, some quantitative measures may be deemed relevant to gain a better picture of a client’s phonological skills. A number of quantitative measures can be performed by hand or computerized analysis (e.g., with Phon, Rose & MacWhinney, 2014; Rose et al., 2006), as noted below. For the current study, data were computed manually. The researcher computed WWM, word length match, word shape match, word stress match and spontaneous word production for each list separately, both as a measure of the child's performance and to describe the test itself. The scan analysis revealed that the child had difficulty with /r/; a quantitative measure was deemed necessary to determine the proportion of /r/ mismatches.  2.6.3 Analysis Procedures for the Child   In terms of nonlinear phonological (qualitative) analysis, only the data sheets were filled out for the current participant because he had no 'goals for intervention.' A  38 second person also filled out the scan form independently. She was a graduate student with a background in Linguistics and Speech-Language Pathology and was familiar with the English version of the scan form, although not with Tagalog. Designation of the client’s ma or strengths and needs were identical. There were some discrepancies in terms of classifying a certain feature as a strength or as inconsistent, but these did not affect the final analysis. For example, the researcher noted some inconsistencies with two-syllable words, but considered them to be a strength overall; on the other hand, though the second person also noted some inconsistencies with two-syllable words, she considered them neither as a strength nor a need. It should be noted that the Nonlinear Phonological Scan Analysis is qualitative; hence, the goal is to arrive at overall similar findings and not necessarily identical scan sheets. Each clinician will have their own standards as to what counts as a strength or as inconsistent. With regards to quantitative analysis, an overall measure, Whole Word Match (WWM, described in the introduction), provides information regarding a client's ability to match all segments of the target word. To be counted as a match, every aspect of the client's productions (e.g., phonemes, word shape, word stress, word length) must be similar to that of the target language. Substitutions and stress shifts are generally counted as mismatches.  Word length match examines the child’s productions in terms of syllables per word when compared to the target. Acceptable variations in word length can be counted as a match as they were in the current study. Word shape match looks into the child’s ability to match the word shape of the target in CV sequences, regardless of substitutions. If the mismatch preserves the word shape, the child’s productions are counted as word  39 shape matches. Word stress match offers information on preservation of the target stress patterns. Stress shifts are counted as mismatches; however, acceptable stress variations are considered matches.  A spontaneous word production measure can provide information on the client's ability to name pictures spontaneously or with needed cues. In the current study, phonemic cues, where the researcher provided the first phoneme of the word, were counted as spontaneous because of the child’s language background. (This is further explored in the Discussion.) Both direct imitations (e.g., if the target was aso ‘dog’ and the clinician asked the child to repeat aso) and delayed imitations (e.g., if the target was aso ‘dog’ and the clinician asked aso o ibon ‘dog or bird’) were not counted as spontaneous.   40 3 Results    The results section begins with a presentation of the child’s reactions to the word list. It includes observations of the mother’s pronunciations, which serve as a guide for analyzing the child’s productions. Analyses performed on the child’s productions follow.  3.1 Reactions to the Word List   Table 4 summarizes the child’s productions. The Warm-up and Screener contains 46 words; however, during testing, the child said klasrum [ˈklasrum] ‘classroom’ for klase [ˈklase] ‘class’. The target was the initial CC, /kl/; hence, klasrum was accepted; but because klasrum was a different word, it was excluded in the counting for matches, resulting in a total of 45 words. There were four instances when the child produced additional words to the target (i.e., nag- in the Screener, naka- and sa in Ext. A, sa in Ext. B). Nag- in Tagalog is a prefix for verbs, naka- is a Tagalog word used to describe a position, state or condition and sa is a Tagalog preposition. During administration of the test, the child spontaneously said [naghiˈikab] for hikab [ˈhikab] ‘yawn’. In addition, the researcher said naka- and sa as part of the story line before pausing for the child to respond; the child then responded with [nakaˈŋitɛʔ] for ngiti [ˈŋitiʔ] ‘smile’ and  sa loˈʔɔb] for loob [loˈʔɔb] ‘inside’ accordingly.  These were included in the count because the child produced all the segments of the adult target.    41 3.2 Mother’s Pronunciations    The mother of the participant provided the adult targets for the Tagalog word list in order to provide a comparison between the child’s productions and the model that he receives from home. In addition, there are various acceptable variants in Tagalog depending on one’s language exposure; this comparison allowed the researchers to distinguish acceptable substitutions from incorrect productions.   The child’s mother occasionally used vowel epenthesis between consonant clusters in both onset and heterosyllabic contexts. Thus, the child’s addition of vowels between clusters was considered an acceptable variant. In terms of segments, the mother produced /t / as [t ɕ] and /  / as more dentalized, which are similar to Spanish pronunciations (Colantoni & Kochetov, 2011); the child was observed to produce /t / and /  / similar to his mother, and these were counted as matches. For vowels, the mother demonstrated vowel alternation with no tense-lax distinctions (e.g., [e]~[ɛ], [o]~[ɔ]); the child also exhibited the same pattern and these were accepted as correct productions, as is common in Tagalog (Schachter & Otanes, 1972). 3.3 Analysis of the Child's Pronunciations    The following section describes in more depth the two types of analyses used to examine the child’s productions. A discussion of the qualitative analysis will be presented first and a quantitative analysis follows.      42 3.3.1 Nonlinear Phonological Analysis (Qualitative)  After transcribing data from the three sets (Warm-up and Screener were counted as one) of the word list, relevant sections of the Nonlinear Phonological Scan Analysis (see Appendix G) were completed. The ‘Preview’ revealed the following:  (1) Word structure: Strength. The child had minimal deletions and epenthesis. There were some stress shifts, but overall, mismatches were limited.  (2) Consonants: The child produced all sounds accurately, with the exception of /r/. Manner and place substitutions were limited to /r/. There were no voicing changes.  (3) Variability and Sequences: Overall, the child’s productions were not variable, nor were there assimilations nor metatheses.  (4) Vowels: Mostly matches. There were some mismatches, but these were limited. Results from the preview guide clinicians in determining if further analyses are required and if so, in which areas. For this case example, the child is a typically developing child with limited mismatches; hence, further analyses were not necessary, with the exception of /r/. However, selected sections of the analyses are completed for demonstration purposes (Word Structure, Client’s Singleton Consonants, Singleton Substitutions, Neighbouring Consonant Sequences, Vowels and Strengths and Needs/Goals).  3.3.1.1 Word Structure: Length, Stress, Word Shape in CV Sequences   The Word Structure analysis (see p. 3 of Appendix G) is separated into two sections, forms used by the child and forms used by the child in comparison with the  43 adult target. In the first section, forms -- length, CV sequences, stress and segments -- frequently used by the child were circled or listed for each syllable category on the left column. The child used 1-, 2-, and 3- or more syllable words and so the inventory boxes were checked. Information on the left was then summarized on the right. Because the child produced words with varying syllable numbers without any difficulty, all syllable categories were marked as ‘Strengths’. In addition, most complex forms were recorded and forms not elicited were listed. For example, for 2-syllable words, the child produced single Cs in all word positions and also WI and WM CCs; these options were circled. On the other hand, WF CCs were not elicited; thus, this was listed in the ‘Not elicited’ section on the right.  For the part B, the child did not delete or reduce syllables; these were left unmarked. The child added a syllable once, but this was left unmarked in the scan because of its single occurrence. The child was observed to shift the stress pattern in both 2-syllable and multisyllabic words and ‘Yes’ was selected. The type was also written down, e.g., wS to Sw. ‘Often’ was not circled because stress shifts were minimal. In terms of CV shape, the child deleted WI single Cs and ‘Yes’ was marked. The child did not delete CC(C) or overuse Cs or Vs; thus, these were unmarked. The child added Cs in two occurrences, but this option was left unmarked in the scan because of its rare occurrence and addition of Cs was not a pattern observed. Optional counts were filled out for %Word Length match and %Word Shape match. The Percentage of Correct Consonants (PCC), which is a count of each consonant produced correctly, was not calculated because the child’s mismatches were limited to /r, h/; thus, obtaining a PCC was not relevant. However, for a child with more mismatches, calculating PCC is  44 recommended. At the bottom of the page, a space for general Strengths and Needs is allotted. This would be entered onto the last page of the Scan to guide clinicians in selecting goals.   3.3.1.2 Consonants   There are two sections dedicated to the analysis of consonants, which are ‘Client’s Singleton Consonants’ (see p. 4 of Appendix G) and ‘Additional Page: Singleton Substitutions: Consonants, Features’ (see p. 6 of Appendix G). Typically, the Singleton Substitution page is an optional analysis.  The ‘Client’s Singleton Consonants’ examines singletons in all word positions. The child produced a variety of phonemes in all word positions and these were listed under ‘Mostly match: Strength’. The word-initial /h/ was inconsistently produced; this was noted under ‘Inconsistent: Partial Strength’. The /r/ was tested, but the child did not produce the sound, and so /r/ was listed under ‘Tested but absent or very marginal’. The child replaced /r/ with [ɹ] or [ɹ  ] in all instances; these were noted under ‘Non-Tagalog speech sounds”. The researchers could not find an IPA symbol to accurately represent what the child was producing instead of /r/. The symbol [ɹ  ] was used to illustrate the child’s attempts to produce the trilled /r/ using his tongue body to create frication. The last two rows were not filled out because they were irrelevant for the child. The bottom table of the inventory page looks into phonemes that are missing/inconsistent in one word position, but found elsewhere in the word. The child produced /h/ consistently in the  45 word-medial position, and inconsistently word initially; thus, /h/ was included in that second table.  Findings from Singleton analysis can be entered in the second section, ‘Additional Page: Singleton Substitutions: Consonants, Features’. Similar to in Vowel section, only feature mismatches are included. In this case, the only substitution was for /r/. The child’s most frequent substitution was [ɹ] for /r/, losing the manner features [+consonantal] and [+trilled]; and thus, this substitution was entered in the specific feature that changed (i.e., [Trill]). Because of minimal substitutions, filling out the ‘Default’ section was not necessary.  At this point, several sections of the Scan Analysis pointed towards the need for a further analysis of /r/. Thus, a quantitative analysis was conducted which is discussed below under Quantitative analysis.  3.3.1.3 Variability and Sequences   The ‘Neighbouring Consonant Sequences’ (see p. 5 of Appendix G) section provides information regarding the child’s ability to produce consonant sequences. Targets and the child’s productions were categorized into the cluster type (e.g., with /r/, with /s/) and word position. The child’s main difficulty was clusters involving /r/ because he either replaced them with either [ɹ  ] or [ɹ] in all word positions. There were also some difficulty with clusters involving /l/ (e.g., [ˈʔɪtːɔg] for /ʔɪtˈlɔg/, [ˈpl  ato] for /ˈplato/).   46 Results from the ‘Preview’ revealed that the child’s productions were not variable. There was no assimilation, dissimilation, metathesis, epenthesis or coalescence observed; thus, the ‘Mismatch Patterns in Neighbouring sequences’ was not filled out. Note that though epenthesis was observed, instances where the child added a sound were acceptable (e.g., between CC in the onset position). The child produced an instance of epenthesis that was not in the onset position (e.g., suklay [ˈsukəlaj] ‘comb’); this was accepted because the adult also used vowel epenthesis to break up clusters across syllable boundaries (e.g., bulaklak [bulakəˈlak] ‘flower’). The ‘Adult Target Sequences’ was also not filled out because there was no change in place of articulation for the child’s most frequent substitutions (i.e., both [ɹ] and /r/ are Coronal).   3.3.1.4 Vowels  Similar to the Word Structure analysis, the ‘Vowel’ section (see p. 7 of Appendix G) is categorized into forms used by the client and in comparison with adult forms. The ‘Vowel’ section is typically an optional analysis. Tagalog vowels and diphthongs used by the child were circled. The child produced [o ʊ], which is not a Tagalog diphthong, and so this was listed under ‘Other’. The child had difficulty with the diphthong [iw], which occurred once in an unstressed syllable; and so [iw] was listed on the right column, under ‘Specific V Needs-Unstressed’. The bottom table compares the child’s forms to the adult target in terms of features. For example, the child substituted [i], [+high] for [e], [-high]; this mismatch was noted under ‘Dorsal [-high] & [-low]’. However, substituting  i] for  47 [e] was not included under ‘Coronal [-back]’ because both  i] and [e] are front sounds preserving the said feature. Mismatches were also classified under ‘Stressed’ or ‘Unstressed’ depending on where they occur. Overall, there were minimal feature mismatches.  3.3.1.5 Summary of the Nonlinear Analysis   The child used in the study was a typically developing child; thus, treatment was not needed. However, a brief explanation of how to summarize the analysis and use the Nonlinear Phonological Scan Analysis for intervention planning is included for demonstration purposes.  All relevant information gathered is transferred into the ‘Strengths and Needs/Goals’ section (see p. 8 of Appendix G). This page is divided into three sections: Word structure, Word position sequences and Features and Segments. Each entry is categorized either as ‘Clear strengths’ or ‘Needs/Potential Goals’. If there were immediate goals, they could be entered on the first page on the Scan Analysis for more in-depth planning.  3.3.2 Quantitative Analysis   Turning to the quantitative analyses (see Table 4), results are presented first for WWM, followed by Word Length, Word Shape, Word Stress and Spontaneous Word Production. The section ends with an analysis of /r/.   48 For WWM, the child frequently substituted English [ɹ] for /r/, which was a mismatch. The WWM for all three sections (Warm-up and Screener, Ext. A and Ext. B) was 59%.  Word Length was a strength for the child because the only instance of mismatch was when the child produced two syllables for a diphthong (i.e., sisiw [ˈsisiju] for [ˈsisiw] ‘chick’).  Word Shape was also a strength for the child. Although he had phoneme mismatches, the word shape was still a match. For example, the child substituted [ɹ] for /r/ in pera [ˈpera] ‘money’, but  ɹ] is still a consonant and so the word shape CVCV was preserved; hence, this was a match. The Word Shape match for all three sections was 89% because of instances when he deleted phonemes (e.g., [ˈikab] for /ˈhikab/) or added them (e.g., [pɹɪnˈsɛsan] for /prɪnˈsesa/).   In terms of Word Stress, the child shifted the stress pattern from wS to Sw for six disyllabic words; multiple patterns were observed of stress shifts in multisyllabic words (e.g., wwwS into Swww, Sww into wwS). Performance in both Screener and Ext. A were within the 90% range for Word Stress match, while only 83% for Ext. B.  Results showed that Ext. A had the lowest percentage of spontaneous productions, followed by the Screener; Ext. B received the highest percentage.   The child had 0% match for /r/ in 17 instances of /r/ as a singleton and 11 instances of /r/ in clusters. Table 5 summarizes what the child substituted for /r/ and how many times he used the said substitutions (e.g., /br/ was substituted by [bɹ] once). These  49 were presented based on word position and segment type (i.e., singleton or cluster). The child demonstrated difficulty with /r/ in both singletons and clusters in all word positions and sequences (e.g., /gr/, /rt/). The child produced substitutions for all but one instance of /r/, which he deleted.   50 4 Discussion  The purpose of this thesis was to provide a comprehensive data collection and analysis method for speech-language pathologists to assess Tagalog-speaking children’s phonological development. The section begins with a discussion of this bilingual child’s performance and a comparison of his development with that of monolingual children. When relevant, the current data are compared and contrasted with studies reviewed in the introduction in order to develop a preliminary understanding of phonological development of Tagalog-speaking children in a Tagalog-English bilingual context. An exploration of the child’s current use of Tagalog and speculations about how it might change, follows. The final sections focus on clinical application of the standard word list for Tagalog assessment (e.g., modifications to the word list, use of the nonlinear phonological analysis), and directions for future research.  4.1 Child’s Pronunciations and Word Use   The participant in the study had a high Word Length, Word Shape and Word Stress match, and a lower WWM (59%). A more detailed examination of WWM revealed that ma ority of the child’s difficulties were related to vowels, word stress and /r/, and some mismatches for /l/ although they were minimal. The presence of multiple difficulties diverges from the findings of Cheng and Sison (1996) where cluster reduction was the only persisting speech production mismatch pattern observed among monolingual Tagalog-speaking 3-year-olds. However, this participant was in a bilingual context and his mismatch patterns point towards the possible different developmental patterns that monolinguals follow when they grow up in a bilingual community.   51  Vowel mismatches in the child’s productions did not have a consistent pattern (e.g., [e] for /a/, [ɔ] for /ɛ/). This finding provides support to the study by Gildersleeve-Neumann, Peña, Davis and Kester (2009) that, as monolinguals learn a second language with a more complex vowel system, vowel reorganization may occur which can result in mismatches in the first language. On the other hand, the presence of vowel mismatches was in contrast to Goldstein and Washington’s (2001) study where almost no vowel mismatches were observed among Spanish-English bilingual 4-year-olds. Although the participant in the study is a 4-year-old, he is also a primarily monolingual Tagalog-speaking child who is learning English as a second language; thus, he is more consistent with the participants in the Gildersleeve-Neumann, Peña, Davis and Kester’s (2009) study because he can be considered an emerging sequential Tagalog-English bilingual. During the time of testing, the child had only been learning English formally for 6 months; hence, vowel mismatches are likely a result of re-organization within his vowel system based on his knowledge of Tagalog and current understanding of English. The child’s mother used standard Tagalog vowels in her productions. When acceptable variations were considered, the child’s mismatches demonstrated that his difficulties were not due to inconsistencies in the adult model, but point towards a second language influence. Even when a child has mastered the basic vowels of Tagalog, a temporary interference may result from the child’s exposure to English; this provides support to the hypothesis that the presence of vowel mismatches is dependent on the time and amount of exposure to the second language.  Another area of inconsistency was with word stress patterns. In Tagalog, stress occurs on the final or penultimate syllable, while stress in English is more unpredictable.  52 Extending the findings of Gildersleeve-Neumann, Peña, Davis and Kester (2009), the difference in Tagalog and English stress patterns may also cause a re-organization in the child’s representational framework, which can result in mismatches. The child exhibited the lowest word stress match for Ext. B, when compared with the Screener and Ext. A. This behaviour was unexpected because Ext. B included more exemplars of basic targets. Further examination of the words with stress mismatches showed that six of the mismatches were disyllabic words and the remaining four were multisyllabic words. The child’s greatest difficulty with disyllabic words could stem from the different stress patterns among disyllabic words in Tagalog and English. In English, there is a bias towards a trochaic stress pattern, i.e., strong-weak, (Bernhardt & Stemberger, 2000) while in Tagalog, an iambic pattern (e.g., weak-strong) is more frequent (J. Peralejo, September 11, 2014). The stress mismatches could be a result of interference from English. In addition, it is also possible that because Ext. B contains only disyllabic words, the child’s particular difficulty with trochaic versus iambic stress pattern was highlighted.  In terms of /r/, the child’s most frequent substitution was the English  ɹ] for both singletons and clusters. Goldstein and Washington (2001) also found the substitution of [ɹ] for /r/ to be used by bilingual children who have English-influenced Spanish. Another substitution used by the child was [ɹ  ], which was his attempt in producing the Tagalog trill, showing that although English acquisition was possibly influencing his Tagalog pronunciations (e.g., the use of [ɹ]), the child was still making attempts to keep the two languages separate by learning the trill. On the other hand, Bernhardt et al. (in press) found that monolingual Spanish-speaking children in Granada demonstrated [ɹ] for /r/, at  53 least some of the time, even without English influence. The behaviour observed among monolingual Spanish children shows that English influence may not be the only factor to consider when analyzing a child’s production of /r/. The child’s difficulties with /r/ were consistent with monolingual speakers of both English and Spanish (Goldstein & Washington, 2001); however, this was in contrast with findings from monolingual speakers of Tagalog where /r/ was reported to be mastered by 4-year-olds (Riguer & Panganiban, 2004; Silva, 1985). These provide further support that different developmental norms may be expected for Tagalog-speaking children growing up in a bilingual environment or just reflect individual variation in learning.  The child also demonstrated some inconsistencies with his /l/-clusters; however, he was able to produce /l/ with 100% accuracy in singletons. His irregular production of /l/ in clusters was consistent with the findings of Goldstein and Washington (2001) in that liquid simplification was a substitution process occurring greater than 10% in 4-year-old bilingual children, with mismatches for /l/ less than those for /r/. However, this behaviour contrasts with the finding of Bernhardt et al. (in press), where /l/ clusters were quite accurate among monolingual Spanish-speaking children who are typically developing and those with protracted phonological development.  The child showed evidence of typical development due to the high matches for different evaluations of prosodic structure (e.g., word shape, word length).  On the other hand, a WWM of 59% is low when compared with other languages. In Ayyad’s (2011) study of monolingual Kuwaiti children, she found a WWM average of 80.7% for 3- to 5- 54 year-olds; similarly, Schmitt, Howard and Schmitt (1983) found an 80% WWM average for English-monolingual 4-year-olds. Although the child’s WWM may be considered low or at-risk according to Ayyad’s (2011) criterion, it is important to take into account the child’s linguistic environment because 59% may be considered typical for a monolingual Tagalog-speaking child who is becoming an emergent Tagalog-English bilingual, when the mismatches were analyzed. Aside from linguistic context, the proportion of /r/ in the sample may also have resulted in a lower WWM. For example, the typical age of acquisition of the English /ɹ/ is between 3- to 6-years-old (Sander, 1972). If a sample that has multiple words with /ɹ/ was collected from a 2-year-old child, a low WWM will result because most, if not all, words will be produced with mismatches. A low WWM is not surprising because a 2-year-old is not expected to have acquired /ɹ/ yet. Although efforts were made to have equal representation of phonemes (see Appendix B, C and D), having more words with /r/ was inevitable because /r/ is one of the four consonants that can occur as a second consonant in a Tagalog cluster, e.g., 11 /r/ clusters, 6 /s/ clusters and 9 /l/ clusters.  4.2 Child’s Use of Tagalog    The participant in the study belonged to a family who demonstrated the third pattern of typical language use among Filipino families, where both parents and children speak Tagalog. However, since the child started attending a preschool where English was the primary language used, his accustomed pattern was probably changing. As the child  55 becomes older, a shift to the first pattern of language use may be observed as he begins to explore and establish his sense of identity. The child may alternatively continue with the third pattern of language use, but slowly incorporate more English in his conversations as he is formally introduced to the language. This reveals the possibility of having different levels of Tagalog use within the third pattern of language use. Thus, in addition to changing patterns of language use (e.g., third pattern to first pattern), there may also be changes within a specific pattern.  As Tagalog-speaking children grow up in a bilingual environment, English-influenced Tagalog may be observed. Although the child in the study only started learning English formally in the prior 6 months, he was already demonstrating some probable English influence in his speech (e.g., use of [ɹ] for /r/). The child also exhibited behaviours that were consistent with Tagalog-influenced English (e.g., [klak] for ‘clock’). This influence may be more common among families with the first pattern of language use such that their English is implicitly influenced by their Tagalog even when they do not speak Tagalog often. The current participant’s English was just starting to develop and thus the focus for the current study was Tagalog (but see implications for future research).  Data collected from the child exhibited some similarities and differences in terms of expected patterns from both monolinguals and bilinguals. In this study, the child was an emerging sequential bilingual learner; hence, developmental norms for both English and Tagalog needed to be considered. In addition, examining aspects that were similar and different in both languages was crucial in order to explain certain mismatch patterns that may not be exhibited by monolingual children.   56 4.3 Reflection on Clinical Application of the Procedures  The current study leads to some implications for use of the Tagalog word list as a phonological assessment tool. A description of the current child’s performance and suggestions on administering the test are first presented. The next part examines the three word lists in detail and provides recommendations on how to modify the lists. The advantages of using nonlinear phonological analysis are discussed, and, finally, other considerations in using the tool are explored.  4.3.1 Word List: The Child's Reactions and their Implications  Table 4 has shown that for the whole word list, the child spontaneously produced only 51% of the words. However, when delayed imitation was provided (i.e., presented with two choices where the target word was said first), the child immediately responded with the correct word. There were times when the child responded with the right word even when the researcher had not yet completed the presentation of choices, revealing that the child likely had the word in his lexicon, but was having difficulty finding the right word when asked to do so or that some of the pictures used were ambiguous. For this reason, the researcher provided phonemic cues in nine instances throughout the word list, and those were sufficient for the child to identify the picture. It is important to note that there were instances when the child initially responded in English, and when given more time, provided the Tagalog counterpart spontaneously; thus, providing enough time for a response is critical to gain a better understanding of the child’s abilities.  The child was observed to name pictures in English but used Tagalog vowels for certain words, e.g., [klak] for ‘clock’ and  ˈkokonat] for ‘coconut’, which could be a  57 result of the child’s learning environment (e.g., parents). Another explanation could be that the child assumes that by using Tagalog vowels, an English term becomes a Tagalog word because this is commonly observed in loan words (e.g., hotdog [ˈhatdɔg] ‘hotdog’). The behaviour exhibited by the child is a common phenomenon observed among Tagalog speakers (J. Peralejo, personal communication, September 11, 2014), which is similar to what Goldstein and Washington (2001) described as Spanish-influenced English, but in this case, Tagalog-influenced English. A more in-depth explanation of this influence is beyond the scope of the paper.  The Warm-up and Screener were administered in 10 minutes. Ext A. took a total of 6 minutes, while Ext. B lasted for 5 minutes. Although these are reasonable times considering the attention span of young children, it can be more challenging should the clinician decide to administer the Screener plus one of the Extension sets. The child in this study completed both Screener and Ext. A in one sitting before needing a 10-minute break. In addition, having a story line helped the child stay focused on the task because it provided a context for naming pictures. The story can be modified according to the needs of the child (e.g., shorter stories for younger children). Note again that, for the participant in this study, the whole word list was administered; however, for clinical purposes, the Warm-up and Screener would be administered first. Depending on the results of Screener, the clinician can opt not to collect any other data or administer either Extension A or B. The current word list contains a total of 109 words, in particular, 46 words for the Warm-up and Screener, 34 for Ext. A, and 29 for Ext. B. Although the whole word list would not be administered to children, having the total number of words of each word list be multiples of 5 will make calculating of percentages easier. Thus, it is recommended  58 that the word list be decreased to a total of 100 words such that 45 words will be allotted for the Warm-up and Screener, 30 for Ext. A and 25 for Ext. B. A total of nine words would be deleted; readers are directed to Appendix H for a detailed description of the words recommended for deletion (e.g., word length, word stress, phonemes lost). The following section describes each list in more detail.  4.3.1.1 Screener   The child spontaneously identified 49% of the words in the Screener, which would not provide sufficient information should the clinician decide to administer only the Screener. The word klase ‘class’ was hard to elicit without priming the child with the word in a previous sentence and it was also hard to illustrate. The child said klasrum ‘classroom’ spontaneously, which also contains an initial CC, and is easier to elicit and illustrate; hence, klasrum is recommended to replace klase. The words alitaptap ‘firefly’ and ampalaya ‘bitter gourd’ were uncommon words in the local area. Including them in the warm-up with the goal of familiarizing the child with the words did not result in spontaneous productions when presented later on. However, they provide valuable information in terms of the child’s ability to produce multisyllabic words that include different syllable shapes (e.g., repeating and varying CVC). It is suggested to include these words as part of the warm-up, but remove them as part of the word list. Alitaptap is part of both the warm-up and Ext. A; hence, taking out alitaptap from Ext. A will not affect the total word count for the Warm-up and Screener. These changes bring the word count of the Warm-up and Screener to 45 instead of 46. The image used for ‘tiger’ was a picture of a small animal figurine; a better image is warranted because the child had difficulty identifying the image.   59 Overall, the child identified animals (e.g., unggoy ‘monkey’, manok ‘chicken’) and outside things (e.g., araw ‘sun’, ulap ‘clouds’) spontaneously in English at first; he only used the Tagalog word after delayed imitation was provided. He responded spontaneously in Tagalog for basic household items (e.g., kumot ‘blanket’). For vehicles and body parts, some words were readily identified in Tagalog, while some appeared more familiar in English. This observation was consistent with our knowledge that Tagalog-speaking families often use English words for certain word categories.  4.3.1.2 Extension A   Ext. A received the lowest percentage (41%) of spontaneous productions, confirming that the list was more complex. The image used for ‘shampoo’ was difficult to identify even when provided with a context; using a more concrete image, which may include its function (e.g., an image of a child putting shampoo on his head) may help the child. Including some examples of a specific category before asking the child to name an item from the said category (e.g., Pula, dilaw at ___? ‘Red, yellow and ____?’) provided an additional support for the child. The word traysikel ‘tricycle’ was difficult because it was confused with bicycle. A brief description of the characteristics of a tricycle (e.g., It has three wheels) can be helpful, but traysikel should probably be deleted. Finding an image of radyo ‘radio’ was difficult and so a cartoon drawing was used. The participant was not able to identify this picture and it is uncertain if a child would be able to identify the word as a real object or a cartoon drawing, because radios are not as common now. However, there are very few Tagalog words familiar to children with word-medial /  /; thus, radyo should probably be retained. Delayed or direct imitation can be used to elicit  60 the word. Another difficult word was prinsesa ‘princess’ because the English word was more commonly used. In addition, a contextual sentence was needed in order to elicit the word; thus, the word should probably be removed from the list. As mentioned in the Screener, alitaptap should be removed from Ext. A. Lapis ‘pencil’ can also be removed because its features are redundant to other words on the list (e.g., WM /p/). The removal of these four words brings Ext. A to 30 words, instead of 34.     In general, school items (e.g., krayola ‘crayons’, gunting ‘scissors’) and less commonly used household items (e.g., martilyo ‘hammer’) appeared to be more familiar in English because the child spontaneously named items in English. These were likely used often in preschool where English was the mode of communication. However, he did demonstrate knowledge of the Tagalog counterpart because he immediately responded with the correct answer when provided with delayed imitation. As with the Screener, animals were more familiar in English. On the other hand, the child was familiar with food items in Tagalog because the words are typically seen in Filipino households (e.g., tinapay ‘bread’, hotdog ‘hotdog’).    4.3.1.3 Extension B  Ext. B consisted of words with simple syllable shapes, short word lengths and more commonly used words, and as expected, received the highest percentage (66%) of spontaneous productions among the three sets. The selected words were clearly easier for children to identify. The word walis ‘broom’ is a common household item in the Philippines, but may be uncommon elsewhere. However, there are only a few WI /w/s in Tagalog and so walis should be retained. Again, delayed or direct imitation can be used  61 for elicitation. The English word for hagdanan ‘stairs’ is more familiar to children; hence, the word hagdanan should be removed. The word hayop ‘animal’ is not a commonly used word outside the Philippine context; the English term is more frequently used. Nonetheless, there are only a few Tagalog words with WI /h/s that meet the word selection criteria; thus, keeping the word is recommended. Similar to Ext. A, the features of lapis ‘pencil’ are redundant to other words on the list (e.g., WI /l/). Although Ext. B will have no exemplars of WM /p/, Ext. B will always be administered following the Screener, which already has 4 WM /p/s; thus, lapis should be deleted. Also mentioned in Ext. A, the image used for the word ‘shampoo’ should be replaced. Throughout the whole test, the child only commented that he did not know the name of the picture when shown bituwin ‘stars’. Thus, this word may not be familiar to a child outside of the Philippines; bituwin should be deleted. The word pera ‘money’ was the only word that required direct imitation. Given the child’s consistent performance of providing the accurate response when given choices, it is likely that the child did not know the word; therefore, taking out the word from the list is suggested. These four deletions result in a total of 25 total words for Ext. B. Basic household items (e.g., kutsara ‘spoon’), toys (e.g., robot ‘robot’ and commonly seen animals (e.g., pusa ‘cat’, uod ‘worm’) were familiar in Tagalog. For fruits and colours, some were identified spontaneously in Tagalog while some in English. Again, this phenomenon -- where familiarity of a word varies in either English or Tagalog -- was consistently observed throughout the word list. As noted above, Appendix H gives details on the words to be eliminated.    62 4.3.2 Nonlinear Phonological Analysis   Using the Nonlinear Phonological Scan Analysis in this study has demonstrated several advantages for clinicians in terms of conducting a phonological assessment or treatment for a child. The Preview page guides clinicians to areas of strength and possible difficulty. As a result, clinicians can focus their analyses only on specific areas of difficulty, thereby shortening the time spent in data analysis. Nonlinear analysis also goes beyond just pointing out needs, but helps identify mismatch patterns, describing them in more detail. For example, substituting [p] for /f/ changes the manner of articulation; in particular, [+continuant] becomes [-continuant], but maintains the place of articulation. In addition to highlighting areas of difficulty, the child’s strengths are recognized, which will be helpful in intervention planning. Moreover, the analysis not only allows for comparison with an adult target, but also provides a way to look into the child’s skills without having to compare to an adult target (i.e., inventory). Thus, the analysis allows clinicians to evaluate the child’s skills holistically. 4.3.3 Other Considerations    As mentioned in the introduction, the Tagalog language includes borrowings from both Spanish and English and that these borrowings have been integrated into Tagalog (French, 1988). In addition, one’s exposure to these borrowings varies depending on multiple factors (e.g., SES, geographic location). Thus, clinicians should ensure that the adult target used to compare the child’s productions is similar to the dialect of the child. By doing so, mismatches can be analyzed as acceptable variations if the child’s dialect permits such alternations.   63  In analyzing the child’s productions, a computer program such as Phon (Rose & MacWhinney, 2014; Rose et al., 2006) could be used for younger children or those with a number of mismatch patterns across the phonological hierarchy. The use of computer programs allows the clinicians to allocate more time for qualitative analysis and for intervention planning.  4.4 Limitations and Future Research   The current study had several limitations that should be addressed in the future. Pilot testing of the word list was only performed on one child; thus, more children should be included to further test the validity of the word list. Moreover, children between the ages of two and a half to seven should also be tested to determine which words are familiar to younger and older children. Additional data should be collected from both monolinguals and bilinguals to determine the suitability of the test for each group. In addition, data from these two groups of learners will allow for comparison between the two populations, which can then shed additional light into the phonological development of typically developing Tagalog-speaking children. Finally, studies using the word list that include Tagalog-speaking children with protracted phonological development should be completed in order to determine what modifications, if any, are necessary to be able to use the word list as part of a phonological assessment battery.  4.5 Conclusion   Research regarding the Tagalog language and speech and language development of Tagalog-speaking children are limited. Ideally, the clinician assessing the child will be a native speaker of the child’s language (Bernhardt & Zhao, 2010); however, it is  64 acknowledged that most clinicians outside of the Philippines do not speak Tagalog. The current study involved creating a Tagalog word list and the Nonlinear Phonological Scan Analysis (Tagalog), which provides a starting point for clinicians, both who speak Tagalog or do not, to evaluate the phonological system of a child with a background in Tagalog. The tool can be used as a way to evaluate the child’s ability to produce Tagalog phonemes, stress patterns and syllable structures; it can also be used to determine potential influences from English. This paper hoped to provide some steps toward understanding the phonological development of typically developing Tagalog-speaking children in a bilingual context outside of the Philippines; and from there, provide insight to those with protracted phonological development.       65 Table 1. Tagalog Vowels  Coronal [-back] Dorsal  [+back] [+high] i [ɪ]  u [ʊ] [-high,-low] (mid) e [ɛ] [ə] o [ɔ] [ʌ] [+low]  a [ɑ] Note. Adapted from Schachter, P. (2013). Tagalog. In C. Bernard (Ed.), The world’s major languages (pp. 833-855). New York, NY: Routledge.   66 Table 2. Tagalog Diphthongs Diphthongs Word-initial Word-medial Word-final /aj/    /aw/    /iw/    /ɔj/ or /uj/    /ɛj/    Note. Adapted from Schachter, P. & Otanes, F. (1972). Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.     67 Table 3. Tagalog Consonants  Labial Labial-Dorsal [+labio-dental]  Coronal Coronal-Dorsal  Dorsal Glottal Nasal m    n  ŋ  Stop p, b   t, d  k, g ʔ Fricative   (f, v)a s (z,  )a   h Affricate     (t ,   )a    Trill    rb    Lateral     l    Glide   w   j  h Note. Adapted from Tagalog Language (n.d.). In NationMaster Encyclopedia. Retrieved June 15, 2013 from http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Tagalog-language aBorrowed sounds are enclosed in parentheses.  b/ɾ/ is frequently substituted for /r/.    68 Table 4. Quantitative Data Tables in % Match  Warm-up and Screener (/45)a Ext. A (/34)a Ext. B (/29)a Total (/108)a Screener + Ext. A (/79)a Screener + Ext. B (/74)a Whole Word ([ɹ] as mismatch) 58 (26)  56 (19) 66 (19) 59 (64) 57 (45) 61 (45) Word Length  98 (44) 100 (34) 100 (29) 99 (107) 99 (78) 99 (73) Word Shape  89 (40) 88 (30) 90 (26) 89 (96) 89 (70) 89 (66) Word Stress  93 (42) 91 (31) 83 (24) 90 (97) 92 (73) 89 (66) Spontaneous Word Productionb  49 (22)  41 (14)  66 (19)  51 (55)  46 (36) 55 (41)  aValues in parentheses are raw scores. Each column has a different # of items.  bPhonemic cues were counted as spontaneous word production.    69 Table 5. Analysis of /r/ as a Singleton and in Clusters  Screener Extension A Extension B Target       Sub # Target   Sub     # Target   Sub     # Word-initial /r/  /gr/ /tr/ /br/ [ɹ] [  ] [gɹ  ] [tɹ  ] [bɹ] 1 1 1 1 1 /r/  /tr/ /kr/ /pr/ [ɹ] [ɹ  ] [tɹ] [kɹ] [pɹ] 1 1 1 1 1 /r/ [gl]  1 Word-medial /r/  /rj/ /gr/ /skr/ [ɹ] [ɹ  j] [ɹj] [gɹ  ] [skɹ] 1 1 1 1 1 /r/  /rt/ [ɹ] [ɹ  ] [ɹt]  3 1 1 /r/ [ɹ]  1 Word-final /r/ [ɹ] 2 /r/ [ɹ] del 1 1 /r/ /rs/ [ɹ] [ɹs] 1 1 Note. Sub = substitution; Del = deletion 70 Figure 1. Hierarchical Representation                                            Foot Phonological Phrase Segment Syllable Syllable Features Segment C V Word Nucleus Rime Onset Onset Rime Nucleus C V Segment Segment Word Foot /p/ /u/ /s/ /a/ Features Features Features  71 Figure 2. Feature Geometry                        Root Laryngeal lateral nasal continuant consonantal sonorant Labial Place rounded labiodental Coronal Dorsal back anterior   distributed grooved low high voiced constricted glottis spread glottis  72 References  Agustin, M. A. B. & Soriano, M. K. S. (2007). Canonical forms exhibited by 20 normally-developing two-year-old Filipino children in Metro Manila using spontaneous speech sampling. (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Philippines.   Ayyad, H. S. (2011). Phonological development of typically developing Kuwaiti Arabic-speaking preschoolers. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.  Bernhardt, B. M. (1992). Developmental implications of nonlinear phonological theory. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 6(4), 259-281. doi:10.3109/02699209208985536 Bernhardt, B. M., Bopp, K.D., Daudlin, B., Edwards, S.M., & Wastie, S.E. (2010). Nonlinear Phonological Intervention. In A.L. Williams, S. McLeod & R.J. McCauley (Eds.), Interventions for Speech Sound Disorders (pp. 315-331). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co. Bernhardt, B. M., Hanson, R., Perez, D., Ávila, C., Lleó, C., Stemberger, J. P., Carballo, G., Mendoza, E., Fresneda, D., & Chávez-Peon, M. (in press). Word structures of Granada Spanish-speaking preschoolers with typical versus protracted phonological development. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders.  73 Bernhardt, B. H. & Holdgrafer, G. (2001). Beyond the basics I: The need for strategic sampling for in-depth phonological analysis. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 18-27. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2001-002) Bernhardt, B. M., & Stemberger, J.P. (1998). Handbook of phonological development from a nonlinear constraints-based perspective. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Bernhardt, B. M., & Stemberger, J. P. (2000). Workbook in nonlinear phonology for clinical application. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed (Copyright reverted, 2013).  Bernhardt, B. M., & Stemberger, J. P. (2010, June). Panel on cross-linguistic study of protracted phonological development: An overview and preliminary data. Paper presented at the 13th International Clinical Phonetics and Linguistics Conference (ICPLA), Oslo, Norway.   Bernhardt, B. M., & Stoel-Gammon, C. (1994). Nonlinear phonology: Introduction and clinical application. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37(1), 123-143. doi:10.1044/jshr.3701.123 Bernhardt, M. B., & Zhao, J. (2010). Nonlinear phonological analysis in assessment of protracted phonological development in Mandarin. Canadian Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 34(3), 168-180. Retrieved August 27, 2013 from http://209.217.105.25/english/resources/database/files/2010_CJSLPA_Vol_34/CJSLPA_2010_Vol_34_No_03_Fall.pdf#page=18 Bernthal, J. E., Bankson, N. W., & Flipsen, P. (2012). Articulation and phonological disorders: Speech sound disorders in children (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.   74 Bérubé, D., Bernhardt, B. M. & Stemberger, J. P. (2013). Un test de phonologie du Français: Construction et utilization [A test of French phonology: Construction and use]. Canadian Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 37(1), 26-40. Retrieved April 22, 2014 from http://209.217.105.25/english/resources/database/files/2013_CJSLPA_Vol_37/CJSLPA_Spring_2013_Vol_37_No_1.pdf#page=28 Chan, F. (2003). Maintenance of Filipino languages in Queensland. The International Journal of Language, Society and Culture, 13, 1-12. Retrieved February 24, 2014 from  http://www.aaref.com.au/en/publications/journal/archived-articles/issue-13-2003/ Cheng, W. T., Olea, T. C., & Marzan, J. C. (2002). Speech-language pathology in the Philippines: Reflections on the past and present, perspectives for the future. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 54, 79-82. doi: 1021–7762/02/0542–0079 Cheng, W. T. & Sison, P. P. M. (1996). Determining the phonological processes of twenty normally-developing 3-year-old Filipino children in a picture naming task. (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Philippines.    Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). Sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.  Colantoni, L. & Kochetov, A. (2011). An articulatory study of sibilant fricatives in two Spanish varieties. In S.M. Alvord (Ed.), Selected proceedings of the 5th conference on laboratory approaches to romance phonology (pp. 84-97). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.    75 Daniel, P. (2012, September 14). Apple iPhone 5 has three microphones and HD voice support, what’s in it for you. (Web log comment). Retrieved on October 1, 2014 from http://www.phonearena.com/news/Apple-iPhone-5-has-three-microphones-and-HD-voice-support-whats-in-it-for-you_id34486 De la Cruz, M. M. L., Rubite, R. R. & Ulan, C. D. S. (2005). Pilot testing of the revised “Halo-Halo Espesyal” reading passage for Filipino cleft lip and/or cleft palate speakers. (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Philippines.   Department of Education. (1987). Patakaran sa edukasyong lilinggwal ng 1987 [The 1987 policy on bilingual education]. Retrieved June 15, 2013 from http://www.deped.gov.ph/index.php/issuances/depedorders/1987/document/dos1987052pdf?format=raw dsp mobile. (n.d.). iOS 6 and frequency responses of the iDevices. (Web log comment). Retrieved on October 1, 2014 from http://dspmobile.de/2012/10/ios-6-and-frequency-responses-of-the-idevices/ Espiritu, Y. L. (1994). The intersection of race, ethnicity, and class: The multiple identities of second-generation Filipinos. Identities, 1(2-3), 249-273. doi:10.1080/1070289X.1994.9962507 French, K. M. (1988). Insights into Tagalog reduplication, infixation and stress from nonlinear phonology. Arlington, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics, Inc.  French, K. M. (1991). Secondary stress in Tagalog. Oceanic Linguistics, 30(2), 157-178. doi:10.2307/3623086  76 Gildersleeve-Neumann, C., Peña, E., Davis, B. & Kester, E. (2009). Effects on L1 during early acquisition of L2: Speech changes in Spanish at first English contact. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition, 12(2), 259-272. doi:10.1017/S1366728908003994 Goldstein, B. (2001). Transcription of Spanish and Spanish-influenced English. Communication Disorders, 23(1), 54-60. doi:10.1177/152574010102300108 Goldstein, B., Fabiano, L. & Iglesias, A. (2004). Spontaneous and imitated productions in Spanish-speaking children with phonological disorders. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 35, 5-15. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2004/002) Goldstein, B. & Iglesias, A. (2001). The effect of dialect on phonological analysis: Evidence from Spanish-speaking children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 394-406. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2001/034) Goldstein, B. & Washington, P. (2001). An initial investigation of phonological patterns in typically developing 4-year-old Spanish-English bilingual children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 153-164. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2001/014) Gonzales, A. (1996). Using two/three languages in Philippine classrooms: Implications for policies, strategies and practices. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 17(2-4), 210-219. doi:10.1080/01434639608666273 Grunwell, P. (1985). Phonological assessment of child speech (PACS). San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.   77 Himmelmann, N. P. (2005). Tagalog. In A. Adelaar & N.P. Himmelmann (Eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar (pp. 350-376). New York, NY: Routledge.  Holm, A., Crosbie, S. & Dodd, B. (2007). Differentiating normal variability from inconsistency in children’s speech: Normative data. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 42(4), 467-486. doi:10.1080/13682820600988967 Jakobson, R., Fant, C. M. & Halle, M. (1952). Preliminaries to speech analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.  Kaufman, D. (2007).  Tagalog clitics and prosodic phonology. Retrieved March 31, 2014 from http://www.academia.edu/1919337/Tagalog_clitics_and_prosodic_phonology Li, G. (2000). Family literacy and cultural identity: An ethnographic study of a Filipino family in Canada. McGill Journal of Education, 35(1), 9-29. Retrieved May 30, 2014 from http://mje.mcgill.ca/index.php/MJE/article/viewArticle/8510 Lewis, M. P., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (Eds.). (2013). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (17th ed.). Dallas, TX: SIL International.  Llamzon, T. (1966). Tagalog phonology. Anthropological Linguistics, 8(1), 30-39. Retrieved February 19, 2013 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30029139 Malabonga, V. (2009). Heritage voices: language – Tagalog. Retrieved May 21, 2014 from http://www.cal.org/heritage/research/voices_tagalog.pdf   78 Malabonga, V. & Marinova-Todd, S. (2007). Filipino speech acquisition. In S. McLeod (Ed.), The international guide to speech acquisition (pp. 340-349). Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning.  Masterson, J. & Bernhardt, B. (2001). Computerized Articulation and Evaluation Phonology System (Version 1) [computer software]. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation (copyright reverted to authors).  Marzan, J. (2003). Bilingual education in the Philippines. (Unpublished manuscript). University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  Marzan, J. (2007). The bilingual language learning environment in the Philippines: An exploratory study utilizing a focus group discussion. (Unpublished manuscript). University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Philippines.   Marzan, J. (2009). An annotated bibliography of selected studies from UPM-CAMP on the development of speech and/or language in normally functioning Filipino children. (Unpublished manuscript). University of the Philippines Diliman, Manila, Philippines.  National Statistics Office. (2012). Population and housing. Retrieved June 15, 2013 from http://www.census.gov.ph/statistics/census/population-and-housing Oster, A. (n.d.) What format does an iPhone voice recorder use? Retrieved on October 1, 2014 from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/format-iphone-voice-recorder-use-57197.html Ramos, T. (1971). Tagalog structures. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.  79 Riguer, K. L. & Panganiban, K. A. B. (2004). The study of phonemic acquisition among normally developing Filipino children aged 2-5 years old. (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Philippines.   Rose, Y., & MacWhinney, B. (2014). The PhonBank initiative. In J. Durand, U. Gut, & G. Kristoffersen (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Corpus Phonology (pp. 380–401). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rose, Y., MacWhinney, B., Byrne, R., Hedlund, G., Maddocks, K., O’Brien, P., & Wareham, T. (2006). Introducing Phon: A software solution for the study of phonological acquisition. In D. Bamman, T. Magnitskaia, & C. Zaller (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 489–500). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Sabir, E. S. (1992). Pagsala ng larawang pagsusulit ng kaayunan sa pagbigkas sa antas ng kataga [The screening picture test of articulation consistency in the word level]. (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Philippines.  Sander, E. (1972). When are speech sounds learned? Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders. 37, 55-63. doi:10.1044/jshd.3701.55 Schachter, P. (2013). Tagalog. In C. Bernard (Ed.), The world’s major languages (pp. 833-855). New York, NY: Routledge.  Schachter, P. & Otanes, F. (1972). Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.   80 Schmitt, L. S., Howard, B. H., & Schmitt, J. F. (1983). Conversation speech sampling in the assessment of articulation proficiency. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 14, 21-214. doi:10.1044/0161-1461.1404.210 Silva, P. A. S. (1985). The acquisition of sounds in 153 Filipino subjects between the ages of two years and four months and four years and eleven months. (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Philippines.   Soriano, J. (2008). Picture articulation kit: Block 17. (Unpublished manuscript). University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Philippines.  Statistics Canada. (2012). 2011 Census of population: Linguistic characteristics of Canadians. Retrieved June 15, 2013 from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/121024/dq121024a-eng.htm Tagalog Language (n. d.). NationMaster Encyclopedia. Retrieved June 15, 2013 from http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Tagalog-language Vancouver School Board. (2012). Cultural diversity in our schools. Retrieved June 15, 2013 from http://ourfuture.vsb.bc.ca/report/assets/documents/VBE_Complete_Cultural_Diversity_Charts_revised_Jan_24_2012.ppt Yap, F. A. (1956). A synchronic analysis of Tagalog phonemes. (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Santo Tomas, Manila, Philippines.  81 Appendices  Appendix A. Tagalog Word List Warm-up and Screener   Orthography Adult pronunciation English translation Word Length Word Stress Word Shape  buwan b(u)ˈwan  moon 1 or 2a (w)S C(V)CVC tren t(ə)rɛn train 1 S C(V)CVC dyaryo ˈ  arjo newspaper 2 Sw CVCCV klase ˈk(ə)lase class 2 Sw C(V)CVCV gripo ˈg(ə){ɾ  /r}ipo faucet 2 Sw C(V)CVCV plato ˈp(ə)lato  plate 2 Sw C(V)CVCV braso ˈb(ə)raso  arm 2 Sw C(V)CVCV tigre ˈtig(ə)re tiger 2 Sw CVC(V)CV langgam laŋˈgam ant 2 wS CVCCVC kotse ˈkɔ(t)t e car 2 Sw CV(C)CV yelo ˈjɛlo ice 2 Sw CVCV hikab ˈhikab  yawn 2 Sw CVCVC payong  ˈpaj{ɔ/ɔ }ŋ umbrella  2 Sw CVCVC medyas ˈmɛ  as socks 2 Sw CVCVC dahon ˈdahɔn leaf 2 Sw CVCVC ngipin ˈŋip{i/ɛ}n teeth 2 Sw CVCVC kumot ˈkum{ɔ/u}t blanket 2 Sw CVCVC manok maˈnɔk chicken 2 wS CVCVC gatas ˈgatas milk 2 Sw CVCVC papel paˈpɛl paper 2 wS CVCVC tuhod ˈtuh{ɔ/u}d knee 2 Sw CVCVC baboy ˈbab{ɔj/uj} pig 2 Sw CVCVV baboy ˈbab{ɔj/uj} pig 2 Sw CVCVV nanay ˈnanaj  mother 2 Sw CVCVV sisiw ˈsisiw chick 2 Sw CVCVV reyna ˈrɛ na queen 2 Sw CVVCV itlog (ʔ)ɪtˈlɔg egg 2 wS (ʔ)VCCVC  82 Orthography Adult pronunciation English translation Word Length Word Stress Word Shape  itlog (ʔ)ɪtˈlɔg egg 2 wS (ʔ)VCCVC unggoy ˈ(ʔ)uŋg{ɔ /u } monkey 2 Sw (ʔ)VCCVV ulap ˈ(ʔ)ulap clouds 2 Sw (ʔ)VCVC ibon ˈ(ʔ)ibɔn bird 2 Sw (ʔ)VCVC araw ˈ(ʔ)araw sun 2 Sw (ʔ)VCVV ays krim ˈ(ʔ)a sk(ə)rim ice cream  2 Sw (ʔ)VVCC(V)CVC regalo reˈgalo gift 3 wSw CVCVCV watawat waˈtawat flag 3 wSw CVCVCVC watawat waˈtawat  flag 3 wSw CVCVCVC sapatos saˈpatɔs shoes 3 wSw CVCVCVC tinidor tɪnɪˈ ɔr fork 3 wwS CVCVCVC ospital (ʔ)ɔspiˈtal hospital 3 wwS (ʔ)VCCVCVC tsokolate t ɔkɔˈlate chocolate 4 wwSw CVCVCVCV helikopter hɛliˈk{a/o}ptɛr helicopter 4 wwSw CVCVCVCCVC telepono tɛˈlɛpono telephone 4 wSww CVCVCVCV ampalaya (ʔ){a/ʌ}mp{a/ʌ}-l{a/ʌ}ˈj{a/ʌ} bitter gourd 4 wwwS (ʔ)VCCVCVCV ampalaya (ʔ){a/ʌ}mp{a/ʌ}-l{a/ʌ}ˈj{a/ʌ} bitter gourd 4 wwwS (ʔ)VCCVCVCV eroplano (ʔ)ɛr{ɔ /ɔ}ˈp(ə)lano airplane 4 wwSw (ʔ)VCVC(V)CVCV alitaptap (ʔ)alitapˈtap firefly 4 wwwS (ʔ)VCVCVCCVC aThe count depends on the production of buwan, [buˈwan] or [bwan].    83 Extension A  Orthography Adult pronunciation  English translation Word Length Word Stress Word Shape  niyog n(i)ˈ ɔg coconut 1 or 2a (w)S C(V)CVC shampoo ˈ ampu shampoo 2 Sw CVCCV kendi ˈkɛn i candy  2 Sw CVCCV gunting ˈguntiŋ scissors 2 Sw CVCCVC hotdog ˈhat ɔg hotdog 2 Sw CVCCVC ngiti ˈŋit{i/ɛ}ʔ smile 2 Sw CVCVC yoyo ˈjojo yoyo 2 Sw CVCV radyo ˈra  o radio 2 Sw CVCV relos ˈrɛlɔ(s) watch 2 Sw CVCV(C) jacket ˈ  akɛt jacket 2 Sw CVCVC zipper ˈ ɪpɛr zipper 2 Sw CVCVC walis waˈlis broom 2 wS CVCVC sabaw saˈbaw soup 2 wS CVCVV loob loˈʔɔʔb inside 2 wS CVCVC itim (ʔ)iˈtim black 2 wS (ʔ)VCVC lapis ˈlapis pencil 2 Sw CVCVC uod ˈ(ʔ)uʔ{ɔ/u}d worm 2 Sw (ʔ)VCVC tsinelas t iˈnɛlas slippers 3 wSw CVCVCVC prinsesa p(ə)rɪnˈsɛsa princess 3 wSw C(V)CVCCVCV krayola k(ə)raˈjola crayon 3 wSw C(V)CVCVCV spageti (ʔ)(i)s(ə)paˈgɛti spaghetti 3 or 4b wSw (ʔ)(V)C(V)CVCVCV traysikel ˈt(ə)rajsɪkɛl tricycle 3 Sww C(V)CVVCVCVC kutsara ku(t)ˈt ara spoon 3 wSw CV(C)CVCV kompyuter kɔmˈp utɛr computer 3 wSw CVCCCVCVC martilyo marˈtɪl o hammer 3 wSw CVCCVCCV simbahan sɪmˈbahan  church 3 wSw CVCCVCVC bulaklak bula- {k˭ˈl/k(ə) ˈl}ak flower 3 wwS CVCVC(V)CVC dalawa dalaˈwa two 3 wwS CVCVCV bubuyog buˈbuj{ɔ/u}g bee 3 wSw CVCVCVC tinapay tɪˈnapaj bread 3 wSw CVCVCVV  84 Orthography Adult pronunciation  English translation Word Length Word Stress Word Shape  orasan (ʔ)ɔraˈsan clock 3 wwS (ʔ)VCVCVC paruparo par{ /u}paˈro butterfly 4 wwwS CVCVCVCV elepante (ʔ)ɛlɛˈpante elephant  4 wwSw (ʔ)VCVCVCCV alitaptap (ʔ)alitapˈtap  firefly 4 wwwS (ʔ)VCVCVCCVC aThe count depends on the production of niyog, [niˈ ɔg] or [njɔg].  bThe count depends on the spageti, [spaˈgɛti] or [(ʔ)ispaˈgɛti].          85 Extension B   Orthography Adult pronuncation English translation Word Length Word Stress Word Shape  zoo zu zoo  1 S CV nars  nars nurse  1 S CVCC shampoo ˈ ampu shampoo 2 Sw CVCCV mangga maŋˈga mango 2 wS CVCCV hagdanan  hagˈdan(an) stairs 2 or 3a wS(w) CVCCV(C)(V)C doktor  ɔkˈtɔr doctor 2 wS CVCCVC suklay ˈsuk(ə)laj comb 2 Sw CVC(V)CVV ngiti ˈŋit{i/ɛ}ʔ smile 2 Sw CVCVC yoyo ˈjojo yoyo 2 Sw CVCV pusa ˈpusaʔ cat 2 Sw CVCVC pera ˈpɛra money 2 Sw CVCV buhok buˈh{ɔ/u}k hair 2 wS CVCVC jacket ˈ  akɛt jacket 2 Sw CVCVC robot ˈrobɔt robot 2 Sw CVCVC lapis ˈlapis pencil 2 Sw CVCVC gamot gaˈmɔt medicine 2 wS CVCVC walis waˈlis broom 2 wS CVCVC hayop ˈha ɔp animal 2 Sw CVCVC tubig ˈtubig water 2 Sw CVCVC saging ˈsagiŋ banana 2 Sw CVCVC dilaw diˈlaw yellow 2 wS CVCVV loob loˈʔɔb inside 2 wS CVCVC isda (ʔ)ɪsˈ aʔ fish 2 wS (ʔ)VCCVC asul (ʔ)aˈsul blue 2 wS (ʔ)VCVC itim (ʔ)iˈtim black 2 wS (ʔ)VCVC uod ˈ(ʔ)uʔ{ɔ/u}d worm 2 Sw (ʔ)VCVC tsinelas t iˈnɛlas slippers 3 wSw CVCVCVC kutsilyo ku(t)ˈt ɪljo knife 3 wSw CV(C)CVCCV bituwin bit(u)ˈwin star 2 or 3b w(w)S CVC(V)CVC aThe count depends on the production of hagdanan, [hagˈdan] or [hagˈdanan]. bThe count depends on the production of bituwin, [bituˈwin] or [bitˈwin]. 86 Appendix B. Warm-up and Screener Phoneme Counts Consonants: Singleton  Word-Initial Word-Medial (WM) Word-Final     Native Tagalog  WM1 WM2 WM3  /m/ 2 1   2 /p/ 2 4 1  2 /b/ 2 or 3a  3   1 /w/ 2 0 or 1a 2   /n/ 1 4  2 5 /t/ 4 4 3 1 3 /d/ 1  1  1 /s/ 2 3   3 /r/ 2 2   2 /l/ 1 5 4  2 /j/ 1 1  2  /ŋ/ 1    1 /k/ 2 2 1  1 /ɡ/ 1 1   2 /ʔ/ (12)b     /h/ 2 2        Additional consonants  /z/      / /      /t / 1 0 or 1c    /  / 1 1    aThe count depends on the production of buwan, [buˈwan] or [bwan]. b/ʔ/ are optional word initially. cThe count depends on the production of kotse, [ˈkɔtt e] or [ˈkɔt e].      87 Consonants: Clusters   Word Position Segments  Word-initial pl (1), br (1), bw (0 or 1)a, tr (1), kl (1),      gr (1)                      Word-medial (WM) WM1 mp (2), tl (2), sp (1), skr (1), rj (1), ŋg (2), gr (1), tt  (0 or 1)b WM2 pl (1)  WM3 pt (2) Word-final  aThe count depends on the production of buwan, [buˈwan] or [bwan]. bThe count depends on the production of kotse, [ˈkɔtt e] or [ˈkɔt e].   Vowels: Singleton   Vowels Stressed Unstressed /a/ 23 to 25a,b 14 to 21a,c /ɛ/ or /e/ 5 9 or 10d /ɪ/ or /i/ 6 8 or 9d /ɔ/ or /o/ 5 or 6b 17 to 19e /u/  4 0 to 3e,f aThe count depends if the third syllable in alitaptap is stressed. bThe count depends on the production of helikopter, [hɛliˈkoptɛr] or [hɛliˈkaptɛr]. cDepends on the production of two instances of ampalaya, [ampalaˈja] or [ʌmpʌlʌˈja]. dThe count depends on the production of ngipin, [ˈŋipin] or [ˈŋipɛn]. eDepends on the production of tuhod, [ˈtuhɔd] or [ˈtuhud]; and kumot, [ˈkumɔt] or [ˈkumut]. fThe count depends on the production of buwan, [buˈwan] or [bwan].         88 Vowels: Diphthongs   Diphthongs Stressed Unstressed /aj/ 1 1 /aw/  1 /iw/  1 /ɔj/ or /uj/  3 /ɛj/ 1   89 Appendix C. Extension A Phoneme Counts Consonants: Singleton   Word-Initial Word-Medial (WM) Word-Final       Native Tagalog   WM1 WM2 WM3  /m/ 1    1 /p/ 1 2 3  1 /b/ 2 2   1 /w/ 1  1   /n/ 0 or 1a 2   2 /t/ 1 2 3  1 /d/ 1    1 /s/ 2 1 2  3 or 4b /r/ 2 2 1 1 2 /l/ 2 6 2  1 /j/ 1 2 or 3a 1   /ŋ/ 1    1 /k/ 3 1 1  1 /ɡ/ 1 1   3 /ʔ/ (5)c 2   1 /h/ 1  1      Additional consonants /z/ 1     / / 1     /t / 1 0 or 1d    /  / 1 1    aThe count depends on the production of niyog, [niˈjɔg] or [njɔg].  bThe count depends on the production of relos, [ˈrɛlɔs] or [ˈrɛlɔ].  c/ʔ/ is optional word initially. dThe count depends on the production of kutsara, [kutˈt ara] or [kuˈt ara].        90 Consonants: Clusters   Word Position Segments  Word-initial pr (1), nj (0 or 1)a, tr (1), sp (1), kr (1)                      Word-medial (WM) WM1 mb (1), mp (1), mpj (1), nd (1), nt (1), ns (1), td (1), rt (1), tt  (0 or 1)b WM2 lj (1), kl (1)  WM3 pt (1), nt (1)  Word-final  aThe count depends on the production of niyog, [niˈ ɔg] or [njɔg]. bThe count depends on the production of kutsara, [kutˈt ara] or [kuˈt ara].   Vowels: Singleton   Vowels Stressed Unstressed /a/ 12 or 13a 18 or 19a /ɛ/ or /e/ 5 7 or 8b /ɪ/ or /i/ 5 11 to 14b,c,d /ɔ/ or /o/ 6 7 to 9e /u/ 4 5 to 7e aThe count depends if the third syllable in alitaptap is stressed. bThe count depends on the production of ngiti, [ˈŋitiʔ] or [ˈŋitɛʔ]. cThe count depends on the production of niyog, [niˈjɔg] or [njɔg]. dThe count depends on the spageti, [spagɛti] or [(ʔ)ispaˈgɛti].  eThe count depends on the production of uod, [ˈ(ʔ)uʔud] or [ˈ(ʔ)uʔɔd] and bubuyog, [buˈbujug] or [buˈbujɔg].  Vowels: Diphthongs   Diphthongs Stressed Unstressed /aj/ 1 1 /aw/ 1  /iw/   /ɔj/ or /uj/   /ɛj/    91 Appendix D. Extension B Phoneme Counts Consonants: Singleton  Word-Initial Word-Medial (WM) Word-Final    Native Tagalog  WM1 WM2 WM3  /m/ 1 1   1 /p/ 2 1   1 /b/ 2 2   1 /w/ 1  0 or 1a   /n/ 1 1 0 or 1b  2 /t/ 1 2 or 3a   3 /d/ 2    1 /s/ 2 2   3 /r/ 1 1   1 /l/ 2 2 1  1 /j/ 1 2    /ŋ/ 1    1 /k/ 1 1   1 /ɡ/ 1 1   1 /ʔ/ (4)c  2     3 /h/ 2 1       Additional consonants /z/ 1     / / 1     /t / 1 0 or 1d    /  / 1     aThe count depends on the production of bituwin, [bituˈwɪn] or [bitˈwɪn]. bThe count depends on the production of hagdanan, [hagˈdan] or [hagˈdanan]. c/ʔ/ is optional word initially. dThe count depends on the production of kutsilyo, [kutˈt ɪljo] or [kuˈt ɪljo].         92 Consonants: Clusters    Word Position Segments  Word-initial                       Word-medial (WM) WM1  mp (1), tw (0 or 1)a, sd (1), ŋg (1), kl (1),   kt (1), gd (1), tt  (0 or 1)b WM2 lj (1)  WM3  Word-final rs (1) aThe count depends on the production of bituwin, [bituˈwin] or [bitˈwin]. bThe count depends on the production of kutsilyo, [kutˈt ɪljo] or [kuˈt ɪljo].  Vowels: Singleton   Vowels Stressed Unstressed /a/ 9 8 or 9a /ɛ/ or /e/ 2 1 or 2b /ɪ/ or /i/ 5 8 or 9b /ɔ/ or /o/ 5 or 6c 6 or 7d /u/ 6 or 7c 3 to 5d,e aThe count depends on the production of hagdanan, [hagˈdan] or [hagˈdanan]. bThe count depends on the production of ngiti, [ˈŋitiʔ] or [ˈŋitɛʔ]. cThe count depends on the production of buhok, [buˈhuk] or [buˈhɔk]. dThe count depends on the production of uod, [ˈ(ʔ)uʔud] or [ˈ(ʔ)uʔɔd]. eThe count depends on the production of bituwin, [bituˈwin] or [bitˈwin].  Vowels: Diphthongs    Diphthongs Stressed Unstressed /aj/  1  /aw/ 1  /iw/   /ɔj/ or /uj/   /ɛj/     93 Appendix E. Story Line  Warm-up: Tagalog   Pupunta ng paaralan si Anna. Tuwang-tuwa siya kasi marami siyang matututunan. Sabi ng titser niya maraming bagong gamit na nakatago sa loob ng klase ngayon. Pagpasok ni Anna, saan siya pumunta? Sa (bilugan ang buong litrato) _____________ (klase). Habang nasa klase, kailangan niyang hanapin ang mga nakatagong gamit. Noong nahanap niya ang mga gamit, hindi niya alam ang mga pangalan nila. Tinulungan siya ng titser niya. Tulungan din natin siya. Nahanap niya ang _____________ (baboy) at ang ___________ (itlog). Nakita rin niya ang ________________ (ampalaya), isang (ituro ang alitaptap) ________________ (alitaptap) isang ______________ (watawat) at ang (ituro ang dyaryo) ______________ (dyaryo). Wow, ang dami na niyang alam na bagong salita. Napagod si Anna. Ano ang ginagawa niya? (ituro ang bibig ng bata) ___________ (hikab) RRRING. Tapos na ang klase. Uuwi na si Anna. Pagdating sa bahay, may ikukuwento ang kanyang nanay. Pakinggan natin si Nanay at tulungan natin sa Anna.   Warm-up: English translation   Anna is going to school. She is excited because she will learn a lot of new things. The teacher said there would be some cool new things hidden around the room in class today. When she got to school, where did Anna go? To her (draw a circle around the whole picture) __________(class). When she’s in class, she has to go look for the hidden things. When she found the things, she did not know what to call them. Her teacher helped her. Let’s help Anna too. She found a ___________ (pig) and some __________ (eggs). She also found some ___________ (bitter gourd), one (point to the firefly) ________ (firefly), a ___________ (flag) and some __________ (newspaper). Wow, she now knows a lot of words. Anna is tired. What is she doing? (point to her mouth) __________ (yawn). RRRING. Class is over. Anna is going home. When she got home, her mom has a story for her. Let’s listen to the story and let’s help Anna.          94 Screener: Tagalog  Isang araw, tumingin sa labas si Anna at nakita niya ang (ituro ang araw) ____________(araw), mga (ituro ang ulap) ________________(ulap), at isang ______________ (eroplano).  Maganda ang panahon kaya naisip niyang pumunta ng zoo. Tinupi niya ang kanyang (ituro ang kumot) ____________(kumot), sinuot ang kanyang __________________(medyas) at _______________(sapatos) at nagdala siya ng (ituro ang payong) _____________(payong).  Nagpaalam siya kay (ituro si tatay) tatay at siya at ang kanyang (ituro si nanay) ____________(nanay) ay sumakay ng (kotse).  Pagdating sa zoo, maraming silang nakitang hayop. Tignan natin yung mga nakita nila. Nakita nila ang ___________(ibon), isang __________ (tigre), isang _____________(unggoy) at ang _____________(baboy). Wow, ang daming hayop. Meron pa silang nakitang (ituro ang manok) ______________ (manok) at ano ang tawag natin sa anak ng manok? (ituro ang sisiw) _______________ (sisiw). Nakakita si Anna ng ____________(itlog), isang (ituro ang langgam)_____________ (langgam) at ano ang binubuhat ng langgam? (ituro ang dahon) ________________(dahon). Nakikita ba natin ang langgam sa kulungan or sa lupa?  Pagkatapos pumunta ng zoo, gutom na gutom na si Anna. Sabi ni nanay, “Maghugas ka muna ng kamay bago kumain”, kaya binuksan niya ang (ituro ang gripo) _____________ (gripo). Kumuha siya ng (ituro ang plato) _____________(plato) at (ituro ang tinidor) _____________(tinidor). Tignan natin yung mga kinain niya. Kumain siya ng ____________(tsokolate), _____________(ays krim), at isang mapait na gulay na tinawag nating ______________(ampalaya). Ano sa tingin mo ang una niyang kinain? Uminom din siya ng isang basong __________(gatas), at tubig na may (ituro ang yelo) ______________ (yelo).  Pagkatapos kumain, busog na busog si Anna. Kaya naisip niyang maglakad sa parke. May mga nakita siyang importanteng tao, ang (ituro ang hari) hari at (ituro ang reyna) ____________(reyna). Nakasakay sila ng _______________(helikopter). Nakita ng hari at reyna si Anna at binigyan siya ng maraming ____________ (regalo). Nakatanggap si Anna ng isang ______________(watawat), ________________(telepono) mga ____________(papel), at isang ____________(tren).  Tuwang-tuwa si Anna. Tumakbo siya pauwi para ipakita sa pamilya niya ang mga regalo. Pero tumakbo siya ng mabilis; kaya nahulog siya at nasugatan ang kanyang (ituro ang braso) _____________ (braso) at (itruo ang tuhod) _____________ (tuhod), at nasaktan ang kanyang (ituro ang ngipin) ____________ (ngipin). Pero hindi naman siya gaaanong nasaktan kaya hindi niya kailangang pumunta ng (ituro ang buong ospital) ____________ (ospital). Tinulungan siya ng nanay niya. Pagod na si Anna. Tumungin siya sa labas at nakita niya ang (ituro ang buwan) _____________ (buwan). Gabi na kaya natulog na si Anna…Ano kaya ang gagawin ni Anna bukas? Tignan natin!   95 Screener: English Translation   One day, Anna looked out the window and she saw the (point to the sun) _________ (sun), some (point to the clouds) ____________ (clouds), and an __________________ (airplane). It was sunny so she thought of going to the zoo. She folded her (point to the blanket) _________ (blanket), put on her _____________ (socks) and ________________ (shoes) and brought an (point to the umbrella) _______________ (umbrella).  She said goodbye to her daddy and she and (point to mom) ______________(mommy) and got in the _______________ (car).  When they arrived at the zoo, they saw lots of animals. Let’s see what they saw. They saw a ____________ (bird), a _____________ (tiger), a ______________ (monkey), and a _______________ (pig). Wow, so many animals. They also saw a (point to the chicken) ____________ (chicken) and what do we call the baby of a chicken? (point to the chick) ______________ (chick). Anna saw some (point to the eggs) ______________ (egg), and an (point to the ant) ______________ (ant) and what is the ant carrying? (point to the leaf) _____________ (leaf). Do we see ants in cages or just on the ground?  After visiting the zoo, Anna was very hungry. Mom said, "Wash your hands before eating", so she turned on the (point to the tap) ______________ (tap). She took out a (point to the plate) ______________ (plate) and a (point to the fork) _______________ (fork). Let’s see what she ate. She ate some _______________ (chocolate), a scoop of _______________ (ice cream), and a bitter vegetable called _____________ (bitter gourd). Which one did she eat first do you think? She also drank a glass of ______________ (milk) and water with (point to the ice) _____________ (ice).  After all that food, Anna was very full.  So she went for a walk to the park. She saw some VERY SPECIAL PEOPLE: a king and a (point to the queen) _____________ (queen). They came out of a _______________ (helicopter). The king and queen saw Anna and gave her a lot of ______________ (gifts). Anna received a _____________ (flag), a ___________ (telephone), a piece of ______________ (paper), and a ________________ (train).  Anna was very excited. She ran home to show the gifts to her family. But she ran too fast; she fell and scraped her (point to the arm) ___________ (arm) and (point to the knee) _______________ (knee) and hurt her (point to the teeth) _____________ (teeth). But she wasn't hurt much; she didn't have to go to the _____________ (hospital).  Her mom helped her feel better. But she was tired. She peeked outside and saw the (point to the moon) _____________ (moon). It was nighttime already, so she went to bed...I wonder what she will do tomorrow. Let's find out!    96 Extension A: Tagalog   Wow. Kaarawan ngayon ni Anna. Siya ay masayang-masaya. Hindi siya nakasimangot, pero siya ay naka (ituro ang ngiti ng bata) _____________ (ngiti).  Tumingin siya sa ______________(orasan). Malapit na ang birthday party niya. Kailangan na niyang maghanda. Hinugasan niya ang kanyang mukha gamit ang (ituro ang sabon) sabon. Pagkatapos, hinugasan niya nag kanyang buhok gamit ang (ituro ang shampoo) ___________ (shampoo). Pagkatapos maligo, sinuot niya ang kanyang ____________(jaket). Hinila ni Anna ang kanyang (ituro ang zipper) _________ (zipper).  Ding-dong. Unang dumating si Maria sakay ng kanyang _____________ (traysikel). Marami siyang dalang regalo. Tignan natin ang mga dinala niya. Nagdala siya ng isang _____________ (yoyo), ______________(relos), isang pares ng _______________ (gunting) at mga (bilugan ang mga krayola) _____________(krayola). Maraming kulay ang krayola: merong pula, dilaw at (ituro ang kulay itim) _______________ (itim).  Ding-dong. Sumunod na dumating si Pat. Dinala niya ang paborito niyang laruan, mga manika. Merong (ituro ang prinsipe) prinsipe at (ituro ang prinsesa) ___________(prinsesa). Nagdala rin siya ng maraming pagkain. Tignan natin ang mga dinala niya. Nagdala siya ng (ituro ang kendi) ____________(kendi), mga _____________(tinapay), _______________(hotdog), _______________(spageti) at mga ____________(niyog). Nagdala rin siya ng (ituro ang sabaw) ____________(sabaw) at iinumin natin ang sabaw gamit ang (ituro ang kutsara) ____________(kutsara).  Ding-dong. Sumunod dumating si Ben at nagdala siya ng mga iba’t ibang hayop. Tignan natin ang mga hayop na dinala niya. Meron isang magandang _______________(paru-paro), isang ____________(uod), at isang (ituro ang bubuyog)_____________(bubuyog) na nilalaro ang (ituro ang bulaklak) _____________(bulaklak), at mga ______________(elepante). Ilang elepante ang dala niya? (ituro ang bawat elepante habang nagbibilang) Isa, ______________(dalawa). Nagdala rin siya ng isang insekto na may ilaw ang buntot (ituro ang buntot na may ilaw). Tawag natin sa insektong ito ay ______________(alitaptap).  Ding-dong. Nahuling dumating si Sara.  Galing siya ng (ituro ang buong simbahan) _______________ (simbahan). May dala rin siyang mga regalo. Tignan natin ang mga dinala niya. Merong ____________(walis), isang _____________(martilyo), isang pares ng ____________(tsinelas) at isang gamit na tumutugtog ng musika. Ang tawag natin dito ay ___________(radyo).  Masayang-masaya si Anna sa kaarawan niya. Marami siyang natanggap na regalo. Pero kailangan na niyang itago ang mga laruan. Tinago niya ang mga laruan sa (ituro ang litrato at ilagay mo ang iyong kamay sa loob ng kahon) ____________ (loob) ng kahon. Sabi ng nanay niya, “Magpasalamat tayo sa mga kaibigan mo. Magsulat tayo ng card sa ______________ (kompyuter).” Sila ay nagsulat ng card at ito ay para sa iyo! (Bigyan ang bata ng isang thank you card). THE END.  97 Extension A: English Translation   Cool. Today is Anna’s birthday and she is very excited. She is not frowning, but she is wearing her biggest (point to the smile) ________________ (smile). She looked at the _______________(clock). It was almost time for her birthday party. She needed to get ready.  She washed her face with soap. Then she washed her hair with_____(point to the shampoo) ____________(shampoo). Then, she put on her ____________ (jacket). She pulled up her (point to the zipper) _____________ (zipper).  Ding-dong. Maria arrived first on her ___________ (tricycle). She brought a lot of gifts. Let’s look at the gifts she brought. She brought a ____________ (yoyo), a ____________ (watch), a pair of _____________ (scissors) and some (draw a circle around all the crayons) _____________ (crayons). The crayons came in different colours: red, yellow and (point to the black crayon) ______________ (black).  Ding-dong. Pat arrived next. She brought her favourite toys, dolls. There was a prince and a (point to the princess) _____________ (princess). She also brought a lot of food. Let’s see what food she brought. She brought some ___________ (candy), a loaf of ______________ (bread), ____________ (hotdog), ______________ (spaghetti) and some ______________ (coconut). Pat brought some (point to the soup) ______________ (soup) and we drink soup with a (point to the spoon) ________________ (spoon).  Ding-dong. Ben arrived next and he brought different animals. Let’s see what animals he brought. There was a beautiful _____________ (butterfly), a ______________ (worm), a _____________ (bee) who is playing with the (point to the flower) _____________ (flower), and an ______________ (elephant). How many elephants are there? One, ___________ (two). He also brought an insect that has a light on his tail. It’s called a ________________ (firefly).  Ding-dong. Sara arrived last. She came from ______________ (church). She also brought gifts. Let’s see what they are. There was a _____________ (broom), a __________ (hammer), a pair of ____________ (slippers), and a gadget that plays music. We call this a _____________ (radio).  Anna was so happy on her birthday. She got lots of gifts. But it was time to clean up. She put the toys  (gesture “in” with your hands and point to the picture) _________ (in) the box. Her Mom said: "Let's make thank you cards for your friends on the ____________(computer).”  And so they did! Here is one for you! (Give the child a thank you card.)  THE END.    98 Extension B: Tagalog  Kaarawan ngayon ni Anna. Siya ay masayang-masaya. Hindi siya nakasimangot, pero siya ay naka (ituro ang ngiti ng bata) _____________ (ngiti).  Malapit na ang birthday party niya. Kailangan na niyang maghanda. Hinugasan niya ang kanyang mukha gamit ang (ituro ang sabon) sabon. Pagkatapos, hinugasan niya ang kanyang buhok gamit ang (ituro ang shampoo) ___________ (shampoo). Pagkatapos maligo, ginamit niya ang (ituro ang suklay)____________ (suklay) para ayusin ang kanyang (ituro ang buhok) ______________ (buhok). Tinanggal niya ang kanyang _____________ (tsinelas) at sinuot ang kanyang _____________ (jaket). Pagkatapos magbihis, bumaba si Anna ng ______________ (hagdan).  Ding-dong. Simula ng dumating ang mga kaibigan ni Anna.  Ito si Maria. Nagdala siya ng mga regalo. Tignan natin ang mga dinala niya. Nagdala siya ng _____________ (yoyo), isang ____________(robot), at mga _____________ (lapis).   Ding-dong. Sumunod dumating si Tito Henry. Siya ay isang (ituro ang doktor) ____________(doktor). Kasama niya si Tita Sara. Nagtratrabaho rin siya sa ospital. Siya ay isang (ituro ang nars) _______________ (nars). Nagdala sila ng mga ______________(gamot). Anong ang kulay ng gamot? ________________(asul) Nagdala rin sila ng ____________ (walis) para linisin ang ospital.   Ding-dong. Nahuling dumating si Ben.  Nagdala siya ng mga litrato. Tignan natin ang mga litrato. Ano tawag sa kanilang lahat? (bilugan ang mga hayop) ______________ (hayop). Oo, sila ay mga hayop at nakatira sila sa ________________(zoo). Nagdala rin siya ng litratro ng ibang hayop, tignan natin. Wow, mayroong ____________ (isda), ________________(uod) at isang _____________(pusa). Anong kulay ng pusa? (ituro ang katawan ng pusa na kulay itim) _____________(itim). Nauuhaw ang pusa, kailangan niyang uminom ng (ituro ang tubig sa baso)_______________ (tubig).  Lahat ng kaibigan ni Anna ay dumating na. Sila ay nagugutom. Binigyan sila ni Anna ng prutas: mayroong ______________ (saging) at ______________ (mangga). Ano ang kulay ng saging? (ituro ang saging) _____________ (dilaw). Hiniwa ni Anna ang prutas gamit ang ______________ (kutsilyo).  Kailangan ng umuwi ng mga kaibigan ni Anna. Gabi na at lumabas na ang buwan at mga (ituro ang bituwin) ____________ (bituwin). Masayang-masaya si Anna sa kaarawan niya. Marami siyang natanggap na regalo.  Pero kailangan na niyang itago ang mga laruan. Tinago niya ang mga laruan sa (ituro ang litrato at ilagay mo ang iyong kamay sa loob ng kahon) ____________ (loob) ng box. Nag-iwan siya ng isang regalo para sa iyo! THE END.   99 Extension B: English Translation   Wow. Today is Anna’s birthday.  She is very excited. She is not frowning; she is wearing her biggest (point to the smile) ________________ (smile). It was almost time for her birthday party. She needed to get ready.  She washed her face with soap. Then she washed her hair with_____? (point to the shampoo) ____________(shampoo). She used a ________ (comb) to brush her (point to the hair) _____________ (hair). Then, she took off her (slippers) and put on her ____________ (jacket). She went down the (use your fingers to go down the stairs) _______________ (stairs).  Ding-dong. People are coming to her party!  Here's Maria. She brought some gifts. Let’s look at the gifts she brought. She brought a ____________ (yoyo), a ____________ (robot) and some _____________ (pencils). Ding-dong. Uncle Henry arrived next. He is a ____________ (doctor). He came with Aunt Sara. She works in the hospital too. She is a ___________ (nurse). They brought some _____________ (medicine) for Anna's toy hospital. What is the colour of the pills? (point to the pills) ______________ (blue).  They also brought a toy _____(broom) to clean up the hospital.  Ding-dong. Ben arrived last. He brought some pictures. Let’s look at the pictures. What do we call all of these? (draw a circle around all the animals)  _______________ (animals). Yes, they are animals in a ______________ (zoo). He brought pictures of other animals too; let’s see. Wow, there’s a ____________ (fish), a ____________ (worm) and a _____________ (cat). What colour is the cat? (point to the black part of the cat) _____________ (black). The cat is thirsty, it needs to drink (point to the water in the cup) _____________(water).  All of Anna’s friends have arrived. They are hungry. Anna gave them some fruit: a ____________ (banana) and a __________(mango).  What colour is the banana? (point to the banana) ________________ (yellow). Anna cut the fruit with a ________________ (knife).  Now it’s time for Anna’s friends to go. It’s already nighttime and the moon is out and also the (point to the stars) _____________ (stars). Anna was so happy on her birthday. She got a lot of gifts. But it was time to clean up the toys. She put them (gesture “in” with your hands and point to the picture) _________ (in) the box. She left one out - a sticker for you! THE END.      100 Appendix F. Transcriptions of the Child’s Productions   Warm-up and Screener   Orthography Adult pronuncation Child’s productions  buwan b(u)ˈwan  bwan tren t(ə)rɛn tɹ  ɛn dyaryo ˈ  arjo ˈ  aɹjo klase ˈk(ə)lase ˈklasrum gripo ˈg(ə){ɾ  /r}ipo ˈgɹ  ipo plato ˈp(ə)lato  ˈpl   ato braso ˈb(ə)raso  ˈbɹaso tigre ˈtig(ə)re ˈtigɹ  e langgam laŋˈgam laŋˈgam kotse ˈkɔ(t)t e ˈkɔt ɕe yelo ˈjɛlo ˈjɛlo hikab ˈhikab  naghiˈikab  payong  ˈpaj{ɔ/ɔ }ŋ ˈpajɔ ŋ medyas ˈmɛ  as ˈmɛ  as dahon ˈdahɔn ˈdahɔn ngipin ˈŋip{i/ɛ}n ˈŋipɛn kumot ˈkum{ɔ/u}t ˈkumɔt manok maˈnɔk maˈnɔk gatas ˈgatas ˈgatas papel paˈpɛl paˈpɛl tuhod ˈtuh{ɔ/u}d ˈtuhɔd baboy ˈbab{ɔj/uj} ˈbabɔj baboy ˈbab{ɔj/uj} ˈbabɔj nanay ˈnanaj  ˈnanaj  sisiw ˈsisiw ˈsisiju reyna ˈrɛ na ˈ  ejna itlog (ʔ)ɪtˈlɔg ˈʔɪtːɔg itlog (ʔ)ɪtˈlɔg ʔɪtˈlɔg unggoy ˈ(ʔ)uŋg{ɔ /u } ˈʔuŋgɔ  ulap ˈ(ʔ)ulap ˈʔulap ibon ˈ(ʔ)ibɔn ˈʔibɔn  101 Orthography Adult pronuncation Child’s productions  araw ˈ(ʔ)araw ˈʔaɹaw ays krim ˈ(ʔ)a sk(ə)rim ˈʔajskɹim regalo reˈgalo ɹiˈgalo watawat waˈtawat waˈtawat watawat waˈtawat  waˈtawat  sapatos saˈpatɔs saˈpatɔs tinidor tɪnɪˈ ɔr tɪnɪˈ ɔɹ ospital (ʔ)ɔspiˈtal ʔɔspiˈtal tsokolate t ɔkɔˈlate t ɕɔkɔˈlate helikopter hɛliˈk{a/o}ptɛr hɛliˈkaptɔɹ telepono tɛˈlɛpono tɛˈlɛplɪnto ampalaya (ʔ){a/ʌ}mp{a/ʌ}-l{a/ʌ}ˈj{a/ʌ} ˈʔampala a ampalaya (ʔ){a/ʌ}mp{a/ʌ}-l{a/ʌ}ˈj{a/ʌ} ˈʔampala a eroplano (ʔ)ɛr{ɔ /ɔ}ˈp(ə)lano ʔɛɹ  jɔˈpano alitaptap (ʔ)alitapˈtap ʔalitapˈtap             102 Extension A   Orthography Adult pronunciation  Child’s productions  niyog n(i)ˈ ɔg niˈ ɔg shampoo ˈ ampu ˈ ampu kendi ˈkɛn i ˈkɛn i gunting ˈguntiŋ ˈguntiŋ hotdog ˈhat ɔg ˈat ɔg ngiti ˈŋit{i/ɛ}ʔ nakaˈŋitɛʔ yoyo ˈjojo ˈ o ʊ o ʊ radyo ˈra  o ˈɹa  o relos ˈrɛlɔs ˈɹ  elɔs jacket ˈ  akɛt ˈ  akɛt zipper ˈ ɪpɛr ˈ ɪpeɹ walis waˈlis waˈlɪs sabaw saˈbaw saˈbaw loob loˈʔɔb sa loˈʔɔb itim (ʔ)iˈtim ʔiˈtim lapis ˈlapis ˈlapis uod ˈ(ʔ)uʔ{ɔ/u}d ˈʔuʔud tsinelas t iˈnɛlas t ɕiˈnɛlas prinsesa p(ə)rɪnˈsɛsa pɹɪnˈsɛsan krayola k(ə)raˈjola kɹeˈjola spageti (ʔ)(i)s(ə)paˈgɛti s  pɪˈgɛti traysikel ˈt(ə)rajsɪkɛl tɹajsɪˈkɛl kutsara ku(t)ˈt ara k ˈt ɕaɹ  a kompyuter kɔmˈp utɛr komˈp utə martilyo marˈtɪl o maɹˈtiljo simbahan sɪmˈbahan  sɪmˈbahan  bulaklak bula{k˭ˈl/k(ə)ˈl}ak bulakˈlak dalawa dalaˈwa ˈdalawa bubuyog buˈbuj{ɔ/u}g buˈbujug tinapay tɪˈnapaj tɪˈnapaj orasan ˈ(ʔ)ɔrasan ˈʔɔɹasan  103 Orthography Adult pronunciation  Child’s productions  paruparo par{ /u}paˈro paˈɹupaɹo elepante (ʔ)ɛlɛˈpante ʔɛlɛˈpante alitaptap (ʔ)alitapˈtap  ʔalitapˈtap                           104 Extension B   Orthography Adult pronuncation Child’s productions  zoo zu zu nars  nars naɹs shampoo ˈ ampu ˈ ampu mangga maŋˈga maŋˈga hagdanan  hagˈda(na)n ˈhagdan doktor  ɔkˈtɔr ˈ ɔktɔɹ suklay ˈsuk(ə)laj ˈsukəlaj ngiti ˈŋit{i/ɛ}ʔ ˈŋitiʔ yoyo ˈjojo ˈjo ʊ o ʊ pusa ˈpusaʔ ˈpusaʔ pera ˈpɛra ˈpɛɹa buhok buˈh{ɔ/u}k ˈbuhuk jacket ˈ  akɛt ˈ  akɛt robot ˈrobɔt ˈglobɔt lapis ˈlapis ˈlapis gamot gaˈmɔt ˈgamɔt walis waˈlis waˈlis hayop ˈha ɔp ˈa ɔp tubig ˈtubig ˈtubig saging ˈsagiŋ ˈsagiŋ dilaw diˈlaw diˈlaw loob loˈʔɔb saloˈʔɔb isda (ʔ)ɪsˈ aʔ ʔɪsˈ aʔ asul (ʔ)aˈsul ˈʔasul itim (ʔ)iˈtim ʔiˈtim uod ˈ(ʔ)uʔ{ɔ/u}d ˈʔuʔud tsinelas t iˈnɛlas t ɕiˈnɛlas kutsilyo ku(t)ˈt ɪljo kuˈt ɕiljo bituwin bit(u)ˈwin bitˈwin    105 Appendix G. Nonlinear Phonological Scan Analysis: Tagalog   Nonlinear Phonological Scan Analysis  for Intervention Planning -- Tagalog 2014  © Bernhardt, B. May, Stemberger, Joseph P. & Lim, R.K.  Adapted from © "Workbook in Nonlinear Phonology for Clinical Application"  Not to be copied, used, or revised without explicit written permission  from the copyright owners. bernharb@mail.ubc.ca, Joseph.Stemberger@ubc.ca  Pages 1-5 provide a basic analysis for word structure and consonants. Additional Pages: p. 6-consonant feature mismatch patterns; p. 7-vowels; p. 8-Summary  Name  ___Child X_________Birthdate  _______________________________________  Test date ___________ Age  4;0  Hearing no concerns   Contact information _______________________________________________________  General communication no concerns__________________________________________   Referrals needed none_____________________________________________________  Optional % Match: Whole Word 59% Word Shape (CV) 89% Consonants (PCC) ______ Other counts _____________________________________________________________  Long-term goals: (see p. 8) _________________________________________________  First Block Treatment Goals: Type, Order, Treatment Strategies  Word Structure Positional, sequences Features, Segments: p, 4 (6,7) Goals for first treatment block with numbered order  (See p. 3) Length  Stress  Word shapes:  Positional: p. 4, bottom   Sequences: p. 5  Individual features:   Existing features to combine into new segment(s):    Therapy strategies by goal # Strong segments to use: See p. 4, top   Tx Strategies:  Strong word shapes to use: p.3  Tx Strategies:  106 Preview – Circle or check boxes. 5-10 minute quick look.  This page helps identify (a) which analyses are needed and  (b) client strengths that may be useful for treatment.    Level  Forms  Clear Strength    Needs analysis (inconsistent or absent) Word structure For structure, the consonants and vowels do not have to match the actual adult speech sounds, but need to be present in some form (substitutions acceptable) Minimal deletion   Minimal epenthesis ✓   ✓   ✓  Page 3 -some stress shifts   Vowels  Vowels  ✓ - Page 7 Consonants  See charts on p. 4, 6     Manner: How a speech sound is made Few manner substitutions    ✓ - Pages 4, 6 -limited to /r/ Place: Where a speech sound is made Few place substitutions ✓   - Pages 4, 6   Laryngeal: (voicing) Few voicing changes -no voicing changes  ✓   - Pages 4, 6        Clear Strength Needs analysis (inconsistent or absent)  Variability and sequences  Overall, the client's productions are not variable.   ✓   Different productions for the same word? Different productions for the same speech sound, word structure?  Several assimilations Cs, Vs often move to other places in the word? For analysis, go to Page 5         Other Information about the Client  Strength Need Unknown Language production ✓   Language comprehension ✓   Preliteracy/literacy/phonological awareness   ✓ Motor skills (gross, fine, oral mechanism) ✓   Social skills  ✓   Cognitive skills   ✓ Environmental support for treatment, referrals ✓    107 Word Structure: Length, Stress, Word Shape in CV Sequences (Counts optional)   A. The forms used by the client  B. Comparison with adult targets Colour: strength, absent or marginal, inconsistent, present but not for adult target. WI = word-initial, WM = word-medial, WF = word-final B. Comparison with Adult Target          Circle or check Pattern: Length, stress 1 syllable 2 syllables Multisyllabic Syllable deletion  Yes  Often?  Where? Yes  Often?   Where? Syllable addition  (vowel epenthesis) Yes  Often? Where? Yes  Often? Where? Yes  Often?   Where? Stress shift  Yes ✓ Often?  Type: wS  Sw  Yes ✓ Often?  Type: wwwS  Swww or wSww wwS  Sww  Segmental content reduced, weak syllables? Yes  Often?  Type: Yes  Often?  Type:    Pattern: CV Shape WI WM WF More in long words Cs added  Yes  Often?  Yes  Often?  Yes   Often?  Yes     Often?  Deletion, Single Cs Yes✓ Often?  Yes  Often?  Yes   Often? Yes     Often?  Deletion in CC(C) Yes  Often?  Yes  Often?  Yes   Often?  Yes     Often?  Overused Cs or Vs? Yes  Often? Yes  Often?  Yes   Often?  Yes     Often?   Optional Counts: % Word Length Match 99% Word Shape Match 89% C Present by Position ____  %CC Match ____ Other ___________________________________ Strengths: word length, word shape, C and CCs     Needs: ______________ (Enter p. 8)  A. Forms used frequently by client  (parentheses = some use)  A. Summary by word length  1-syllable words used?  ✓  CV Sequences:  CV CCVC CVCC Other_____  Single Cs:  WI  WF     CC: WI  WF  Strength? ✓   Need?  Most complex CV shapes: CVC, CVCC Not elicited? 2-syllable words used?   ✓ CV sequences: (ʔ)VCVC  CVCV(C)  CVCCV(C) Other  CVCVV, C(V)CVCV, CVVCV, (ʔ)VCCV   Stress (S=Primary, w=unstressed): Sw   wS      Single Cs:  WI  WM  WF    CC   WI   WM   WF           CCs & WF C in word?          CCC WI  WM   WF Strength? ✓    Need?   Most complex CV shapes:  CVC(V)CVV, C(V)CVCV, (ʔ)VVCC(V)CVC  Not elicited?   CC WF, CCC WI/WF, CCs & WF C in word 3 or more syl. used? ✓   Examples of  long word shapes (CV):  CVCVCVCCVC  Stress: wSw wwS  Sww   wSww   wwSw  wwwS     Single Cs: WI  WM  WF     CC  WI   WM   WF                                                 CCC WI  WM   WF        2-3 CCs in a word? ✓         CCs & WF C in word?  Strength? ✓  Need?  Most complex CV shapes? (ʔ)VCVCVCCVC (ʔ)VCCVCVCV CVCVCVCCVC Not elicited? CC WF, CCC WI/WF, CCs & WF C   108 Client’s Singleton Consonants   Note – Client may produce single Cs for adult CCs. These should be entered here.  Colour Codes: Match, absent or very marginal, inconsistent,  present but not for adult target     Tagalog: ʔ p b m w* n t  d s l j* k g  ŋ h* r (ɾ) - can occur in all word positions  Commonly used in loan words: f v   t     z - limited to one’s exposure to these sounds *Not found word finally in Tagalog Counts optional by phoneme Word-initial Word-medial intervocalic Word-final Mostly match: Strength /b       , g, j, k, l, m  n  ŋ  p  s     t  t , w, z, ʔ/ /b       , g h, j, k, l  m  n  ŋ  p  s  t  t , w, ʔ/ /b, d, g, k, l  m  n  ŋ  p, s, t, ʔ/ Inconsistent: Partial strength /h/    Present but not for adult target (can include segments also used as matches)                     Need?    Tested but absent or very marginal                     r  r r Non-Tagalog speech sounds /ɹ, ɹ     / /ɹ, ɹ  / /ɹ/ Not elicited/tested    Frequent substitutions (potential default segments) (p. 6, bottom)     Optional summary of inventory by features  (Refer to features, p. 6)     Consonants missing in one established word position but found elsewhere in word plus those inconsistent in a word position  (Word Position Needs, middle column pp. 1, 8)  Word-Initial Word-Medial (intervocalic) Word-Final /h/          109 Neighbouring Consonant Sequences (“Clusters”): (Enter P. 8)  Colour: Strength, absent or very marginal, inconsistent,  present but not for adult target.  Add additional CCs, especially word medially, and any WI clusters not tested. Indicate what client used, and patterns of difference, e.g., /sp/ > [p] CC type WI (list and give pattern) Medial  Cross Syllable Medial Onset WF (list and give pattern) With /w/, /j/ Cj:              Cw:        /lj/  /j/C   /w/C    With /l/  C/l/: /pl/>/pl  //gl/, /kl/ /tl/>/tː/,/pl/>/l/  /kl/ /pl/>/p/ /p/>/pl/  /l/C:   With /r/ C/r/: /gr/>/gɹ  /, /br/>/bɹ/, /tr/>/tɹ  , tɹ/, /kr/>/kɹ/ /pr/>/pɹ/ /rj/>/ɹj/, /skr/>/skɹ/, /tr/>/tɹ/, /rt/>/ɹt/ /gr/>/gɹ  / /r/C: /rs/>/ɹs/ With /s/ /s/C: /sp/>/s  p/ /ns, sd, sp/  /s/C:       C/s/: CCC   /mpj/   Other  /mp, mb, nt, nd, ŋg  pt, gd, td/     Mismatch Patterns in neighbouring or distant (C_C, V_V) sequences Note examples of words with these patterns. Underline relevant parts of word. Assimilation*  /gatas/> [datas] Dissimilation* /tɪnɪk/>[tɪmɪk] Metathesis* Migration /sp/ > [ps] Epenthesis* / ampu/> [ aməpu] Coalescence* /kr/ > [t] [-cont, Cor] fuse Major Deletion* (sometimes relevant)       *Occurs most in: Multisyllabic words    Stressed syl.   Unstressed syl.?    Adult Target Sequences: (Enter C_C or CC, depending on needs) Identify adult target sequences for mismatches above.  Can add match examples where inconsistent. L=Labial; C=Coronal; D=Dorsal (velar) Adult Target Sequence Adult Target Sequence Adult Target Sequence L-L  C-C  D-D  L-C  C-L D-L     L-D  C-D D-C  Other Place/Manner/Laryngeal  110 Additional Page: Singleton Substitutions: Consonants, Features Describe the substitutions that concern the feature at the left of the row, e.g. mismatch of manner only in the manner rows, mismatch of both place and manner in both rows. Focus on substitutions, not deletions, unless deletions affect only occasional features.    Adult feature                 Adult C      Initial      Medial Intervocalic   Final Native Borrowed Manner   Glides:  [-cons]  ([+son]) j w h ʔ         Flap [+cons] [+son]   (ɾ)    Trill [+cons, +son] r  /r/>[   ɹ, ɹ  ] /r/>[ɹ, ɹ  , ɹ  j] /r/>[ɹ] [+lateral] l     Nasals: [+nasal] m   n   ŋ     Stops:  [-continuant]  (& [-nasal]) p  b  t   d  k  g ʔ     Fricatives [+continuant]  (& [-sonorant) s       (f) (v) (z) ( )          Affricates [-cont],[+cont]  (t ) (  )    Place:    Labial p  b  m w (f) (v)       [+labiodental]  (f) (v)    Coronal        [+anterior] t  d n r s l  (ɾ) (z)       [-anterior] j ( ) (t ) (  )       [+grooved]  s    (z)  ( ) (t ) (  )    Dorsal [+high] k  g  ŋ     w      Laryngeal          [-voiced] p  t  k   s   (f) ( )  (t )       [+voiced] stops and fricatives b  d  g  (v)  (z)  (  )    [+spread glottis] h  s  (f) ( ) (t )    Defaults: Frequent features, often in substitution patterns; may vary for word position.   Manner defaults? Circle expected: [+cons], [-cont], [-nas], [-lateral] Other: __________ Place defaults? Circle expected: Cor [+anterior]  Other: __________________________ Laryngeal default? Circle expected:  [-voiced]  Other: ___________________________ 111  Additional Page: Vowels   A. The forms used by the client           B. Comparison with adult forms  Colour code as: Strength, absent, inconsistent,  present but not for adult target    A. Vowels Used   Specific V Needs?  Stressed Unstressed i*  (ɪ)  e* (ɛ)   a* (ə) (ʌ) (ɑ)   u* (ʊ)  o* (ɔ)  Diphthongs: aj aw iw ɔj uj ɛj Other  o ʊ  iw  *Vowels on each row are considered functionally equivalent with each other. The same alternation applies for diphthongs (e.g., [ej] ~ [ɛj]).   Feature Vowels B. Mismatch Patterns by Feature Native  Borrowed Enter mismatch pattern by relevant feature(s) affected. Stressed Unstressed Dorsal [+back]  o   u (ʌ) (ə) (ɔ) (ɑ)       Coronal ([+front]) i a aj  (ɪ) (ɛ) (ɛj)  (/ɛ/>[ɔ, ə])a Dorsal [+high] i  u  iw (ɪ) (ʊ)    Dorsal [-high] & [-low] e o  (ɛ) (ʌ)  (ə) (ɔ) (ɛj)  (/e/>[i])a (/o/>[ɪ, o ʊ])a Dorsal [+low] a (ɑ)  (/a/>[e, ɪ])a Labial [+round]  u    (ɔ) (ʊ)   Diphthong  aj  aw  iw   ɔj  uj   ɛj    /iw/>[iju]      aThis type of mismatch is rare.   Prosody, intonation, rhythm, speech rate, voice, resonance factors? Enter major vowel strengths and needs on Page 8.  112 Additional Page: Strengths and Needs/Goals (Immediate Goals P. 1)  Strength or Need? Word Structure (from p. 3) Word Positions Sequences (from p. 4, 5) Features and segments (from pages 4, 6) Clear strengths to use as treatment strategies   Syllables per word:    1-, 2-, 3-syllables  Stress patterns Sw, wSw, Sww, sWww, wwSw   CV word shapes: CV, CCVC, CVCC, CVCV(C), CVCCV(C)   Single Cs by word position (matches p. 4) Cs by type or feature (from match row p. 4) WI all sounds except /h/ and /r/  Manner: all except [+trill]   WM all except /r/ Place:  all except Coronal [+anterior] for /r/  WF all except /r/ Sequences (from p. 5) CVC(V) Laryngeal:  all except /h/ [+spread glottis] CC all except /r/ and /l/ clusters  VV all except /iw/ Vowels:   All Needs/ Potential Goals     Syllables per word:     Stress patterns:  wS    CV word shapes:   Single Cs: Word position needs   (from bottom p. 4) WI  /h/ Cs: Individual features  (from p. 4, 6) Manner: [+trill] WM Place: Laryngeal: /h/ [+spread glottis]  WF Cs: Feature Combinations within one Segment (from p. 4, 6) Manner-Place Sequences C_C:  Manner-Laryngeal  CC: with /r/, /l/ Place-Laryngeal   V_V: Place-Place /w/, /j/ VV: /iw/ V features or combos: Observation only (infrequent substitutions)  Other factors to consider (From P. 2)       113 Appendix H. Characteristics of the Words Recommended for Removal   Orthography and English translation  Adult pronunciation  # Syl Word Stress Word Shape  Phonemes   Warm-up and Screener   klase ‘class’ ˈk(ə)lase  2  Sw  C(V)CVCV  WI kl(1) WM s(1) Stressed a(1), Unstressed e(1)  ampalaya ‘bitter gourd’ (ʔ){a/ʌ}mp{a/ʌ}-l{a/ʌ}ˈj{a/ʌ}  4   wwwS   (ʔ)VCCVCVCV   WI ʔ(0 or 1)a WM mp(1), l(1), j(1) Stressed a(1), Unstressed ʌ/a(3)   Extension A  traysikel ‘tricycle’ ˈt(ə)rajsɪkɛl  3 Sww C(V)CVVCVCVC WI tr(1) WM s(1), k(1) WF l(1) Stressed aj(1), Unstressed ɪ(1), ɛ(1) prinsesa ‘princess’ p(ə)rɪnˈsɛsa  3 wSw C(V)CVCCVCV WI pr(1) WM ns(1), s(1) Stressed ɛ(1), Unstressed ɪ(1), a(1)  114 Orthography and English translation  Adult pronunciation  # Syl Word Stress Word Shape  Phonemes   alitaptap ‘firefly’  (ʔ)alitapˈtap   4  wwwS  (ʔ)VCVCVCCVC  WI ʔ(0 or 1)a  WM l(1), t(1), pt(1) WF p(1)  Stressed a(1 or 2)b, Unstressed a(1 or 2)b, i(1) lapis ‘pencil’ ˈlapis 2 Sw CVCVC WI l(1) WM p(1) WF s(1) Stressed a(1), Unstressed i(1)  Extension B  hagdanan ‘stairs’ hagˈdan(an) 2 or 33  wS(w) CVCCV(C)(V)C WI h(1) WM gd(1), n(1) WF n(1) Stressed a(1), Unstressed a(1 or 2)c lapis ‘pencil’ ˈlapis 2 Sw CVCVC WI l(1) WM p(1) WF s(1) Stressed a(1), Unstressed i(1)   115 Orthography and English translation  Adult pronunciation  # Syl Word Stress Word Shape  Phonemes   bituwin ‘star’   bit(u)ˈwin   2 or 3  w(w)S  CVC(V)CVC  WI b(1)  WM t(0 or 1)d, tw(0 or 1)d, w(0 or 1)d WF n(1) Stressed i(1), Unstressed i(1), u(0 or 1)d  pera ‘money’ ˈpɛra 2 Sw CVCV WI p(1) WM r(1) Stressed ɛ(1), Unstressed a(1) a/ʔ/ is optional word initially. bIf the third syllable in alitaptap is stressed, the count will be 2 for stressed /a/ and 1 for unstressed.  cThe count depends on the production of hagdanan, [hagˈdan] or [hagˈdanan]. dThe count depends on the production of bituwin, [bituˈwin] or [bitˈwin].      116  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0166067/manifest

Comment

Related Items