Medicine, Faculty of
Audiology and Speech Sciences, School of
DSpace
UBCV
Spoor, Jessica
Master of Science - MSc
University of British Columbia
For speech-language pathologists (SLPs) working with preschool and school-aged children, a large proportion of their caseload consists of clients with protracted phonological development (PPD). Research has shown that speech and language therapy outcomes for children with PPD can be maximized when the therapy goals and intervention plan for a given client are guided by a strong linguistic theory and relevant acquisition norms. With more than 7 million native French speakers living in Canada, it is necessary that Canadian SLPs have access to studies that show the application of different linguistic theories to data from French-speaking children, as well as research pertaining to French acquisition norms. This descriptive case study applied the principles of nonlinear and constraint-based phonological theories to assessment data from a French-Canadian child with PPD, before and after phonological intervention. The analyses provided an overview of the child’s phonology at both time points, highlighting areas of strength and need, and were the basis for the discussion of the mismatch patterns observed. The relative progress of certain therapy targets compared to others was also evaluated with respect to this analytic framework, and a set of future intervention goals was proposed based on data from Time 2. To situate the data within the literature on Canadian French, the results were compared with what is known about phonological intervention and the emerging normative data about the acquisition of Canadian French. While his phonological profile reflected many of the trends described in the literature (e.g. his order of singleton consonant and consonant cluster acquisition, rates of deletions in codas), there were some notable discrepancies (e.g. Percent Consonants Correct, rates of mismatch types). At the initial assessment, his PCC was more than 2SD below reported means for other Canadian French-speaking children with and with no PPD. He also showed more segmental than syllable structure mismatches, which is opposite to the overall patterns reported in the Canadian French literature. The data speak to the value of case studies in acquisition research and the utility of comprehensive analyses in the description of complex patterns of phonological development.
!!A!case!study!of!a!Canadian!French3speaking!child!with!protracted!phonological!development:!Nonlinear!and!constraint3based!phonological!perspectives !!by!!Jessica!Spoor!!B.A.,!The!University!of!British!Columbia,!2014!!!!!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!2016!!!!©!Jessica!Spoor,!2016!! ! ii!Abstract!For!speechVlanguage!pathologists!(SLPs)!working!with!preschool!and!schoolVaged!children,!a!large!proportion!of!their!caseload!consists!of!clients!with!protracted!phonological!development!(PPD).!Research!has!shown!that!speech!and!language!therapy!outcomes!for!children!with!PPD!can!be!maximized!when!the!therapy!goals!and!intervention!plan!for!a!given!client!are!guided!by!a!strong!linguistic!theory!and!relevant!acquisition!norms.!With!more!than!7!million!native!French!speakers!living!in!Canada,!it!is!necessary!that!Canadian!SLPs!have!access!to!studies!that!show!the!application!of!different!linguistic!theories!to!data!from!FrenchVspeaking!children,!as!well!as!research!pertaining!to!French!acquisition!norms.!!!This!descriptive!case!study!applied!the!principles!of!nonlinear!and!constraintVbased!phonological!theories!to!assessment!data!from!a!FrenchVCanadian!child!with!PPD,!before!and!after!phonological!intervention.!The!analyses!provided!an!overview!of!the!child’s!phonology!at!both!time!points,!highlighting!areas!of!strength!and!need,!and!were!the!basis!for!the!discussion!of!the!mismatch!patterns!observed.!The!relative!progress!of!certain!therapy!targets!compared!to!others!was!also!evaluated!with!respect!to!this!analytic!framework,!and!a!set!of!future!intervention!goals!was!proposed!based!on!data!from!Time!2.!To!situate!the!data!within!the!literature!on!Canadian!French,!the!results!were!compared!with!what!is!known!about!phonological!intervention!and!the!emerging!normative!data!about!the!acquisition!of!Canadian!French.!While!his!phonological!profile!reflected!many!of!the!trends!described!in!the!literature!(e.g.!his!order!of!singleton!consonant!and!consonant!cluster!acquisition,!rates!of!deletions!in!codas),!there!were!some!notable!discrepancies!(e.g.!Percent!Consonants!Correct,!rates!of!mismatch!types).!At!the!initial!assessment,!his!PCC!! ! iii!was!more!than!2SD!below!reported!means!for!other!Canadian!FrenchVspeaking!children!with!and!with!no!PPD.!He!also!showed!more!segmental!than!syllable!structure!mismatches,!which!is!opposite!to!the!overall!patterns!reported!in!the!Canadian!French!literature.!The!data!speak!to!the!value!of!case!studies!in!acquisition!research!and!the!utility!of!comprehensive!analyses!in!the!description!of!complex!patterns!of!phonological!development.!! ! iv!Preface!This!thesis!is!original,!unpublished,!independent!work!by!the!author,!Jessica!Spoor.!The!author!was!not!one!of!the!speechVlanguage!pathologists!working!with!the!child!in!this!case!study,!but!is!presenting!an!objective!view!of!the!preV!and!postVtreatment!data!under!supervision!of!the!thesis!committee!consisting!of!Dr.!May!Bernhardt,!Dr.!Joseph!Stemberger!and!Dr.!Daniel!Bérubé. !! ! v!Table!of!Contents!!Abstract.........................................................................................................................................................................ii!Preface ..........................................................................................................................................................................iv!Table!of!Contents ......................................................................................................................................................v!List!of!Tables...........................................................................................................................................................viii!List!of!Figures ............................................................................................................................................................. x!Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................................................xi!1.!Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................................1!1.1!!Motivation!For!the!Present!Study.........................................................................................................................1!1.2!!Comparison!of!English!and!Québécois!French!Phonologies .....................................................................3!1.3!!Acquisition!of!Canadian!French.............................................................................................................................7!1.4!!Fundamentals!of!Nonlinear!Phonology........................................................................................................... 17!1.5!!Fundamentals!of!Optimality!Theory!and!ConstraintVBased!Analysis ................................................ 20!1.6!!Clinical!Application!of!Nonlinear!Phonology ................................................................................................ 22!1.7!!Clinical!Application!of!ConstraintVBased!Analysis ..................................................................................... 25!1.8!!Combining!Nonlinear!Phonological!and!ConstraintVBased!Analyses................................................. 26!1.9!!The!Present!Study..................................................................................................................................................... 28!2.!Methods.................................................................................................................................................................29!2.1!!Participant.................................................................................................................................................................... 29!2.2!!Procedure ..................................................................................................................................................................... 29!2.3!!Transcriptions!and!Reliability............................................................................................................................. 30!2.4!!Coding!and!Analysis................................................................................................................................................. 31!! ! vi!3.!Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................34!3.1!Time!1!Analysis........................................................................................................................................................... 34!3.1.1!!Word!Structure ................................................................................................................................................. 34!3.1.2!!Segments!and!Features ................................................................................................................................. 35!3.1.3!!Proposed!Constraints!and!Repairs........................................................................................................... 38!3.1.4!Variability!of!Productions!at!Time!1......................................................................................................... 39!3.1.5!!Final!Summary!of!Time!1!Strengths!and!Needs.................................................................................. 40!3.2!!Description!of!the!Intervention!Rémi!Received!between!Time!1!and!Time!2 ............................... 41!3.3!Time!2!Analysis........................................................................................................................................................... 42!3.3.1!Word!Structure .................................................................................................................................................. 42!3.3.2!!Segments!and!Features ................................................................................................................................. 43!3.3.3!!Proposed!Constraints!and!Repairs........................................................................................................... 44!3.3.4!!Summary!of!Progress!at!Time!2 ................................................................................................................ 45!3.4!!Rates!Matches!and!Mismatch!Patterns!At!Both!Time!Points ................................................................. 45!4.!Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................47!4.1!!Outcomes!of!the!Nonlinear!Phonological!and!ConstraintVBased!Analyses...................................... 47!4.2!!Rémi’s!Phonology!at!Time!2!and!His!Intervention!Goals ........................................................................ 48!4.3!!Additional!Analysis!of!Select!Words................................................................................................................. 54!4.4!!Multilingual!Phonological!Intervention .......................................................................................................... 58!4.5!!Discussion!of!the!Mismatch!Patterns!Observed .......................................................................................... 59!4.6!!Comparing!Rémi’s!Data!with!the!Emerging!Norms!for!the!Acquisition!of!Canadian!French .. 63!4.7!!Proposed!Treatment!Goals!After!Time!2 ........................................................................................................ 69!4.8!!Limitations................................................................................................................................................................... 73!4.9!!Clinical!Implications ................................................................................................................................................ 74!4.10!!Future!Directions ................................................................................................................................................... 75!! ! vii!5.!Conclusion............................................................................................................................................................77!6.!Tables .....................................................................................................................................................................78!7.!Figures ................................................................................................................................................................ 100!References.............................................................................................................................................................. 102!Appendix................................................................................................................................................................. 115!!! ! viii!List!of!Tables!Table!1.!Consonant!and!Vowel!Inventories!for!English!and!French................................................78!Table!2.!Word!Structure!Analysis!at!Time!1!(Pg.!3!from!French!SCAN) ........................................79!Table!3.!Inventory!of!Client’s!Singleton!Consonants!at!Time!1!(Pg.!4!from!French!SCAN) ...80!Table!4.!Singleton!Substitution!Patterns:!Consonants,!Features!at!Time!1!(Pg.!6!from!French!SCAN) ................................................................................................................................................................81!Table!5.!Neighbouring!Consonant!Sequences!(“Clusters”)!at!Time!1!(Pg.!5!from!French!SCAN) ................................................................................................................................................................82!Table!6.!High!Ranking!Negative!Constraint!Involving!Manner!Features!and!Its!Repairs!at!Time!1 ...............................................................................................................................................................83!Table!7.!High!Ranking!Negative!Constraints!Involving!Place!Features!and!Their!Repairs!at!Time!1 ...............................................................................................................................................................84!Table!8.!High!Ranking!Negative!Constraints!Involving!Place!and!Manner!Features!and!Their!Repairs!at!Time!1 .........................................................................................................................................85!Table!9.!High!Ranking!Negative!Constraints!Involving!Word!Structure!and!Place!Features!and!Their!Repairs!at!Time!1....................................................................................................................86!Table!10.!Therapy!Targets!Worked!on!Between!Assessments..........................................................87!Table!11.!Word!Structure!Analysis!at!Time!2!(Pg.!3!from!French!SCAN) .....................................88!Table!12.!Inventory!of!Client’s!Singleton!Consonants!at!Time!2!(Pg.!4!from!French!SCAN) 89!Table!13.!Singleton!Substitution!Patterns:!Consonants,!Features!at!Time!2!(Pg.!6!from!French!SCAN).................................................................................................................................................90!Table!14.!Neighbouring!Consonant!Sequences!(“Clusters”)!at!Time!2!(P.g.!5!from!French!SCAN) ................................................................................................................................................................91!! ! ix!Table!15.!High!Ranking!Negative!Constraints!Involving!Place!and!Manner!Features!and!Their!Repairs!at!Time!2.............................................................................................................................92!Table!16.!High!Ranking!Negative!Constraints!Involving!Word!Structure!and!Place!Features!and!Their!Repairs!at!Time!2....................................................................................................................93!Table!17.!High!Ranking!Constraint!Involving!Word!Structure,!Place!and!Laryngeal!Features!and!Its!Repairs!at!Time!2..........................................................................................................................94!Table!18.!High!Ranking!Constraint!Involving!Word!Structure,!Place!and!Manner!Features!and!Its!Repairs...............................................................................................................................................95!Table!19.!Rates!of!Matches!and!Different!Mismatch!Types!at!Time!1 ............................................96!Table!20.!Rates!of!Matches!and!Different!Mismatch!Types!at!Time!2 ............................................97!Table!21.!Rates!of!Consonant!Deletion!by!Syllable!Position!and!Word!Length..........................98!Table!22.!Hypothetical!Treatment!Goals!Based!On!Time!2!Data ......................................................99!! ! x!List!of!Figures!Figure!1.!Representation!of!the!different!tiers!of!the!phonological!hierarchy. ....................... 100!Figure!2.!Representation!of!the!different!feature!in!feature!hierarchy!and!their!relation!to!the!Root!node.............................................................................................................................................. 101!!!! ! xi!Acknowledgments!A!big!thank!you!to!my!thesis!supervisor!Dr.!May!Bernhardt,!and!my!committee!members!Dr.!Joseph!Stemberger!and!Dr.!Daniel!Bérubé.!I!am!grateful!to!all!of!you!for!your!support,!guidance,!thoughtVprovoking!discussions!about!the!data!and!the!feedback!you!have!provided!me!over!the!course!of!this!project.!I!would!also!like!to!thank!the!child!and!his!family,!for!without!his!data,!this!project!would!not!have!been!possible.!Finally,!thank!you!to!my!parents,!family!and!friends!for!their!many!words!of!encouragement,!their!constant!support,!and!for!bravely!volunteering!to!help!me!edit!this!project.! ! 1!1.!Introduction!1.1!!Motivation!For!the!Present!Study!For!speechVlanguage!pathologists!(SLPs)!working!with!preschool!and!schoolVaged!children,!a!large!proportion!of!their!caseload!consists!of!clients!with!protracted!phonological!development.!Protracted!phonological!development!(PPD)!is!the!protracted!development!of!a!client’s!phonological!system,!either!with!or!without!neuromotor!impairments,!sensory!deficits!(e.g.!hearing!loss),!anatomical!differences!(e.g.!cleft!palate)!and/or!genetic!syndromes!(e.g.!Down!Syndrome).!These!children!may!present!with!a!limited!phonetic!inventory!and!there!may!be!restrictions!on!the!word!shapes,!word!lengths!and/or!the!stress!patterns!produced.!Research!with!EnglishVspeaking!children!estimates!that!approximately!15%!of!all!3VyearVolds!and!4%!of!all!6VyearVolds!have!PPD!(Campbell!et!al.,!2003;!Law,!Boyle,!Harris,!&!Nye,!2000;!Lewis!et!al.,!2015;!Lewis!et!al.,!2016;!Shriberg,!Tomblin,!&!McSweeny!1999).!It!is!important!that!these!clients!are!identified!early!and!receive!effective!treatment!because!PPD!that!persists!into!the!school!years!is!associated!with!poorer!academic!outcomes!(especially!in!the!area!of!literacy),!negative!social!outcomes!(such!as!victimization!by!peers)!as!well!as!psychiatric!diagnoses!(e.g.!anxiety)!(Johnston!et!al.,!1999;!Lewis!et!al.,!2011;!Lewis!et!al.,!2015;!Lewis!et!al.,!2016;!Markham!et!al.,!2009;!Paul!&!Norbury,!2012;!Peterson!et!al.,!2009;!Snowling!et!al.,!2006).!These!correlations!increase!for!children!who!have!coVoccurring!language!impairments!(Lewis!et!al.,!2011;!Lewis!et!al.,!2015;!Lewis!et!al.,!2016;!Peterson!et!al.,!2009).!!!Research!has!shown!that!speech!and!language!therapy!outcomes!can!be!maximized!when!the!therapy!goals!and!the!intervention!plan!for!a!given!client!are!guided!by!a!strong!! ! 2!linguistic!theory,!and!relevant!acquisition!norms!(Bernhardt!&!Gilbert,!1992;!Petticrew!&!Roberts,!2003;!Roulstone,!2011;!Rvachew!&!BrosseauxVLapré,!2015).!With!more!than!7!million!native!French!speakers!living!in!Canada,!(Statistics!Canada,!2011)!it!is!necessary!that!Canadian!SLPs!have!access!to!studies!that!show!the!application!of!different!linguistic!theories!to!data!from!FrenchVspeaking!children.!Normative!studies!of!Canadian!French!acquisition!are!also!necessary,!and!this!research!needs!to!be!available!both!in!English!and!in!French.!!!While!systematic!reviews!and!randomizedVcontrol!trials!are!considered!the!highest!levels!of!evidence!and!provide!data!on!the!effectiveness!of!different!treatment!approaches!(Baker!&!McLeod,!2011;!Dollaghan,!2007),!case!studies!can!provide!clinicians!with!valuable!information!that!can!be!hidden!or!lost!in!studies!with!a!larger!n"(Baker!&!McLeod,!2011;!Budgell,!2008;!Carlson!et!al.,!2010;!Damico!&!SimmonsVMackie,!2003;!Petticrew!&!Roberts,!2003).!Case!studies!can!evaluate!theoretical!perspectives!concerning!certain!phenomena!(Scheffner!Hammer,!2011;!Tetnowski!&!Damico,!2004),!help!guide!therapy!for!clients!with!unusual!clinical!presentations!(Baker!&!McLeod,!2011;!Rvachew!&!Matthews,!2015),!be!used!to!show!the!feasibility!and!practicality!of!assessment!and!intervention!procedures!in!certain!contexts!(Petticrew!&!Roberts,!2003;!Roulstone,!2011),!and!serve!as!a!starting!point!to!build!on!for!future!studies!(Budgell,!2008).!Currently,!there!are!few!phonological!case!studies!of!children!who!speak!Canadian!French!(Bérubé,!Bernhardt,!Stemberger,!&!Bertrand,!2015;!Shiller,!Rvachew,!&!BrosseauVLapré,!2010),!and!because!some!of!them!are!published!in!French,!SLPs!who!do!not!speak!the!language!cannot!use!them!to!guide!therapy!decisions!for!their!clients.!! ! 3!This!thesis!will!provide!one!of!the!first!phonological!case!studies!concerning!a!child!who!speaks!Canadian!(Québec)!French!that!is!written!in!English.!The!remainder!of!this!introductory!chapter!outlines!the!literature!findings!that!drove!this!project.!It!summarizes!the!differences!between!English!and!Québécois!French!phonologies!as!well!as!compares!what!is!currently!known!about!the!acquisition!of!each!of!these!languages.!It!also!includes!a!description!of!the!fundamentals!of!both!nonlinear!phonology!and!optimality!theory,!and!their!clinical!applications.!This!chapter!concludes!with!the!goals!for!this!project!and!the!hypotheses!for!the!data.!The!methods!chapter!provides!a!description!of!the!participant!and!study!procedures!regarding!data!collection,!transcription!and!analysis.!The!analysis!chapter!consists!of!inVdepth!nonlinear!and!constraintVbased!analyses!of!the!participant’s!phonology!before!and!after!he!received!services!from!a!private!SLP!as!well!as!a!schoolVbased!SLP.!This!section!ends!with!a!quantitative!analysis!of!the!types!of!mismatches!(=!errors)!that!occur!in!his!productions!and!where!they!tended!to!occur.!The!final!chapter!discusses!the!potential!explanations!for!the!various!mismatch!patterns!observed!at!Time!1!and!the!gains!made!by!Time!2,!as!well!as!provides!additional!analyses!and!discussion!for!a!select!group!of!target!words.!This!chapter!also!describes!what!changes!lead!to!the!client’s!increased!intelligibility!following!treatment,!briefly!discusses!the!impact!of!multilingual!phonological!intervention!and!ends!with!a!comparison!between!the!client’s!data!and!the!emerging!norms!for!children!learning!Canadian!French.!!1.2!!Comparison!of!English!and!Québécois!French!Phonologies!Before!describing!what!is!known!about!the!phonological!acquisition!of!Canadian!French!and!its!common!phonological!processes,!it!is!important!to!outline!the!differences!between!! ! 4!English!and!French!phonologies.!Though!these!languages!overlap!in!many!ways,!differences!do!exist!between!their!speech!sounds,!word!shapes,!average!word!length,!stress!patterns!and!timing!units,!and!these!differences!all!have!the!potential!to!influence!the!order!of!segment!acquisition!as!well!as!mastery!of!different!word!structures.!!Table!1!(refer!to!Chapter!6!for!all!tables)!provides!a!comparison!of!the!consonant!and!vowel!inventories!for!both!languages.!It!shows!that!both!languages!have!a!variety!of!consonants,!including!voiced!and!voiceless!stops!(with!aspiration!in!English!depending!on!the!location!in!the!word!and!no!nonVfinal!aspiration!in!standard!French),!nasal!stops,!voiced!and!voiceless!fricatives,!liquids,!glides,!and!rhotics.!Their!inventories!include!consonants!with![Labial],![Coronal],!and![Dorsal]!place,!as!well!as!many!of!the!same!vowel!sounds.!Despite!this!overlap,!each!language!has!some!consonants!and!vowels!that!the!other!does!not!and!the!phonemes!occur!at!different!frequencies!in!each!language!(Bérubé,!Bernhardt,!&!Stemberger,!2013;!Shipley!&!McAfee,!2009).!Unlike!English,!which!has!only!one!rhotic!consonant,![ɹ],!(Ladefoged!&!Johnson,!2011),!Québécois!French!has!four!possible!rhotic!consonants,!/ʀ, ʁ, r, ɾ/,!as!well!as![χ],!an!allophone!of!/ʁ/!that!occurs!when!it!proceeded!by!a!voiceless!obstruent!(Bérubé!et!al.,!2013;!Ladefoged!&!Johnson,!2011;!Rose!&!WauquierVGravelines,!2007).!The!rate!that!each!variant!is!used!varies!across!age!groups,!dialects!and!even!individuals!(Bérubé!et!al.,!2013;!Rose!&!WauquierVGravelines,!2007).!Overall,![ʁ]!is!the!most!common!variant!in!Québéc!(Rose!&!WauquierVGravelines,!2007).!Though!Canadian!French!does!have!the!affricates![ts, dz],!they!are!allophones!of!/t, d/!that!only!occur!following![+high,!+front]!vowels!and!the!high!palatal!glides![j, ɥ]!(Rose!&!WauquierVGravelines,!2007).!Diphthongs!in!the!Québécois!dialect!of!French!are!also!! ! 5!allophonic;!they!can!occur!in!place!of!midVvowels!in!open!syllables!(Rose!&!WauquierVGravelines,!2007).!Finally,!though!nasal!vowels!are!allophonic!in!English!(occurring!before!nasal!consonants),!they!are!contrastive!in!French.!!!Both!languages!allow!for!heavy!syllables!and!syllables!with!up!to!three!consonants!in!the!onset!and!coda!positions!(English!arguably!having!four,!i.e.![nθts]!in!“three!tenths”),!and!they!have!similar!phonotactic!constraints!on!the!makeVup!of!these!clusters.!Despite!both!languages!allowing!these!types!of!syllables,!they!occur!far!less!frequently!in!French!than!they!do!in!English!(AddaVDecker,!Boula!de!Mareüil,!Adda,!&!Lamel,!2004;!Delattre,!1965;!MacLeod,!Sutton,!Sylvestre,!Thordardottir,!&!Trudeau,!2014;!Rose!&!WauquierVGravelines,!2007;!Rvachew!&!BrosseauVLapré,!2015;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2013).!For!example,!AddaVDecker!and!colleagues!(2004)!found!approximately!80%!of!the!syllables!produced!by!30!adult!FrenchVspeakers!in!a!oneVhour!speech!sample!were!open!syllables,!and!Delattre!(1965)!found!that,!on!average,!French!speakers!produce!fewer!consonants!per!syllable!compared!to!English!speakers!(1.6!consonants!vs.!2.1!consonants).!!!In!addition!to!differences!in!syllable!complexity,!the!two!languages!differ!in!their!average!word!length.!Studies!have!found!that!as!much!as!81%!of!word!tokens!spoken!by!adult!English!speakers!are!monosyllabic,!whereas,!textual!data!suggests!that!multisyllabic!words!are!more!common!for!French!speakers!(with!~90%!of!words!having!at!least!two!syllables)!(Rvachew!et!al.,!2013).!Similar!rates!have!been!found!in!experiments!with!FrenchVspeaking!children!(BrosseauVLapré!et!al.,!2016;!Demuth!&!Johnson,!2003;!Trudeau,!Frank,!&!PoulinVDubiose,!1999).!For!example,!Demuth!and!Johnson!(2003)!found!that!~70%!of!the!words!! ! 6!spoken!by!the!children!in!their!study!had!at!least!two!syllables.!Tools!such!as!the!MacArthurVBates!Child!Development!Index!further!support!this!difference!between!the!two!languages;!66%!of!the!words!on!the!French!version!of!the!tool!(for!children!between!8!–!30!months)!are!multisyllabic!compared!to!38%!on!the!English!version!for!the!same!age!group!(BrosseauVLapré!&!Rvachew,!2014;!MacLeod,!Sutton,!Trudeau,!&!Thordardottir,!2011).!!!Finally,!most!theorists!agree!that!French!is!a!syllableVtimed!language!(where!each!syllable!is!roughly!the!same!length),!whereas!English!is!a!stressedVtimed!language!(where!stressed!syllables!tend!to!be!longer!in!duration)!(BrosseauVLapré!&!Rvachew,!2014;!MacLeod!et!al.,!2011).!In!French,!stress!falls!predictably!on!the!last!syllable!of!a!word!or!phrase!(with!some!exceptions!that!vary!across!dialects;!e.g.!words!with!a!wordVfinal!(WF)!/ə/!in!the!Southern!France!dialect!have!stress!on!the!penultimate!syllable,!like!raquette"[ʀaˈkɛtə] and!ferme![ˈfɛʀmə]).!Furthermore,!unlike!in!English,!stress!is!not!contrastive!in!this!language!(BrosseauVLapré!&!Rvachew,!2014).!!!It!is!also!worth!mentioning!that!in!conversation,!there!are!several!phonotactic!processes!in!Canadian!French!(MacLeod!et!al.,!2014;!MacLeod!et!al.,!2011;!Rose!&!WauquierVGravelines,!2007).!Liaison!occurs!when!the!“silent”!WF!coda!from!one!word!is!pronounced!as!the!wordVinitial!(WI)!onset!of!the!following!word,!when!that!second!word!begins!with!a!vowel!(e.g.!des oeux /de + ø/ → [de.zø]). This!process!is!common,!though!not!obligatory. The!process!of!enchaînement!is!similar!to!liaison!in!that!it!occurs!when!the!WF!coda!of!one!word!is!pronounced!as!a!WI!onset!of!the!following!word,!again!when!the!second!word!begins!with!a!vowel!sound;!however,!enchaînement"is!a!reVsyllabification!of!sounds!that!! ! 7!would!have!been!produced!regardless!of!the!onset!of!the!second!word,!rather!than!the!addition!of!a!phone!(e.g.!une"araignée"/yn + aʁɛ.ɲe/ →![y.naʁɛ.ɲe]).!Elision!is!the!process!where!the!vowel!in!a!clitic!is!deleted!when!it!precedes!a!word!that!starts!with!a!vowel!(e.g.!l’éléfant!/lə + e.le.fɑ ̃/!→![lel.e.fɑ]̃).!Like!liaison!this!process!is!common,!and!might!not!be!obligatory.!There!have!been!reports!that!some!speakers!do!not!produce!enchaînement!before!words!that!have!an!“h”!in!their!orthography!(e.g.!haricot)!(Rose!&!WauquierVGravelines,!2007).!Finally,!following!the!“loi"de"position”!process,!vowels!are!allophonically!lax!in!most!closed!syllables,!and!tense!in!open!syllables!and!WF!syllables!with!a!voiced!fricative!in!the!coda!(MacLeod!et!al.,!2014;!MacLeod!et!al.,!2011;!Rose!&!WauquierVGravelines,!2007).!All!of!these!phonotactic!processes!have!the!potential!to!influence!children’s!pronunciations!of!target!words.!!1.3!!Acquisition!of!Canadian!French!!Far!less!is!known!about!the!acquisition!of!French!phonology!than!English!phonology.!Until!recently,!SLPs!working!with!these!clients!have!had!to!rely!primarily!on!English!norms!to!guide!their!therapy!decisions!(BrosseauVLapré!&!Rvachew,!2014;!MacLeod!et!al.,!2011;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2013).!Given!the!many!ways!that!French!and!English!differ,!children!might!show!differences!in!acquisition!patterns!between!the!two!languages;!therefore,!French!acquisition!data!are!needed!to!provide!a!basis!for!assessment!and!intervention!in!French!(BrosseauVLapré!&!Rvachew,!2014;!MacLeod!et!al.,!2011;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2013).!Over!the!last!five!years,!researchers!in!Canada!have!conducted!multiple!studies!to!begin!to!describe!Canadian!French!acquisition.!!! ! 8!Four!recent!studies!have!examined!the!order!and!rate!of!phoneme!acquisition!in!both!preschool!and!schoolVaged!children!learning!Québécois!French.!The!first,!MacLeod!et!al.!(2011)!assessed!156!preschoolers!with!no!phonological!delay!to!determine!when!the!different!French!consonants!tend!to!be!mastered.!They!used!the!Casse8tête"d’évaluation"de"la"phonologie"(CTEP)!(Auger,!1994),!a!pictureVnaming!assessment!that!contains!40!target!words!and!tests!all!of!the!French!consonants!in!multiple!word!positions!as!well!as!a!subset!of!consonant!clusters.!After!analyzing!the!data,!they!found!that!/t, m, n, z/!were!early!developing!phonemes!(by!36!months,!at!least!90%!of!the!children!produced!them!accurately!in!all!three!word!positions),!/p, b, d, k, g, ɲ, f, v, ʁ, l, w, ɥ/!could!be!classified!as!intermediate!phonemes!(mastered!between!36!and!53!months)!and!/s, ʒ, ʃ, j/!are!laterVdeveloping!phonemes!(acquired!after!53!months).!It!is!important!to!note,!however,!that!the!level!of!accuracy!the!children!needed!to!achieve!was!not!specified!(i.e.!Did!a!child!have!to!be!accurate!75%!of!the!time?!At!least!one!spontaneous!token!in!each!word!position?)!and!many!of!the!productions!for!the!younger!groups!were!imitations.!These!could!have!influenced!the!acquisition!timeframes!reported!in!this!study.!By!53!months,!however,!the!average!PCC!for!the!group!was!95.3%,!which!suggests!that!typically!developing!(TD)!FrenchVspeaking!preschoolers!have!mastered!the!majority!of!French!consonants!before!4;6.!A!second!study!looked!at!speech!sound!acquisition!in!schoolVaged!children!while!norming!the!Test"de"Dépistage"Francophone"de"Phonologie"(TDFP)!(Rvachew!et!al.,!2013)."This!is"a!pictureVbased!screening!tool!that!contains!30!target!words!of!varying!length!and!at!least!two!tokens!of!all!the!French!consonants!except!/z, ɲ, ɥ/!(some!of!these!tokens!were!in!clusters).!Rvachew!and!colleagues!(2013)!found!that!the!24!L1!FrenchVspeaking!kindergarten!students!achieved!at!least!a!90%!accuracy!on!/m, n, ɲ, p, b, t, d, k, g, f, v, ʁ, ɥ, ! ! 9!j/,!while!/s, ʃ, l, w/!fell!just!below!the!cutoff.!(The!Grade!1!group!in!this!study!met!the!90%!cutoff!for!/s, ʃ, l, w/).!Unlike!MacLeod!et!al.!(2011),!/z/!was!only!accurate!58.3%!of!the!time!in!the!kindergarten!group!(and!increased!to!75%!in!the!Grade!1!group).!Though!the!children!in!this!study!did!not!have!as!many!mastered!phonemes!as!those!in!the!oldest!age!group!in!MacLeod!et!al.!(2011),!it!is!possible!that!these!differences!were!related!to!the!second!study!using!a!screening!tool!rather!than!a!phonological!assessment,!differences!in!the!make!up!of!the!test!items,!and!potentially!different!mastery!criteria.!Additionally,!Rvachew!et!al.!(2013)!did!not!have!a!requirement!that!the!children!included!in!their!study!must!have!typically!developing!speech!(BrosseauVLapré!et!al.,!2016;!MacLeod!et!al.,!2014).!Despite!these!differences,!the!average!PCC!for!the!kindergarteners!in!the!Rvachew!et!al.!(2013)!study!was!still!high!(90.4%,!with!a!SD!of!6.4%),!supporting!the!conclusions!drawn!by!MacLeod!et!al.!(2011).!The!third!study!sought!to!collect!norms!for!a!screening!tool!derived!from!the!CTEP!(MacLeod!et!al.,!2014).!The!40!imageable!nouns!in!this!tool!assess!all!of!the!French!consonants,!including!some!clusters,!in!a!variety!of!word!positions.!Target!words!were!chosen!because!they!were!deemed!to!be!known!by!children!as!young!as!2;0.!After!combining!the!data!for!243!preschool!children!with!no!phonological!delay,!who!completed!the!CTEP!during!one!of!three!other!studies,!MacLeod!et!al.!(2014)!calculated!the!average!PCC!for!six!different!age!bands.!By!53!months,!the!TD!children!in!this!paper!also!showed!an!average!PCC!of!90%!(with!a!SD!of!12),!which!matches!the!findings!from!the!other!two!studies.!Finally,!Rvachew!and!BrosseauVLapré!(2015)!administered!the!Test"Francophone"de"Phonologie"(TFP)"(Paul!&!Rvachew,!2009)!to!a!group!of!10!TD!preschool"children,!between!the!ages!of!4;0!–!5;11.!The!TFP!is!another!pictureVbased!assessment,!with!54!words!that!sample!the!different!phonemes!by!frequency!of!occurrence!in!! ! 10!Québécois!French,!and!in!different!word!lengths,!word!positions!and!stress!patterns.!These!children!scored!a!mean!PCC!of!94.6%!(with!a!SD!of!1.8%),!lending!further!support!to!the!conclusion!that!TD,!FrenchVspeaking!children!acquire!segments!early.!!A!more!recent!study!by!Bérubé,!Bernhardt!and!Stemberger!(2016)!examined!phoneme!acquisition!in!Manitoban!French.!Three!groups!of!monolingual,!FrenchVspeaking!children!were!tested!using!the"Test"de"Phonologie"en"Français"(Bérubé!et!al.,!2013)!(11!TD!children!between!2;2!and!3;6;!13!TD!children!between!3;11!and!5;1,!and!8!children!with!PPD!between!3;1!–!4;6).!This!tool!consists!of!111!picturable!nouns!that!sample!all!of!the!consonants!in!Canadian!French!in!different!word!shapes,!word!positions,!word!lengths!and!stress!patterns.!(This!tool!is!described!in!more!detail!in!the!methods!chapter.)!The!authors!focused!on!the!order!of!acquisition!of!/l, ʁ/!and!fricatives,!and!examined!how!their!accuracy!differs!across!different!stress!patterns!and!word!lengths!for!the!three!groups!of!children.!Similar!to!previous!studies,!they!found!that!/l/!had!a!fairly!high!accuracy!early!on!in!the!TD!children!(83%!in!the!younger!group,!88%!in!the!older!group)!and!had!a!slightly!higher!accuracy!than!the!fricatives!in!the!younger!age!group!(which!was!80%).!Though!the!accuracy!was!not!as!high!in!the!group!with!PPD,!the!same!trend!was!also!observed.!/ʁ/,!on!the!other!hand,!had!the!lowest!accuracy!across!all!three!groups!(with!50%!in!the!younger!group,!74%!in!the!older!group!and!~20%!in!the!PPD!group),!a!finding!that!the!Québécois!French!studies!would!not!have!predicted.!This!study!also!showed!that!these!phonemes!tended!to!be!(a)!more!accurate!in!stressed!syllables!than!weak!syllables,!especially!early!on,!and!(b)!had!a!slightly!higher!accuracy!in!shorter!words!than!multisyllabic!ones.!Rather than!using!PCC!as!a!measure!of!global!accuracy,!this!study!used!Whole!Word!Match,!a!! ! 11!measure!that!indicates!what!proportion!of!the!child’s!productions!match!the!adult!target!exactly.!The!study!found!a!mean!Whole!Word!Match!of!46.05%!in!the!young!TD!group!(with!a!range!between!25.0%!and!65.4%)!and!a!mean!of!71.58%!for!the!older!TD!group!(with!a!range!between!54.7%!and!86.6%).!Both!of!these!means!are!lower!than!what!the!authors!predicted!based!on!the!PCC!scores!from!the!previous!studies.!These!divergences!from!the!Québec!data!may!be!due!to!several!factors,!such!as!the!use!of!different!assessment!tools!across!the!various!studies,!the!smaller!numbers!of!participants!in!this!study!leaving!it!more!susceptible!to!outliers,!the!wider!age!bands!in!this!study,!and/or!differences!between!different!dialects!of!French.!Though!these!findings!differed!from!the!Québec!data,!they!were!similar!to!the!Whole!Word!Match!scores!that!have!been!reported!for!TD!4VyearVolds!from!other!language!backgrounds!(Bérubé!et!al.,!2016).!!Some!research!has!also!found!that!even!when!a!FrenchVspeaking!child!has!a!phonological!delay,!they!will!often!have!a!relatively!high!PCC,!although!it!is!lower!than!that!of!their!TD!peers.!BrosseauVLapré!and!Rvachew!(2014),!Rvachew!and!BrosseauVLapré!(2015)!and!Rvachew!et!al.!(2014)!used!the!TFP"to!determine!the!average!PCCs!for!seven!groups!of!preschoolers!(totaling!156!children,!between!46!–!69!months).!These!researchers!found!that!the!mean!PCCs!for!the!seven!groups!fell!between!65.74!V!77.30%!(most!groups!having!SD!of!~12%)."Furthermore,!the!majority!of!the!children!in!BrosseauVLapré!and!Rvachew!(2014)!achieved!a!PCC!between!71%!and!80%!on!the!assessment.!Similar!results!have!also!been!found!using!the"screening!tool!derived!from!the!CTEP."Three!of!the!four!54VmonthVolds!with!phonological!delay!in!MacLeod!et!al.!(2014)!scored!between!67.0!–!71.7%!on!this!screening!tool,!though!one!outlier!did!score!94%.!Finally,!two!studies!also!calculated!the!! ! 12!PCC!in!conversation!for!children!with!PPD.!BrosseauVLapré!and!Rvachew!(2014)!calculated!an!average!PCCVconversation!of!75.11%!(with!a!SD!of!7.27)!for!a!group!of!24!preschoolers!between!48!–!61!months,!and!Rvachew!et!al.!(2014)!found!a!mean!of!76.69%!(with!a!SD!of!11.58%)!in!a!group!of!50!children!between!48!–!71!months.!These!results!suggest!that!even!with!a!phonological!delay,!segments!tend!to!be!acquired!early!in!Canadian!French.!Not!all!studies!have!replicated!these!findings!however.!Bérubé!et!al.!(2016)!calculated!the!mean!Whole!Word!Match!for!a!group!of!8!monolingual,!FrenchVspeaking!children!with!PPD,!(between!the!ages!of!3;1!–!4;6)!using!the!Test"de"Phonologie"en"Français,!and!found!a!mean!score!of!25.57%!(with!scores!ranging!from!12.3%!to!43.4%).!This!was!substantially!lower!than!what!they!found!with!the!TD!children!in!the!study!(46.05%!for!the!2;2!–!3;6!group!and!71.58%!for!the!3;11!–!5;1!group)!and!lower!than!what!they!had!predicted!based!on!the!PCC!data!from!the!studies!out!of!Québec!(Bérubé!et!al.,!2016).!!!These!initial!results!about!the!order!and!the!timeline!of!the!acquisition!of!French!phonemes!differ!from!what!is!known!about!English!phoneme!acquisition!in!several!ways.!The!data!indicate!that!FrenchVspeaking!children,!both!with!and!with!no!phonological!delay,!tend!to!acquire!the!majority!of!their!language’s!consonants!before!entering!elementary!school,!whereas!it!is!common!for!EnglishVspeaking!children!to!continue!acquiring!multiple!phonemes!into!the!early!elementary!school!years!(Shipley!&!McAfee,!2009;!Smit!et!al.,!1990).!Additionally,!some!phonemes!that!are!considered!early!for!EnglishVspeaking!children!(e.g.!/p, w, b/)!are!considered!intermediate!or!lateVdeveloping!phonemes!in!French,!and!the!reverse!is!also!true!(e.g.!/z, v, l/!being!earlier!in!French).!Some!speech!sounds,!however,!tend!to!be!lateVdeveloping!in!both!languages!(such!as!grooved!fricatives).!! ! 13!Differences!in!order!of!acquisition!may!reflect!differences!in!the!frequency!of!occurrence!of!the!phonemes!in!each!language,!differences!in!the!complexity!of!specific!speech!sounds!as!well!as!differences!in!the!word!structures!that!children!have!to!master!in!order!to!produce!those!phonemes.!For!example,!/w/!occurs!less!frequently!as!a!singleton!in!French!than!it!does!in!English,!which!could!explain!why!it!is!acquired!earlier!in!English!(Shipley!&!McAfee,!2009).!The!laterals!and!rhotics!in!French!are!articulatorily!less!complex!than!the!English!ones,!which!could!explain!why!they!are!acquired!earlier!by!FrenchVspeaking!children!(Ladefoged!&!Johnson,!2011;!MacLeod!et!al.,!2011).!Finally,!the!vocabulary!items!in!French!tend!to!have!less!complex!word!shapes!than!those!in!English!and!more!regular!stress!patterns!(BrosseauVLapré!&!Rvachew,!2014;!Demuth!&!Johnson,!2003;!MacLeod!et!al.,!2011;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2013;!Trudeau!et!al.,!1999),!so!when!a!FrenchVspeaking!child!has!PPD,!any!word!structure!restrictions!may!affect!relatively!fewer!tokens.!!In!addition!to!the!differences!in!singleton!consonant!acquisition,!FrenchVspeaking!children!have!also!been!reported!to!acquire!word!shapes!in!a!different!order!than!EnglishVspeaking!children.!Though!both!groups!tend!to!start!with!CV!words,!FrenchVspeaking!children!tend!to!expand!to!VCV!and!CVCV!words!next,!whereas!EnglishVspeaking!children!tend!to!build!to!CVC!(BrosseauVLapré!et!al.,!2016;!Demuth!&!Johnston,!2003;!Rose!&!WauquierVGravelines,!2007).!Consonant!clusters!also!emerge!in!a!different!order!and!at!different!rates!between!these!two!groups!of!children.!While!WF!clusters!tend!to!be!the!first!to!emerge!in!English,!WI!clusters!are!the!first!to!emerge!in!French!(Demuth!&!McCullough,!2009;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2013).!For!example,!one!study!examining!C/l/!and!C/ʁ/!acquisition!found!that!FrenchVspeaking!toddlers!(average!age!of!2;4)!correctly!produced!these!clusters!53%!of!the!time!! ! 14!wordVinitially!and!36%!of!the!time!wordVfinally!(Demuth!&!McCullogh,!2009).!This!pattern!may!be!related!to!the!fact!that!WF!singletons!and!consonant!clusters!(especially,!C/ʁ/ clusters)!are!less!common!in!French!and!may!be!dropped!or!reduced!by!adult!speakers!in!colloquial!speech!(BrosseauVLapré!&!Rvachew,!2014;!Demuth!&!McCullough,!2009;!MacLeod!et!al.,!2011).!Because!of!these!patterns,!most!of!the!recent!research!has!focused!on!the!order!of!WI!cluster!acquisition.!Kehoe!et!al.!(2008)!found!that!unlike!in!English,!C/l/!clusters!are!typically!the!earliest!developing,!followed!by!consonant!+!glide!clusters!and!C/ʁ/!clusters.!Findings!by!MacLeod!et!al.!(2011)!support!this!order!of!acquisition.!In!their!study,!WI!C/l/!clusters!were!mastered!by!36!months,!C/w/!clusters!by!42!months,!and!/s/C!and!C/ʁ/!clusters!by!48!months.!This!order!has!also!been!reported!for!children!with!a!phonological!delay!(BrosseauVLapré!&!Rvachew,!2014).!Overall,!these!findings!show!that!not!only!are!WI!clusters!acquired!in!a!different!order!between!the!two!languages,!these!clusters!tend!to!be!acquired!much!earlier!in!FrenchVspeaking!children!(Shipley!&!McAfee,!2009;!Smit!et.!al.,!1990).!Again!these!patterns!may!be!related!to!differences!in!frequency!of!occurrence!and!differences!in!the!complexity!of!the!speech!sounds!that!make!up!these!clusters.!!In!terms!of!the!phonological!mismatches!present!in!French!acquisition,!the!few!existing!studies!suggest!that!syllableVstructure!mismatches!(particularly!deletions)!are!more!common!than!segmentVbased!mismatches.!Some!common!word!structure!mismatches!in!FrenchVspeaking!children,!both!with!and!with!no!phonological!delays,!include:!weak!syllable!deletion,!final!consonant!deletion,!deletion!of!wordVmedial!(WM)!codas,!deletion!of!onsets!and!simplification!of!consonant!clusters!(Bérubé!et!al.,!2016;!BrosseauVLapré!et!al.,!! ! 15!2016;!BrosseauVLapré!&!Rvachew,!2014;!Demuth!&!Johnston,!2003;!Rose!&!WauquierVGravelines,!2007;!Rvachew!&!BrosseauVLapré,!2015;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2014).!Researchers!hypothesize!that!these!patterns!may!be!related!to!how!early!FrenchVspeaking!children!tend!to!acquire!their!consonant!inventory.!Initial!data!with!238!children!between!4;0!–!5;11!suggest!that!when!FrenchVspeaking!children!with!PPD!show!mismatches,!they!are!significantly!more!likely!to!affect!syllable!structure!than!segments;!the!opposite!pattern!from!what!has!been!reported!for!EnglishVspeaking!children!(BrosseauVLapré!&!Rvachew,!2014;!Macrea!&!Taylor,!2014;!Rvachew!&!BrosseauVLapré,!2015;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2014;).!For!example,!BrosseauVLapré!and!Rvachew!(2014)!found!that!57.0%!of!the!mismatches!made!by!the!FrenchVspeaking!children!were!syllableVbased!versus!21.9%!for!the!EnglishVspeaking!children.!The!children!in!their!study!were!matched!for!age,!PCCVconversation!and!receptive!vocabulary,!measured!using!the!Peabody"Picture"Vocabulary"Test"–"3rd"Edition"(Dunn!&!Dunn,!1997)"and!the!French!adaptation!of!that!test,!l’Échelle"de"vocabulaire"en"images"(Dunn,!TheriaultVWhalen,!&!Dunn,!1993)."There!is!some!evidence,!however,!that!the!ratio!between!types!of!mismatches!may!vary!based!on!the!age!of!the!speaker,!the!target!sound,!word!position,!stress!patterns,!as!well!as!whether!or!not!the!client!is!bilingual!(Bérubé!et!al.,!2016;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2013).!While!FrenchVspeaking!children!do!make!segmentVbased!mismatches!(e.g.!stopping!of!fricatives),!they!are!reported!to!do!so!at!lower!rates!overall!than!what!has!been!reported!for!EnglishVspeaking!children!(BrosseauVLapré!&!Rvachew,!2014;!Macrea!&!Taylor,!2014;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2014).!Some!segmental!patterns,!however,!are!relatively!common!for!FrenchVspeaking!children,!such!as![Dorsal]!spreading!(BrosseauVLapré!&!Rvachew,!2014;!Rvachew!&!BrosseauVLapré,!2015).!This!occurs!when!! ! 16!the![Dorsal]!feature!from!the!second!consonant!in!a!cluster!spreads!to!the!first!consonant (e.g. tracteur"/tʁakˈtœʁ̥/!→ [kʁ̥aˈthɑ̰ː]). !!To!summarize,!over!the!last!five!years,!many!researchers!in!Canada!have!contributed!to!our!growing!understanding!of!the!acquisition!of!Canadian!French.!The!emerging!literature!is!supporting!the!argument!that,!since!French!and!English!phonologies!differ!in!numerous!ways,!it!would!make!sense!that!these!languages!would!not!be!acquired!in!exactly!the!same!way.!Researchers!have!found!differences!in!the!order!and!rate!that!consonants!and!CCs!are!acquired!in!each!language!as!well!as!differences!in!the!mismatch!patterns!that!occur!in!their!speech.!The!literature!is!suggesting!that!overall!the!consonant!inventory!tends!to!be!acquired!earlier!in!French.!Mismatches!have!also!been!shown!to!impact!syllable!structure!more!often!than!segments.!These!patterns!have!been!reported!for!both!children!with!and!with!no!phonological!delay.!!These!initial!findings!do!need!to!be!interpreted!with!some!caution!however.!First!of!all,!many!of!the!studies!used!different!assessment!tools,!which!varied!in!the!makeVup!and!number!of!test!items.!For!example,!not!all!of!the!tests!sampled!the!phonemes!at!a!rate!proportional!to!their!occurrence!in!Canadian!French,!some!studies!used!screening!tools!rather!than!a!full!assessment,!and!some!of!the!tools!contain!vocabulary!items!that!may!be!unfamiliar!to!young!children!(e.g.!CTEP)!(MacLeod!et!al.,!2014;!MacLeod!et!al.,!2011;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2013).!These!sampling!differences!might!have!influenced!the!conclusions!about!the!order!of!singleton!and!CCs!acquisition.!Another!factor!to!consider!is!that!while!the!average!PCC!was!similar!between!the!papers!reported!in!this!section,!not!all!of!these!! ! 17!papers!explicitly!stated!how!they!calculated!PCC.!This!is!potentially!problematic!because!there!are!several!possible!ways!to!calculate!this!measure.!For!example,!different!researchers!may!count!CCs,!like!the!one!at!the!beginning!of![dʁɑˈpo],!differently:!some!may!treat![dʁ] as!one!unit!that!either!matches!or!does!not!match!the!adult!target,!some!count!the![d]!and![ʁ]!as!separate!speech!sounds!to!compare!to!the!adult!target,!where!as!others!may!exclude!CCs!from!the!PCC!calculation!entirely.!Without!knowing!if!these!researchers!used!the!same!procedure!to!calculate!the!PCC,!it!is!possible!that!the!findings!across!the!studies!may!not!actually!be!as!close!as!they!appear.!Lastly,!not!all!of!the!studies!involving!children!with!PPD!provided!information!about!the!severity!level!of!the!participants’!phonological!delays.!It!is!possible!that!some!of!the!reported!patterns!may!differ!between!children!with!mild!PPD!and!those!with!a!more!severe!PPD.!More!research!is!needed!to!address!all!three!of!these!areas.!!!In!addition!to!the!emerging!normative!data!for!French,!the!research!community!has!also!been!accumulating!data!pertaining!to!the!clinical!application!of!phonological!theory.!The!following!sections!will!outline!two!such!theories!and!how!these!have!been!applied!to!guide!phonological!intervention.!!1.4!!Fundamentals!of!Nonlinear!Phonology!Nonlinear!phonology!is!a!branch!of!linguistic!theory!that!is!concerned!with!the!phonological!representation!of!words!and!phrases,!and!the!interactions!between!and!within!the!different!levels!of!that!representation.!In!this!framework,!phonological!information!is!organized!into!multiple!autonomous,!hierarchical!tiers,!and!includes!both!! ! 18!segmental!and!prosodic!information!(Bernhardt!&!Gilbert,!1992;!Bernhardt!&!StoelVGammon,!1994;!Goldsmith,!1976;!Shoaf,!Iyer,!&!Bothe,!2009).!Figure!1!(refer!to!Chapter!7!for!all!figures)!shows!the!different!levels!of!this!hierarchy!in!decreasing!order:!the!prosodic!phrase,!prosodic!words,!prosodic!feet,!syllables,!onsets!+!rimes!(nucleus!+!coda),!segments,!timing!units!(moras)!and!linguistic!features.!Every!word!and!phrase!is!built!up!from!the!information!contained!in!each!of!these!tiers.!For!an!example,!the!word!“fun”!has!one!prosodic!foot,!with!one!stressed!syllable.!The!segment!/f/!is!the!onset!of!that!syllable!and!/ʌn/!comprises!the!rime!(/ʌ/!is!the!nucleus!and!/n/!is!the!coda);!having!two!segments!in!the!rime!gives!this!syllable!two!moras.!Though!these!tiers!are!autonomous,!they!are!associated!with!each!other;!the!lower!tiers!are!dependent!on!the!tiers!above!them!in!order!to!be!realized!in!production.!Additionally,!because!of!the!branching!in!this!model,!nonadjacent!nodes!on!the!same!level!can!influence!each!other.!For!example,!the!place!feature!for!the!segment!/g/!in!dog!can!spread!to!the!/d/!resulting!in![gɑg]!(assuming!that!consonants!are!separated!from!vowels).!!Not!shown!in!Figure!1!are!the!features!that!make!up!each!speech!sound.!Each!segment!is!composed!of!numerous!linguistic!features,!including!manner!features!(how!the!airflow!is!manipulated),!place!features!(where!the!sound!is!produced!in!the!oral!cavity!and!the!shape!of!the!articulators!involved),!and!laryngeal!features!(the!state!of!the!vocal!folds)!(Bernhardt!!&!Gilbert,!1992;!Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!1998;!Bernhardt!&!StoelVGammon,!1994).!As!with!the!prosodic!structure,!these!features!are!also!proposed!to!be!organized!in!a!hierarchical!fashion!(McCarthy,!1988;!Sagey,!1986).!Figure!2!shows!which!features!fall!under!each!of!those!main!feature!divisions.!!! ! 19!Following!Bernhardt!and!Stemberger!(1998),!in!this!paper,!all!features,!with!the!exception!of![Labial,!Coronal,!Dorsal,!Radical],!are!considered!binary.!This!means!that!the!features!that!make!up!a!particular!segment!are!denoted!with!a!“+”,!while!those!that!do!not!are!marked!with!a!“V“.!The!main!place!features,!on!the!other!hand,!have!only!one!value!(present);!if!they!do!not!make!up!a!segment,!they!are!not!included!in!the!description.!For!example!/f/!is![Vlateral,!Vnasal,!+continuant,!+consonantal,!Vsonorant,!Labial,!Vround,!+labiodental,!Vvoiced,!+spread!glottis,!Vconstricted!glottis].!Another!aspect!of!this!theory!suggests!that!each!person!has!default!values!for!these!various!features,!and!these!are!the!values!that!the!system!will!use!unless!otherwise!specified.!For!example,![+consonantal,!!Vcontinuant,!Vnasal,!Vlateral]!tend!to!be!the!default!values!for!manner!features!in!English!(Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!2015b).!Default!segments!are!those!that!contain!default!features!for!manner,!place!and!laryngeal!status.!The!majority!of!adults!speaking!a!given!language!are!likely!to!have!the!same!defaults!(Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!1998)!but!in!early!development!(TD!or!PPD),!defaults!may!differ!from!the!adult!values!(Bernhardt,!1992b;!Bernhartd!&!Stemberger,!1998,!2000;!Braine,!1971;!Farwell,!1977;!Grunwell,!1989;!Klein,!2008;!Menn,!1971;!Weiner,!1981).!An!example!of!this!is!seen!in!Bernhardt!and!Stemberger!(2000);!the!case!study!data!from!“Colin”!suggest!that!his!default!place!feature!was![Dorsal],!rather!than!the!more!common!value![Coronal].!Default!features!and!segments!may!be!very!pervasive!in!some!children’s!speech!(Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!2000;!Braine,!1971;!Farwell,!1977;!Grunwell,!1989;!Klein,!2008;!Menn,!1971;!Weiner,!1981;!Williams,!2006;!Williams,!2005;!Yavas!&!Hernandorena,!1991).!!!!! ! 20!1.5!!Fundamentals!of!Optimality!Theory!and!Constraint3Based!Analysis!!Optimality!Theory!(OT)!is!another!branch!of!linguistic!theory,!one!that!proposes!a!grammatical!framework!that!may!underlie!all!languages!(Barlow,!2001a,!2001b;!Barlow!&!Gierut,!1999;!Kager,!2010).!Similar!to!the!derivational!frameworks!of!Generative!Grammar,!OT!assumes!that!there!is!an!input!(or!mental)!representation!and!an!output!(or!surface)!representation!for!target!words!and!sounds!within!a!language!(Barlow,!2001b;!Barlow!&!Geirut,!1999;!Kager,!2010).!However,!unlike!other!approaches,!which!describe!the!output!representation!as!the!final!output!in!a!series!of!ordered!rules!(Kager,!2010),!in!OT,!the!output!representation!is!determined!by!a!set!of!universal!language!constraints!that!are!ranked!in!a!languageVspecific!order!(Barlow,!2001a;!Barlow!&!Gierut,!1999;!Kager,!2010).!In!this!theory,!a!generator!generates!possible!output!candidates!for!a!given!input!representation,!and!an!evaluator!compares!each!candidate!to!that!language’s!constraint!hierarchy!(Barlow!&!Gierut,!1999;!Kager,!2010).!The!output!representations!will!be!the!pronunciation!that!best!satisfies!the!highestVranked!(most!important)!constraints!in!that!language.!It!is!important!to!note!that!all!constraints!are!assumed!to!be!violable!(i.e.!not!satisfied!in!the!output!representation).!For!example,!lowerVranked!constraints!are!often!violated!to!satisfy!higherVranked!ones!(Barlow!&!Gierut,!1999;!Kager,!2010).! !There!are!two!general!categories!of!constraints!in!OT:!faithfulness!and!markedness.!Faithfulness!constraints!ensure!that!the!output!is!identical!to!the!input;!in!other!words,!these!constraints!instruct!the!evaluator!not!to!choose!candidates!that!contain!deletions,!epentheses,!substitutions!and/or!distortions.!For!example,!the!constraint!IdentVIO[nasal]!means!“Correspondent!segments!in!input!and!output!have!identical!values!for![nasal]”!! ! 21!(Kager,!2010,!p.!29).!If!a!speaker!produced!/mæt/!as![bæt],!they!would!have!violated!this!constraint!once!by!changing!the![+nasal]!in!the!/m/!to![Vnasal].!Markedness!constraints,!on!the!other!hand,!bias!the!system!towards!unmarked!candidates!(i.e.!ones!that!do!not!include!properties!that!are!hard!to!perceive!or!produce,!nor!any!word!structures,!segments!or!features!that!are!uncommon!across!languages)!(Barlow,!2001a,!2001b;!Barlow!&!Gierut,!1999;!Kager,!2010).!For!example,!*ComplexCod!means!“Codas!are!simple”!(Kager,!2010,!p.!97).!If!a!speaker!produced!/hænd/!as![hæn]!this!would!satisfy!this!constraint,!even!though!it!is!not!faithful!to!the!/d/!in!the!input.!Both!types!of!constraints!can!pertain!to!word!length,!stress!patterns,!syllable!structure,!segments!and/or!features!(Barlow,!2001a;!Barlow!&!Geirut,!1999;!Kager,!2010).!!!OT!assumes!that!all!constraints!apply!to!all!languages,!but!their!rankings!relative!to!each!other!are!what!distinguish!languages!from!one!another!(Barlow!&!Gierut,!1999;!Kager,!2010).!For!example,!constraints!that!tell!the!evaluator!to!avoid!choosing!a!candidate!with!a!complex!onset!are!highVranking!in!languages!like!Japanese!and!Finnish,!which!do!not!allow!complex!onsets,!but!lowerVranking!in!languages!like!English!(Kager,!2010).!OT!researchers!have!used!constraintVbased!analysis!to!propose!language!constraints!as!well!as!to!demonstrate!differences!in!their!relative!ranking!across!languages,!including!English,!Dutch,!French,!Hixkaryana,!Indonesian,!Japanese,!Pintupi,!and!Turkish!(Kager,!2010).!This!type!of!analysis!consists!of!demonstrating!how!the!various!constraints!must!be!ordered!for!the!evaluator!to!choose!the!output!representation!produced!by!adult!speakers!of!that!language!over!other!candidates!for!that!input.!For!example,!it!would!demonstrate!how!the!constraints!have!to!be!ordered!so!that![ˈfɪʃiŋ]!is!selected!as!optimal!target!for!/ˈfɪʃiŋ/!over!! ! 22!candidates!like![ˈfɪsiŋ], [ˈpɪʃiŋ], [ˈpɪtiŋ]!or![ˈtɪtiŋ].!This!paper!will!turn!now!to!the!discussion!of!the!clinical!application!of!these!theories.!!1.6!!Clinical!Application!of!Nonlinear!Phonology!Although!currently!not!the!most!common!theory!used!to!guide!phonological!intervention!(Rvachew!&!BrosseauVLapré,!2015),!in!comparison!to!segmentVbased!theories!or!phonological!process!theory,!nonlinear!phonology!has!been!proven!to!be!beneficial!for!selecting!goals!and!therapy!approaches!for!children!with!moderate!to!severe!PPD!(Bernhardt,!1990,!1992a;!Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!1998,!2000;!Bernhardt,!Stemberger!&!Major,!2006).!Because!the!various!tiers!of!phonological!hierarchy!are!viewed!as!autonomous!but!linked,!any!of!them!can!be!independently!affected!and!influence!other!levels!of!the!hierarchy.!A!nonlinear!phonological!analysis!can!reveal!which!tier!an!SLP!should!target!in!therapy!to!effect!the!most!change.!Therapists!can!target!word!structures!(e.g.!expanding!word!shapes!to!include!CVC!and/or!CVCV),!as!well!as!feature!goals!(e.g.!producing![+continuant,!Vsonorant]!segments).!Additionally,!this!approach!can!be!used!even!when!the!child!being!assessed!speaks!a!language!that!has!few,!if!any,!acquisition!norms.!SLPs!can!still!apply!this!theoretical!framework!to!identify!areas!of!strength!and!need!in!a!child’s!phonological!system,!and!use!that!to!guide!therapy!decisions.!The!balance!between!strengths!and!needs!in!analysis!is!another!distinguishing!characteristic!of!clinical!nonlinear!phonology.!While!other!approaches!focus!primarily,!or!even!exclusively,!on!mismatches,!nonlinear!phonology!identifies!areas!of!strength!within!the!phonological!hierarchy!that!can!be!used!to!maximize!the!acquisition!of!difficult!word!structures/!segments/!features.!Thus!this!type!of!analysis!can!provide!some!initial!therapy!strategies.!! ! 23!Most!of!the!literature!surrounding!the!clinical!application!of!nonlinear!phonology!has!involved!EnglishVspeaking!children.!For!example,!Bernhardt!(1990,!1992a)!used!the!tenets!of!this!theory!to!set!individualized!goals!for!six!EnglishVspeaking!children!with!moderate!to!severe!PPD.!By!the!end!of!the!three!blocks!of!treatment,!all!six!children!had!become!intelligible!and!the!following!trends!were!noted:!prosodic!goals!(e.g.!syllable!structure)!were!acquired!at!a!faster!rate!than!segmental!goals,!and!both!types!of!therapy!targets!also!generalized!to!related!but!untrained!items.!These!findings!support!the!argument!that!the!tiers!of!the!phonological!hierarchy!are!autonomous!and!can!be!independently!strengthened!through!targeted!therapy.!A!case!study!by!Shoaf!et!al.!(2009)!found!that!in!addition!to!generalizations!to!similar!targets,!their!participant!also!made!gains!on!unrelated!speech!sounds!after!completing!therapy!targeting!/dʒ/.!The!authors!hypothesized!that!since!/dʒ/!is!a!complex!segment!(with!many!marked,!nonVdefault!features),!targeting!it!led!to!a!more!generalized!restructuring!of!that!child’s!phonological!system.!Further!studies,!including!Bernhardt!and!Major!(2005),!Bernhardt!et!al.!(2006)!and!Major!and!Bernhardt!(1998),!have!provided!additional!evidence!highlighting!the!clinical!benefits!of!using!nonlinear!phonology!with!EnglishVspeaking!children,!and!given!rise!to!some!therapeutic!guidelines.!The!first!is!to!select!goals!that!are!maximally!distinct!whenever!possible.!In!doing!so,!therapy!will!be!targeting!multiple!levels!of!the!phonological!hierarchy,!increasing!the!potential!for!more!widespread!gains!(Bernhardt!1990,!1992a;!Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!1998,!2000;!Major!&!Berndhardt,!2005).!Another!guideline,!when!clients!have!notable!needs!for!both!word!structure!and!segments,!is!to!tackle!the!structural!goals!first.!Research!findings!have!indicated!that!the!phonological!hierarchy!is!a!topVdown!process,!so!targeting!higher!tiers!first!can!lead!to!greater!generalization!in!the!tiers!below!them!(Bernhardt!! ! 24!1990,!1992a;!Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!2000;!Shoaf!et!al.,!2009).!A!third!principle!is!to!use!the!child’s!existing!strengths!when!choosing!the!target!words!to!be!used!in!treatment.!For!example,!when!targeting!a!new!feature!or!a!new!combination!of!already!established!features,!working!on!them!in!words!with!wellVestablished!word!shapes!and!no!other!challenging!segments,!allows!the!client!to!focus!on!the!new!form.!The!same!applies!when!targeting!a!new!word!shape!or!an!old!segment!in!a!new!word!position!(Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!1998,!2000).!This!approach!helps!maximize!the!child’s!ability!to!acquire!the!new!targets.!Finally,!to!promote!efficient!generalization,!it!is!recommended!that!therapy!address!a!subset!of!potential!therapy!targets!within!a!category,!leaving!the!rest!to!be!monitored.!Since!this!theory!argues!that!therapy!is!strengthening!the!different!levels!of!the!phonological!hierarchy,!rather!than!specific!sounds!or!word!structures,!there!should!be!some!generalized!improvement!even!when!not!all!aspects!of!the!system!are!targeted!(Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!1998,!2000). !Recently,!a!growing!number!of!studies!have!used!nonlinear!phonology!to!guide!the!phonological!intervention!of!children!from!different!language!backgrounds,!including!Manitoban!French!(Bérubé,!Bernhardt,!Stemberger!&!Bertrand,!2015),!Québécois!French!(Rvachew!&!BrosseauVLapré,!2015),!German!(Ullrich,!Stemberger,!&!Bernhardt,!2008),!and!Mandarin!(Berhardt!&!Zhao,!2010)!The!Manitoban!French!case!study!by!Bérubé!et!al.!(2015)!did!an!inVdepth!nonlinear!phonological!analysis!of!the!assessment!data!from!a!boy!aged!4;6,!who!had!moderate!PPD,!and!used!that!information!to!create!an!intervention!plan.!They!identified!areas!of!strength!and!need,!proposed!therapy!goals!in!the!areas!of!word!structure,!sequences!and!features,!prioritized!these!therapy!goals!for!the!first!block!of!! ! 25!therapy,!and!recommended!strategies!for!targeting!each!of!these!goals!(including!strong!segments!and!word!shapes!to!use!in!target!words).!In!a!larger!scale!study,!Rvachew!and!BrosseauVLapré!(2015)!used!a!nonlinear!phonological!approach!to!select!individualized!goals!for!each!of!the!65!participants!in!their!randomized!trial,!which!compared!different!types!of!interventions.!They!found!that!following!treatment,!each!of!the!therapy!groups!had!made!significant!gains!in!their!PCC!and!match!ratios!(which!included!segments!and!word!shape!matches).!These!findings!suggest!that!the!nonlinear!analysis!had!identified!relevant!goals!for!the!clients!in!this!study.!!1.7!!Clinical!Application!of!Constraint3Based!Analysis!Just!as!nonlinear!phonology!has!multiple!studies!demonstrating!its!clinical!application,!constraintVbased!analyses!have!also!been!applied!to!child!data!to!provide!explanations!for!mismatch!patterns!and!to!select!treatment!goals.!Optimality!Theory!(OT)!argues!that!when!a!child’s!phonological!system!is!developing,!markedness!constraints!are!ranked!higher!than!faithfulness!ones,!resulting!in!less!complex!productions!(Barlow!&!Gierut,!1999).!This!is!true!for!both!TD!children!and!those!with!PPD!(Barlow!&!Gierut,!1999).!With!experience!and/or!therapy,!the!constraints!are!reorganized!so!that!faithfulness!constraints!outrank!markedness!ones,!and!that!their!overall!ranking!matches!the!hierarchy!of!the!language!they!are!learning!(Barlow,!2001a,!2001b;!Barlow!&!Gierut,!1999).!As!with!the!adult!data,!a!constraintVbased!analysis!can!be!used!to!account!for!output!representations!produced!by!children.!It!can!show!which!constraints!are!higherVranked!in!that!speaker’s!hierarchy!in!order!for!different!mismatches!to!occur.!For!example,![pɪd]!can!be!selected!as!the!optimal!candidate!for!/pɪg/!when!*Dorsal!(“Avoid![Dorsal]!segments”)!outranks!IDENTVPLACE!! ! 26!(“Preserve!place!features!from!input!segments”)!(Barlow!&!Gierut,!1999,!p.!1487).!For!clients!with!this!ranking,!therapy!should!be!targeted!to!demote!*Dorsal!(Barlow,!2001a,!2001b).!!!Unlike!adult!speakers,!there!can!be!a!high!degree!of!variability!in!the!output!representations!produced!by!children,!both!TD!and!with!PPD!(Barlow!&!Gierut,!1999).!Under!this!theory,!interVspeaker!variability!is!explained!by!these!children!having!different!constraint!rankings,!whereas!intraVspeaker!variability!is!largely!explained!by!having!two!or!more!low!ranking!constraints!that!are!considered!equal!(though!differences!in!frequency!of!occurrence!and!neighbourhood!density!in!that!language!can!also!have!an!effect)!(Barlow!&!Gierut,!1999).!!!1.8!!Combining!Nonlinear!Phonological!and!Constraint3Based!Analyses!Barlow!and!Gierut!(1999)!argue!that!OT!should!be!used!in!tandem!with!other!linguistic!theories!to!describe!a!speaker’s!productions,!because!no!one!theory!has!yet!been!shown!to!be!superior.!OT!fits!well!with!nonlinear!phonology!for!several!reasons;!for!example,!they!both!deal!with!multiple!levels!of!the!phonological!hierarchy!and!marked!word!structures,!segments!and!features,!as!well!as!assume!that!children!bring!knowledge!about!some!language!universals!to!the!languageVlearning!task!and!that!these!are!modified!with!experience!(Barlow,!2001a;!Barlow!&!Gierut,!1999;!Bernhardt!1990,!1992b;!Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!1998,!2000).!Under!each!theory,!the!overarching!goal!for!therapy!is!to!increase!a!client’s!phonological!complexity!(Barlow,!2001a,!2001b;!Barlow!&!Gierut,!1999;!Bernhardt!1990,!1992b;!Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!1998,!2000).!As!previously!described,!! ! 27!with!formal!constraintVbased!analyses,!researchers!rank!all!the!applicable!constraints!in!a!child’s!grammar!and!demonstrate!why!the!evaluator!selected!a!particular!candidate!(Barlow,!2001a,!2001b;!Barlow!&!Gierut,!1999;!Kager,!2010).!The!current!study!takes!a!less!formal!approach!as!described!in!Bernhardt!and!Stemberger!(1998).!!That!is,!the!analysis!identifies!(a)!highVranking,!negative!(markedness)!and!positive!(faithfulness)!constraints!that!affect!the!child’s!output,!and!(b)!(repair)!strategies!(e.g.!deletion,!feature!changes,!epenthesis)!that!adhere!to!and!satisfy!these!constraints.!!!Combining!nonlinear!and!constraintVbased!analyses!can!have!numerous!benefits!for!clinicians.!The!analyses!can!help!clinicians!identify!established,!inconsistent,!default!and!missing!features,!sounds!and!word!structures!in!a!client’s!phonological!system,!patterns!of!‘repair’!and!potential!therapy!goals!and!strategies.!These!analyses!are!also!able!to!show!quantitative!and!qualitative!improvement!following!intervention.!While!global!measures!of!accuracy,!such!as!PCC!and!Whole!Word!Match,!can!be!useful!in!determining!the!severity!of!phonological!delay!and!monitoring!progress!with!some!clients,!these!scores!may!not!be!sensitive!enough!to!capture!the!improvements!made!by!every!client!following!treatment.!A!clinician!can!use!constraintVbased!nonlinear!analyses!to!look!for!evidence!about!whether!or!not!the!client!is!producing!“better”!mismatches!following!treatment,!i.e.!changes!in!their!productions!that!would!contribute!to!increased!intelligibility!and!may!reflect!improvements!in!the!phonological!system.!Clinicians!can!ask!questions!such!as!“Are!the!highVranking!constraints!still!broad!or!have!they!become!more!specific?”!“Have!the!child’s!default!features!changed!following!therapy?”!and!“Are!there!fewer!repair!strategies!being!used!following!therapy?”!in!order!to!look!for!qualitative!improvement.!! ! 28!1.9!!The!Present!Study!This!introduction!has!summarized!what!is!currently!known!about!phonological!acquisition!in!Canadian!French!and!described!two!phonological!theories!that!have!the!potential!to!be!used!to!guide!assessment!and!treatment!for!FrenchVspeaking!clients.!The!present!study!sought!to!build!on!this!information,!and!had!three!main!goals.!The!first!was!to!present!a!phonological!case!study!of!a!child!who!speaks!Québécois!French,!since!there!are!few!of!these!studies!published.!The!second!goal!was!to!provide!another!example!of!the!application!of!nonlinear!phonological!and!constraintVbased!analyses!using!French!data.!This!study!used!both!types!of!analyses!to!identify!and!compare!areas!of!strength!and!need!in!the!child’s!phonology!preV!and!postVtherapy,!as!well!as!to!propose!hypothetical!treatment!goals!moving!forward.!The!final!aim!was!to!compare!the!findings!to!the!emerging!norms!of!Canadian!French!acquisition.!!!Based!on!the!existing!research!about!Québécois!French!acquisition,!several!predictions!were!made!about!patterns!that!would!be!observed!in!this!participant’s!data.!It!was!predicted!that!the!client!would!have!a!relatively!high!PCC!at!both!time!points,!and!that!he!would!be!able!to!spontaneously!produce!most,!if!not!all,!of!the!target!sounds!at!Time!1!(even!if!they!are!not!mastered).!It!was!also!predicted!that!he!would!be!able!to!produce!WI!clusters,!and!that!he!would!show!more!syllable!structure!mismatches!than!segmentVbased!ones.!!! ! 29!2.!Methods!2.1!!Participant!The!participant!(pseudonym!Rémi)!is!a!confident!and!cheerful!boy,!who!was!5!years!of!age!when!assessed!for!this!study.!He!lives!at!home!with!his!parents!and!older!brother.!He!was!referred!for!assessment!by!his!parents,!who!were!concerned!about!his!speech!intelligibility!when!he!was!4!years!of!age.!There!were!no!concerns!in!his!medical!history,!nor!any!history!of!speech!or!language!delay!within!the!immediate!family.!Rémi!and!his!family!moved!to!British!Columbia!from!Québéc!for!about!20!months!when!he!was!4!years!of!age.!Prior!to!the!assessment!at!Time!1,!he!had!been!attending!a!partVtime,!EnglishVonly!preschool!for!several!months!but!spoke!minimal!English.!By!Time!2,!he!had!been!attending!EnglishVonly!kindergarten!for!4!months.!French!was!the!language!spoken!in!the!home,!and!English!was!the!dominant!language!in!the!community!where!he!was!living!during!this!case!study.!By!the!end!of!kindergarten,!Rémi!was!fluent!in!both!English!and!French.!!!2.2!!Procedure!Rémi’s!phonology!was!assessed!in!June!2014!and!January!2015!(when!he!was!5;3!and!5;9)!using!the!Test"de"Phonologie"en"Français"(Bérubé!et!al.,!2013).!This!phonological!tool,!influenced!by!nonlinear!phonological!theories,!consists!of!111!words!that!assess!a!child’s!productions!of!all!of!the!consonant!and!vowel!sounds!in!Canadian!French!as!well!as!clusters!in!various!word!positions,!word!shapes,!word!lengths!(1!–!4!syllables),!and!stress!patterns.!The!test!items!primarily!consist!of!words!from!the!French!version!of!the!MacArthurVBates!Child!Development!Index!(Boudeault,!Cabriol,!Trudeau,!PoulinVDubois,!&!Sutton,!2007),!and!the!consonant!and!vowel!sounds!are!assessed!at!a!frequency!! ! 30!proportional!to!their!use!in!the!French!language!(e.g.!/s/!was!assessed!more!times!than!/ʒ/!(New!&!Pallier,!2001)).!This!assessment!samples!both!earlyV!and!laterVdeveloping!speech!sounds!in!order!to!help!identify!PPD.!The!test!is!administered!in!a!storybook!format,!where!the!examiner!reads!a!script,!and!the!child!contributes!to!the!story!by!naming!the!images!on!the!pages.!!!Each!assessment!took!place!over!a!single!session,!approximately!45!minutes!in!length.!Both!assessments!took!place!in!a!home!environment,!with!Rémi!’s!mother,!the!SLP!supervising!this!study!and!his!private!SLP!present.!The!current!author!was!present!for!the!second!assessment.!Rémi!wore!a!Countryman!remote!lapel!microphone!and!the!recordings!were!made!on!a!MVAudio!Microtrack!II!tape!recorder!(MVAudio,!Irwindale,!CA,!USA)!and!a!Sennheiser!remote!system!(transmitter!EK!100!G2!and!receiver!SK!100!G2).!!2.3!!Transcriptions!and!Reliability!The!current!author,!who!has!graduateVlevel!training!in!clinical!phonetics!and!phonology,!and!prior!FrenchVlanguage!experience!(12!years!of!FrenchVImmersion!schooling),!did!narrow!phonetic!transcriptions!of!Rémi’s!productions.!Spectrograms!were!consulted!and!each!token!was!reviewed!at!least!three!times.!When!Rémi!produced!a!target!word!more!than!once,!the!acoustically!cleanest!token!(the!one!with!the!least!amount!of!background!noise!or!overlapping!speech)!was!included!in!the!main!analysis,!and!the!remaining!ones!were!included!in!a!variability!analysis!(when!audible).!At!Time!1,!a!bird!was!chirping!in!the!background,!adding!noise!to!many!tokens.!Nine!target!words!were!excluded!from!this!time!point!because!they!were!too!difficult!to!hear.!A!native!Manitoban!French!speaker,!also!with!! ! 31!graduate!training!in!phonetics,!phonology!and!speechVlanguage!pathology,!transcribed!10%!of!the!tokens!from!both!time!points!(10%!of!the!monosyllabic,!bisyllabic!and!multisyllabic!tokens)!using!the!same!Sony!MDRVXB450!headphones.!There!was!an!interVrater!reliability!of!81%!for!consonants!at!Time!1!and!91%!at!Time!2.!The!differences!between!the!two!listeners!were!primarily!related!to!the!transcription!of!/t/!and!the!voicing!on!some!tokens.!The!current!author!consistently!transcribed!the!child’s!production!as![th]!where!as!the!other!listener!transcribed!them!as![ts].!A!third!listener!transcribed!them!as![th],!so!that!is!the!transcription!that!was!used!in!the!analysis.!In!terms!of!voicing,!because!the!current!author!used!spectrogram!data!while!transcribing!and!the!second!listener!did!not,!the!analysis!used!the!voicing!transcribed!by!the!current!author.!!2.4!!Coding!and!Analysis!In!order!to!identify!potential!treatment!goals,!Phon!software!(Rose!et!al.,!2006;!Rose!&!MacWhinney,!2014)!and!French!SCAN!forms!(Bernhardt,!Stemberger,!&!Bérubé,!2015)!were!used.!The!transcriptions!from!both!time!points!were!entered!into!Phon!2.1!(Rose!&!MacWhinney,!2014),!which!provided!quantitative!data!about!whole!word!match,!word!shape!match,!word!length!match,!stress!pattern!match,!and!PCC.!The!adult!targets!entered!into!the!software!were!those!of!his!mother,!who!speaks!a!Québécois!dialect!of!French.!(His!father!speaks!a!slightly!different!variant!of!Québécois!French,!but!as!his!mother!spent!more!time!with!the!children,!her!data!were!used!as!the!primary!targets.)!These!were!compared!to!Rémi’s!productions!to!determine!if!some!of!his!consonant!mismatch!patterns!could!be!dialectal.!Several!patterns!were!noted!in!the!mother’s!data,!which!affected!how!Rémi’s!productions!were!scored.!She!inconsistently!dropped!WF!/ʁ/!both!as!singletons!and!in!! ! 32!clusters.!Because!of!this,!WF!/ʁ/!deletions!were!only!marked!as!incorrect!when!Rémi!deleted!them!in!a!context!where!neither!his!mother!nor!the!Québéc!City!dialect!data!deleted!it!(Y.!Rose,!personal!communication,!August!13,!2014).!There!was!also!some!variability!in!how!much!the!mother!devoiced!/ʁ/!when!it!was!preceded!by!a!voiceless!obstruent;!sometimes!it!was!fully!devoiced!([χ])!and!other!times,!only!the!first!half!is!devoiced!([ʁ̥]).!!As!a!result,![χ, ʁ̥] were!both!considered!accurate!in!Rémi’s!productions!of!these!clusters.!Finally,!she!inconsistently!aspirated!voiceless!stops!in!all!word!positions,!and!so!voiceless!aspirated!stops!were!scored!as!accurate!in!Rémi’s!data.!Additionally,!because!of!the!phonotactic!constraints!described!in!the!introduction,!the!target!words!starting!with!vowels!are!not!produced!with!a!WI!/ʔ/!in!running!speech.!However,!because!Rémi!was!asked!not!to!use!an!article!when!naming!pictures,!he!often!produced!a!/ʔ/!before!vowelVinitial!target!words.!These!were!not!counted!as!epenthesis!or!mismatches!in!word!shape.!!!Many!allophones!exist!for!vowels!in!the!Québéc!City!dialect!of!French!(e.g.!/ɔ, ʌ/,!/a, ɑ/!and!diphthongs!for!midvowels)!(A.!MacLeod,!personal!communication,!October!24,!2014;!Rose,!&!WauquierVGravelines,!2007),!and!once!these!were!taken!into!account,!Rémi’s!Percent!Vowels!Correct!at!Time!1!was!78.0%!(138/177)!(and!an!additional!11!tokens!had!only!a!slight!difference!in!height).!These!findings!indicate!that!vowels!were!an!area!of!strength!for!Rémi!and!as!a!result,!vowels!were!not!examined!in!this!study.!!The!Phon!data!were!also!used!to!complete!pages!3!–!6!of!the!French!SCAN!(Bernhardt!et!al.,!2015)!in!order!to!obtain!a!qualitative!analysis!for!both!time!points.!Available!in!multiple!! ! 33!languages,!SCAN!forms!are!comprehensive!forms!that!can!be!filled!out!using!assessment!data!from!any!phonological!assessment!in!the!corresponding!language!(Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!2015a).!They!can!be!used!to!identify!a!client’s!strengths!and!needs!in!the!areas!of!word!shape,!word!length,!stress,!consonants,!consonant!clusters,!vowels!(if!necessary),!and!features.!It!can!also!help!to!identify!default!features!and!phonological!patterns!in!a!client’s!phonology.!These!results!can!then!be!used!to!guide!therapy!goal!selection,!as!well!as!monitor!progress.!!The!Phon!outputs!were!also!used!to!compare!Rémi’s!data!with!findings!in!the!literature!about!the!acquisition!of!Canadian!French.!In!order!to!compare!Rémi’s!repair!strategies!to!the!previous!French!data!(BrosseauVLapré!&!Rvachew,!2014;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2014),!each!consonant!was!also!analyzed!using!the!coding!scheme!described!by!BrosseauVLapré!and!Rvachew!(2014):!Accurate,!Segment!Mismatch,!Syllable!Structure!Mismatch!and!Distortions.!Segment!mismatches!are!defined!as!“substitution!errors!that!did!not!impact!the!syllable!structure!of!the!target!word”!(p.!103),!such!as!musique"/myˈzik/!→![myˈʑik].!Syllable!structure!mismatches!are!described!as!“omissions!that!modified!the!syllable!structure!of!the!target!word”!(p.103),!such!as!rouge"/ʁuʒ/!→![ʁu].!For!this!paper,!the!definition!was!expanded!to!also!include!epenthesis!of!consonants!and!vowels.!Distortions!are!errors!that!“did!not!affect!the!phonemic!category!of!target!sound”!(p.103),!such!as!the!/b/!in!hibou"/iˈbu/!→![iˈb ̥u].!Finally,!the!Phon!data!were!also!used!to!calculate!the!rates!of!deletions!across!different!word!positions,!in!different!types!of!clusters,!and!by!word!length.!! ! 34!3.!Analysis!3.1!Time!1!Analysis!As!described!in!the!previous!section,!several!analyses!were!applied!to!Rémi’s!assessment!data.!This!section!focuses!on!the!nonlinear!and!constraintVbased!analyses!for!the!data!collected!prior!to!Rémi!receiving!treatment.!The!findings!from!the!Phon!spreadsheets!as!well!as!the!SCAN!form!are!reported!under!subheading!3.1.1!and!3.1.2.!These!data!were!used!to!identify!strength!and!needs!in!the!area!of!word!structure,!in!addition!to!those!for!segments!and!features.!The!proposed!constraints!and!repairs!in!Rémi’s!phonological!system!are!reported!in!section!3.1.3.!!3.1.1!!Word!Structure!The!data!in!Table!2!and!from!additional!Phon!outputs!showed!that!at!Time!1,!Rémi!had!many!word!structure!strengths.!He!produced!a!wide!range!of!word!shapes!as!well!as!words!of!different!lengths.!MonoV!and!bisyllabic!words!had!the!highest!degree!of!word!shape!match!(~52%),!and!overall,!Rémi!had!a!high!percentage!of!stress!pattern!match!(90.0%)!and!word!length!match!(94.8%).!He!produced!numerous!WI!consonant!clusters!and!consistently!produced!singleton!consonants!in!WI!and!WM!positions.!This!analysis!also!highlighted!several!word!structure!needs.!Rémi!was!prone!to!deleting!WF!singleton!consonants!and!reducing!clusters!wordVmedially!and!wordVfinally!(e.g.!dinosaure: /dzinoˈzaʊʀ/ → [dzinoˈzaʊʀ]; tracteur:"/tʁ̥akˈtœʁ/!→![kʁ̥aˈthɑː]; monstre: /ˈmɔ̃stʁ̥/ → [ˈmɑ̃th]).!While!adult!speakers!of!Québécois!French!are!reported!to!reduce!WF!CCs!in!colloquial!speech!(MacLeod!et!al.,!2011;!Rose,!&!WauquierVGravelines,!2007)!Rémi!deleted!these!consonants!in!many!contexts!where!both!his!mother!and!the!other!Québec!data!did!! ! 35!produce!them.!This!would!suggest!that!these!omissions!go!beyond!what!may!be!dialectal.!There!were!also!multiple!instances!of!consonant!epenthesis,!which!will!be!reviewed!in!more!detail!in!the!following!subsection.!At!this!time!point,!his!whole!word!match!was!13.5%,!the!overall!word!shape!match!was!49%,!and!his!PCC!was!47.0%. !3.1.2!!Segments!and!Features!!!Table!3!revealed!several!strengths!in!Rémi’s!singleton!consonants.!He!correctly!produced!a!variety!of!consonants!during!the!assessment,!and!/p, m, t, d, n, l/!had!a!high!percent!match!in!at!least!two!word!positions.!In!addition!to!these!strengths,!the!data!indicated!that!he!had!difficulty!matching!the!adult!targets!for!fricatives,!affricates!and!velar!stops!in!all!word!positions.!He!also!used!a!wide!variety!of!nonVFrench!speech!sounds!as!substitutions.!The!Phon!data!also!showed!that!/t, d/!as!well!as!the!nonVFrench!speech!sound![tɕ]!were!frequently!used!as!substitutions!for!difficult!phonemes,!suggesting!these!may!be!his!default!segments!in!all!word!positions.!His!default!features!will!be!revisited!later!in!this!subsection.!!Table!4!illustrates!the!variety!of!substitutions,!consonant!deletions!and!consonant!epenthesis!that!Rémi!produced!for!fricatives,!affricates!and!velar!stops!in!the!target!words.!It!describes!these!changes!by!showing!which!features!differ!between!a!target!sound!and!Rémi’s!production.!For!example,!when!/f/!is!pronounced!as![th]!(e.g."fontaine!/fɔ̃ˈtɛn/!→![thɔ̃ˈthɛ̰n])!there!are!mismatches!in!manner!and!place!features,!and!so!this!mismatch!is!listed!in!rows!pertaining!to!manner!and!place!in!the!table.!As!noted!in!the!introduction,![ʁ]!is!the!most!common!variant!of!the!rhotic!consonants!in!Québécois!French.!This!phoneme!poses!some!analytical!challenges.!Some!authors!designate!this!phoneme!as![+sonorant]!! ! 36!(BrosseauVLapré!&!Rvachew,!2014).!Other!research!suggests!that!while!/ʁ/!is!most!often!phonetically!realized!as!a!fricative!(i.e![Vsonorant]),!approximant!variations!also!occur!(i.e.![+sonorant])!in!the!speech!of!adults!(Ladefoged!&!Johnson,!2011).!Other!researchers!argue!that!while!/ʁ/!is!phonetically!a!fricative,!it!behaves!like!an!approximant!phonologically!(Dell!1995;!Kehoe!et!al.,!2008;!Rose,!2003;!Rose!&!WauquierVGravelines,!2007;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2014).!One!of!these!papers!assigns!it!a![+rhotic]!feature!to!differentiate!it!from!the!other!fricatives!in!French!(Rose,!2003),!a!method!that!was!adopted!by!the!current!paper.!Despite!the!research!having!differing!opinions!on!the!exact!phonetic!nature!of!this!phoneme,!there!is!agreement!that!it!is!different!from!the!other!fricatives!in!French.!Because!of!this,!/ʁ/!is!listed!under!the!fricative!and!liquid!rows!on!this!page!of!the!SCAN!form,!and!its!patterns!are!grouped!with!those!of!/ʀ/.!Additionally,!there!is!some!disagreement!about!the!designation!of!the!alveolopalatals![ɕ, ʑ, tɕ, dʑ].!These!sounds!are!reportedly!made!with!considerable!raising!of!the!front!of!the!tongue,!and!are!generally!produced!in!the!postValveolar!region!like![ʃ, ʒ, tʃ, dʒ],!(Ladefoged!&!Johnson,!2011;!Recasens,!2013);!as!a!result,!they!were!classified!as![Coronal,!Vanterior,!+high,!Vgrooved]!segments!in!this!study.!However,!in!some!languages!and!speakers!(including!children,!who!have!smaller!mouths),!these!sounds!may!be![+anterior]!(alveolar)!or!even![+grooved].!Though!these!crossVlinguistic!and!interVspeaker!differences!do!not!have!a!large!impact!on!the!following!analysis,!it!would!make!Rémi’s!default!place!features!the!same!across!all!manner!classes.!!The!data!show!that!/f, v, s, z, ʃ, ʒ/!could!be!substituted!with![ɕ, ʑ, tɕ, dʑ].!His!productions!tended!to!have!the!same!voicing!as!the!target!sound!but!did!not!always!match!in!manner;!many!target!fricatives!were!realized!as!affricates!(e.g.!éléphant"/eleˈfɑ ̃/!→![leˈtɕ͡ɑ̃];!singe!! ! 37!/ˈsɛ̃ʒ/!→![ˈt ͡ɕɛ̃ʑ̥]).!Voiceless!fricatives!could!also!be!produced!as![t]!(e.g.!glissade"/gliˈsad/!→![gliˈthad]̥),!while!voiced!fricatives!could!become!a!voiced!stop!+!glide!cluster!(e.g.!vâche"/ˈvaʃ/!→![ˈgja]).!The!table!also!shows!that!/k, g/!typically!became!coronal!stops,!whereas!the!realization!of!/ʁ, ʀ/ was!highly!variable!(e.g.!rêve"/ˈʀaɪv/!→![ˈkweɪ];!voiture""/vwaˈt ͡sʏʁ/ →![vwaˈtɕ͡œj];!robot"/ʁoˈbo/!→![gʁʌˈbo];!roi"/ˈʀwa/!→![ˈwa]).!WordVfinal!consonant!deletion!was!also!a!common!repair!strategy!to!resolve!constraints!prohibiting!difficult!phonemes!(no!other!phonemes!aside!from!those!listed!in!this!table!were!deleted!in!this!word!position).!Finally,!WF!consonants!were!occasionally!devoiced.!!Table!5!shows!Rémi!produced!many!/l, j, w/Vclusters!and!WI!obstruent!+!uvular!fricative!clusters,!indicating!that!these!were!relative!strengths!in!the!area!of!consonant!sequences!(e.g.!glissade"/gliˈsad/!→![gliˈthad]̥;!chien"/ˈʃjɛ̃/!→![ˈt ͡ɕjɛ̃];!grenouille!/gʁəˈnʊj/!→![gʁəˈnoj]).!Despite!these!strengths,!clusters!had!numerous!mismatches.!He!reduced!most!/ʁ/C!clusters!and!clusters!with!a![+grooved]!segment!(e.g.!citrouille!/siˈtʁ̥ʊj/!→![thiˈχoj];!restaurant!/ʁɛstɔˈʁɑ̃/!→![lɛthɔˈjɑ]̃).!This!table!also!shows!that!Rémi!had!no!triconsonantal!(CCC)!clusters!(e.g.!biscuit"/biˈskɥi/!→![biˈthwit];!sorcière!/sɔʁˈsjaɪʁ/!→![thœˈtɕ͡ḛj]);!however,!this!could!be!related!to!the!fact!that!the!CCCs!that!were!assessed!by!this!tool!contained!multiple!sounds!that!were!challenging!for!him!and!substitutions!would!have!violated!the!phonotactic!constraints!for!clusters!in!French.!Some!of!these!patterns!are!analyzed!more!thoroughly!in!the!following!subsection!and!potential!explanations!for!these!patterns!are!covered!in!the!discussion!chapter. !! ! 38!3.1.3!!Proposed!Constraints!and!Repairs!The!nonlinear!analysis!showed!that!at!Time!1,!Rémi!had!difficulty!producing!numerous!speech!sounds,!resulting!in!many!substitutions,!deletions!and!epentheses.!In!order!to!determine!his!default!features,!a!constraintVbased!analysis!was!conducted.!Tables!6!–!9!propose!the!highVranking!phonological!constraints!suspected!of!influencing!his!productions.!As!was!the!case!in!the!SCAN!forms,![ʁ] is!analyzed!separately!from!the!other!fricatives!in!these!tables,!and!is!the!subject!of!a!separate!discussion!in!the!next!chapter.!!!These!tables!suggest!that!the!following!features!were!Rémi’s!defaults!at!Time!1:!• Manner:![+consonantal],![Vcontinuant],![Vnasal],![Vlateral]!!!!!!!!Other:![Vcontinuant,!+continuant]!(for!fricative!+!affricate!targets)!• Place:![Coronal,!+anterior]!!!!!!!!Other:![Coronal,!Vanterior,!Vgrooved,!+high]!(for!fricative!+!affricate!targets)!• Laryngeal:![Vvoiced]!!Though!Rémi!had!multiple!constraints!affecting!his!phonological!system!at!Time!1,!the!tables!show!a!fair!amount!of!overlap!in!their!repair!strategies!and!which!features!his!system!tended!to!be!faithful!to.!For!example,!both![Labial]!and![Coronal]!fricatives!and!affricates!underwent!many!of!the!same!repairs,!and!approximately!half!of!the!productions!were!faithful!to!the![+continuant]!feature!of!target!sounds!while!changing!their!place!features.!The!most!frequent!repair!for!fricatives!and!affricates!was!to!substitute!the!target!phoneme!with!an!alveolopalatal!consonant.!This!repair!is!faithful!to!most!of!the!manner!features!and!the!voicing!of!the!target!sound.!/f, v, s, z, ts, dz, ʃ, ʒ/ were!also!frequently!! ! 39!realized!as![Coronal,!+anterior]!stops.!This!substitution!was!faithful!to!voicing!and![Coronal]!place!for!the!majority!of!the![+grooved]!segments.!The!fronting!of!velar!stops!was!faithful!to!all!features!of!the!target!stop!except!for![Dorsal].![Dorsal]!spreading in clusters was faithful to all features of the affected segment except for place. Finally, the lateralization!of!the!uvular!segments!preserved!the![+consonantal,!+continuant]!features!of!/ʁ/.!!3.1.4!Variability!of!Productions!at!Time!1!In!addition!to!the!analysis!above,!a!variability!analysis!was!also!completed!for!target!words!that!had!multiple!tokens!(see!Table!A2!in!the!appendix).!This!analysis!examined!whether!Rémi’s!pronunciations!were!consistent!across!spontaneous!productions!and!how!his!productions!changed!in!imitative!contexts.!Almost!all!of!his!spontaneous!productions!followed!the!patterns!outlined!in!Tables!6!–!9,!even!when!his!productions!of!the!same!target!differed.!The!imitative!tokens!and!ones!that!had!a!phonemic!prompt!showed!that!Rémi!was!stimulable!for!labiodental!fricatives,!but!not!grooved!ones.!The!imitative!tokens!also!suggested!that!WI!was!Rémi’s!strongest!word!position!for!introducing!fricatives.!!!Though!this!analysis!was!originally!performed!to!support!the!constraintVbased!analysis,!it!did!reveal!that!Rémi!had!a!degree!of!variability!across!production!attempts.!Some!of!this!variability!is!accounted!for!by!numerous!target!words!having!one!spontaneous!production!and!one!that!was!imitated.!This!fact!does!not,!however,!account!for!all!of!the!inconsistencies.!Rémi!showed!some!variability!between!spontaneous!productions!of!the!same!word!(e.g.,!cheveux:"[thəˈdʑ͡œ̰]!and![thəˈjøj])!as!well!as!between!imitated!tokens!of!the!same!word!(e.g.!hiver:"[niˈjʌ]!and![vːliˈjaɪ]). Additionally,!not!all!imitated!tokens!were!closer!! ! 40!to!the!adult!target!than!his!spontaneous!attempts!(e.g.!lave: [ənapʰ] and![fːlda] (I)). This!variability!suggests!that!Rémi!may!meet!the!criteria!of!Inconsistent!Speech!Sound!Disorder!(ISSD)!(Dodd,!Holm,!Crosbie,!&!McIntosh,!2006;!RoseberryVMcKibbin!&!Hedge,!2016).!Further!elaboration!of!this!potential!diagnosis!is!discussed!in!the!Clinical!Implications!section!in!the!following!chapter.! 3.1.5!!Final!Summary!of!Time!1!Strengths!and!Needs!The!SCAN!sheets,!Phon!data!and!additional!constraintVbased!analyses!revealed!multiple!strengths!and!areas!of!need!in!Rémi’s!phonology!at!Time!1.!Word!structure!was!an!area!of!relative!strength.!Rémi!produced!a!variety!of!word!shapes!and!lengths,!allowed!single!consonants!in!all!word!positions!and!produced!multiple!WI!consonant!clusters.!He!also!had!high!stress!and!word!length!matches.!Though!his!frequent!deletion!and!epenthesis!of!consonants!decreased!his!word!shape!accuracy,!these!processes!appeared!to!be!largely!driven!by!constraints!on!his!segments!or!sequences!rather!than!constraints!on!word!structure.!Research!has!also!shown!that!WM!and!WF!codas!are!particularly!vulnerable!to!deletion!(MacLead!et!al.,!2011;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2013),!and!this!pattern!was!reflected!in!Rémi’s!data.!Rémi’s!intelligibility!appeared!to!be!most!affected!by!difficulties!with!certain!phonemes.!Tables!3!–!5!show!that!/p, b, m, t, d, n, l/!were!strong!singleton!phonemes,!and!C/l/,!C/j/,!C/w/,!and!C/ʁ/!clusters!were!relative!sequence!strengths.!Accurate!productions!of!fricatives,!affricates!and!/k, g/!singletons!were!rare!and!a!variety!of!repair!strategies!(e.g.!substitutions,!deletions,!and!epentheses)!were!used!to!resolve!the!constraints!against!these!phonemes.!!!! ! 41!3.2!!Description!of!the!Intervention!Rémi!Received!between!Time!1!and!Time!2!Between!the!assessments!at!Time!1!and!2,!Rémi!received!speech!therapy!from!two!SLPs.!The!first!SLP!to!work!with!him!had!experience!using!nonlinear!phonological!analysis!as!a!guide!for!intervention!planning,!and!she!was!the!one!who!set!the!goals!addressed!by!both!of!his!SLPs.!The!following!goals!were!targeted!in!therapy,!presented!here!in!the!order!they!were!initially!addressed:!1. Perception!and!production!of!/k, g/!singletons!2. Production!of!the!labiodental!fricatives!/f, v/!3. Production!of!the!grooved!fricatives!/s, ʃ, ʒ/!4. Production!of!WI!/s/Vclusters!See!Table!10!for!additional!information!about!these!goals.!!The!first!SLP!focused!on!increasing!Rémi’s!perception!of!/k, g/!and!production!of!/k, g, f, v, s, ʃ, ʒ/!singletons.!This!block!of!fourteen!30Vminute!therapy!sessions!took!place!during!the!summer!on!a!twiceVweekly!schedule.!The!therapy!was!conducted!primarily!in!French!and!his!mother!was!present!for!all!of!the!sessions.!By!the!end!of!this!block!of!therapy,!the!SLP!reported!that!when!focused,!Rémi!could!produce!/k, g, f, v/!with!75%+!accuracy!at!the!singleVword!level,!in!both!WI!and!WF!positions.!He!was!also!able!to!perceptually!discriminate!between!/t, d, k, g/!approximately!80%!of!the!time.!When!focused,!and!provided!with!auditory!models!and!visual!cues,!he!was!also!able!to!produce!/s, ʃ, ʒ/!in!single!words.!Finally,!an!/s/C!probe!at!the!end!of!this!block!of!treatment!also!showed!that!he!could!produce!these!clusters!when!given!auditory!models!and!visual!cues.!!!! ! 42!Rémi’s!schoolVbased!SLP!worked!with!him!for!approximately!12!weekly!sessions!from!October!in!his!kindergarten!year!up!until!the!winter!holidays,!and!then!resumed!therapy!in!January!when!school!was!back!in!session.!This!therapy!focused!on!/s/Vclusters!at!the!singleVword!level!and!some!/k, g/!singletons!at!the!phraseVlevel.!All!of!these!sessions!were!conducted!in!English,!and!Rémi’s!mother!attended!sessions!whenever!possible.!!!The!following!section!sheds!light!on!his!phonological!development!by!analyzing!the!data!from!the!followVup!assessment.!!!3.3!Time!2!Analysis!This!section!provides!the!nonlinear!and!constraintVbased!analyses!for!the!followVup!data,!which!were!collected!several!months!after!the!initial!assessment!(in!the!January!of!his!kindergarten!year).!The!findings!from!the!Phon!spreadsheets!as!well!as!the!SCAN!form!are!reported!under!subheading!3.3.1!and!3.3.2.!The!proposed!constraints!and!repairs!in!Rémi’s!phonological!system!are!reported!in!section!3.3.3.!!3.3.1!Word!Structure!Table!11!and!the!Phon!data!show!that!after!therapy,!Rémi!had!made!several!gains!in!the!domain!of!word!structure.!He!now!consistently!produced!singletons!in!all!word!positions!(regardless!of!word!length)!and!was!also!more!consistent!with!WM!consonant!clusters.!He!also!produced!some!tokens!with!more!than!one!cluster!as!well!as!a!one!CCC,!but!overall!these!and!WF!clusters!remained!difficult!for!him.!MonoV!and!bisyllabic!words!continued!to!have!the!highest!word!shape!match,!with!approximately!63.0%!accuracy.!His!whole!word!! ! 43!match,!overall!word!shape!match!and!PCC!had!also!increased!to!20.8%,!60.4%!and!66.7%!respectively!(gains!of!7.3%,!11.4%!and!19.7%).!One!area!that!appeared!to!have!regressed!since!the!previous!assessment!was!his!increased!use!of!consonant!epenthesis!wordVmedially.!Table!14,!however,!shows!that!this!was!likely!driven!by!segmental!constraints!rather!than!word!structure!ones.!!!3.3.2!!Segments!and!Features!Table!12!indicates!that!Rémi!had!also!made!gains!in!his!singleton!consonants!following!treatment.!He!could!now!consistently!produce!/f, v, s/!in!most!word!positions,!while!the!rest!of!the![+grooved]!segments!were!now!inconsistently!produced!word!initially.!He!was!also!using!fewer!affricates!and!nonVFrench!speech!sounds!as!substitutions.!Even!after!treatment,!/k, g/!continued!to!be!difficult!for!Rémi!to!produce!as!singletons!and!there!were!no!changes!in!the!untreated!sound!/ʁ/.!!Rémi!also!showed!improvement!in!the!number!of!substitutions!his!system!used!to!deal!with!challenging!segments,!especially!grooved!fricatives.!Table!13!shows!that!at!Time!2,!he!was!using!fewer!substitutions!overall,!and!per!speech!sound.!While![+grooved]!segments!were!not!always!accurate,!Rémi!typically!substituted!them!with!another![+grooved]!segment.!This!suggests!that!he!had!acquired!the![+grooved]!feature!but!had!some!difficulty!contrasting![±anterior].!There!was!a!slight!bias!for![+voiced,!+grooved]!segments!to!be!![Vanterior]!and!for![Vvoiced,!+grooved]!segments!to!be![+anterior].!Table!13!also!shows!that![+voiced]!continued!to!be!inconsistent!for!WF!singletons.!!!! ! 44!Table!14!shows!that!C/l/,!C/j/,!C/w/,!and!C/ʁ/!in!onset!positions!remained!relative!strengths,!and!that!following!treatment,!Rémi!now!produced!more![+labiodental]!and![+grooved]!segments!in!clusters!(even!if!they!were!not!the!target!fricative).!While!these!gains!were!noted,!Rémi!still!frequently!reduced!/ʁ/C!clusters!and!clusters!with![+grooved]!segments!in!codas.!Clusters!also!remained!maximally!CC!(with!one!exception).!!!3.3.3!!Proposed!Constraints!and!Repairs!Tables!15!–!18!outline!the!constraints!that!continued!to!affect!Rémi’s!speech!sound!production!as!well!as!their!corresponding!repairs.!Though!the!overall!number!of!constraints!had!remained!the!same,!they!were!more!specific!than!they!were!at!Time!1,!which!suggests!that!Rémi!had!made!gains!in!his!ability!to!produce!several!challenging!features!and!segments.!(He!was!now!able!to!produce!them!in!some!instances!that!he!previously!could!not).!The!tables!also!show!that!he!now!tended!to!use!fewer!repairs!per!constraint!and!there!was!less!overlap!between!the!constraints!(aside!from!deletion).!They!also!highlight!that!Rémi!was!becoming!more!consistent!with!the!repairs!he!used!to!deal!with!a!particular!constraint;!in!most!cases,!Rémi’s!phonological!system!favoured!one!of!the!repairs,!and!used!it!the!majority!of!the!time!when!the!target!word!contained!a!difficult!segment!or!sequence.!!Overall,!these!constraints!suggest!that![Dorsal]!continued!to!be!a!difficult!feature!for!Rémi.!Similar!to!Time!1,!his!main!repair!for!velar!stops!involved!preserving!the!manner!and!voicing!features!of!the!target,!while!changing!the!place.!WI!and!WM!/ʁ/!singletons!and!! ! 45!clusters!triggered!the!epenthesis!of!velar!stops!and![Dorsal]!spreading!to!the!other!consonant.!The!remaining!repairs!at!this!time!point!were!almost!exclusively!deletion.!!"3.3.4!!Summary!of!Progress!at!Time!2!The!nonlinear!and!constraintVbased!analyses!showed!that!following!two!blocks!of!therapy,!Rémi!had!made!gains!in!all!areas!of!his!phonology,!especially!with!fricatives.!The!quantitative!and!qualitative!analyses!showed!that!word!structure!remained!a!strength,!as!did!his!productions!of!singleton!consonants,!and!that!he!had!made!quantitative!improvement!in!all!phonological!areas!assessed.!It!also!revealed!that!he!produced!more!clusters!with![Labial]!and![Coronal]!fricatives!(even!if!the!segments!were!not!always!on!target),!and!that!he!used!fewer,!more!consistent!repairs!for!challenging!phonemes.!!!3.4!!Rates!of!Matches!and!Mismatch!Patterns!At!Both!Time!Points!Tables!19!and!20!summarize!for!both!time!points!the!accuracy!of!Rémi’s!consonant!production,!and!the!rates!at!which!he!showed!each!type!of!mismatch!pattern.!The!tables!also!highlight!the!differences!between!mismatch!patterns!affecting!singleton!consonants!and!consonants!in!clusters.!Following!treatment,!Rémi’s!overall!PCC!increased!from!47.0%!to!66.7%,!with!singleton!consonants!and!clusters!both!showing!improvement.!Overall,!segmental!mismatches!were!more!frequent!than!syllable!structure!mismatches!at!both!time!points;!however,!singletons!and!clusters!did!show!different!patterns.!At!both!time!points,!the!rates!of!segmental!mismatches!in!clusters!were!roughly!equivalent!to!the!rates!of!syllable!structure!mismatches.!Singletons,!on!the!other!hand,!were!3!–!4!times!more!likely!to!be!substituted!than!they!were!to!undergo!deletion!or!epenthesis.!(Though,!these!! ! 46!tables!do!not!distinguish!between!vowel!and!consonant!epenthesis,!consonant!epenthesis!made!up!the!bulk!of!the!epenthesis!used!at!both!time!points.)!!An!additional!finding!was!that!the!majority!of!syllable!structure!mismatches!that!occurred!at!both!time!points!tended!to!coVoccur!with!segmental!ones.!! At!both!assessment!points,!WI!and!WM!simple!onsets!and!branching!onset!clusters!showed!minimal!deletion.!Rising!diphthong!onsets!(obstruent!+!glide!clusters,!e.g.!/ʃjɛ̃/ in!chien)!were!reduced!at!a!slightly!higher!rate!at!Time!1!(especially!WM),!but!also!had!minimal!deletions!by!Time!2.!Table!21!also!shows!that!Rémi!used!a!much!lower!rate!of!WF!coda!deletion!by!the!followVup!assessment.!WM!codas!and!WF!clusters!had!the!greatest!rates!of!deletions!at!both!time!points,!and!they!showed!little!change!after!these!first!blocks!of!therapy.!Finally,!at!Time!1,!word!length!did!not!predict!the!rate!of!deletions.!By!reassessment,!however,!deletion!was!more!common!in!longer!target!words.!!!!! ! 47!4.!Discussion!4.1!!Outcomes!of!the!Nonlinear!Phonological!and!Constraint3Based!Analyses!This!case!study!provided!an!inVdepth!analysis!of!the!various!tiers!of!Rémi’s!phonological!system!before!and!after!receiving!therapy.!It!highlighted!areas!of!strength!and!need!at!two!time!points.!Not!only!did!this!analysis!measure!quantitative!changes!following!intervention!(such!as!increases!in!PCC!and!word!shape!match),!it!also!identified!qualitative!changes.!At!Time!1,!the!analysis!highlighted!multiple!factors!that!could!have!contributed!to!a!listener’s!difficulty!in!understanding!Rémi.!One!factor!was!Rémi’s!inability!to!accurately!produce!fricatives.!Given!that!they!have!a!high!frequency!of!occurrence!in!both!English!and!French!(New!&!Pallier,!2001;!Shipley!&!McAfee,!2009),!his!inability!to!accurately!articulate!fricatives!would!have!resulted!in!a!large!proportion!of!the!words!he!used!in!his!everyday!conversation!having!at!least!one!mismatch.!This!made!fricatives!an!important!target!for!therapy!(Baker!&!Bernhardt,!2004;!Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!2000;!Flint!&!Klein,!2005;!Miccio!&!Elbert,!2006).!The!first!assessment!also!showed!frequent!substitutions!of![t, d, tɕ]!for!a!large!range!of!speech!sounds,!including!/f, v, s, z, ts, dz, ʃ, ʒ, k, g/.!This!reliance!on!default!segments!made!his!words!less!distinct!from!one!another,!resulting!in!more!widespread!activation!in!the!listener’s!phonological!processing!system!(Mattys,!Davis,!Bradlow,!&!Scott,!2012).!This!increased!activation!would!have!made!it!more!challenging!for!a!listener’s!system!to!narrow!in!on!the!target!word!(Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!2000;!Mattys!et!al.,!2012).!Competition!in!the!listener’s!system!would!have!been!further!increased!by!the!fact!that!many!target!words!had!more!than!one!mismatch!(Mattys!et!al.,!2012).!Additionally,!some!of!the!repair!strategies!Rémi’s!system!used!at!Time!1,!in!particular!WF!deletion!and!stopping,!have!also!been!shown!to!have!a!particularly!large!impact!on!! ! 48!intelligibility!(Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!2000;!Flint!&!Klein,!2005;!Mattys!et!al.,!2012).!Finally,!the!uncommon!repairs!that!were!observed!in!his!data!also!impacted!Rémi’s!intelligibility.!This!is!because!they!deviated!from!what!a!listener!would!expect!to!hear!when!talking!with!someone!his!age!(Mattys!et!al.,!2012).!At!Time!2,!Rémi!could!accurately!produce!a!subset!of!fricatives,!did!not!rely!as!heavily!on!default!segments,!had!fewer!mismatches!per!word!and!used!fewer!uncommon!repairs.!In!addition!to!these!improvements,!he!also!had!more!specific!constraints,!used!fewer!repairs!per!constraint,!had!less!overlap!in!the!repairs!used!for!the!different!constraints,!and!used!fewer!nonVFrench!speech!sounds!as!substitutions!following!therapy.!All!of!these!changes!contributed!to!his!increased!intelligibility!at!Time!2.!!This!paper!now!turns!to!the!intervention!that!Rémi!received!and!the!subsequent!reflection!on!the!changes!and!lack!of!changes!observed!in!his!data!!4.2!!Rémi’s!Phonology!at!Time!2!and!His!Intervention!Goals!As!mentioned!in!the!previous!chapter,!between!the!two!assessment!sessions,!Rémi!received!speech!therapy!from!two!SLPs!and!worked!on!the!following!goals:!1. Perception!and!production!of!/k, g/!singletons!2. Production!of!the!labiodental!fricatives!/f, v/!3. Production!of!the!grooved!fricatives!/s, ʃ, ʒ/!4. Production!of!WI!/s/Vclusters!!! ! 49!By!the!second!assessment,!Rémi!had!made!large!gains!towards!the!goal!of!producing!labiodental!fricatives,!correctly!producing!them!as!singletons!and!in!clusters.!These!gains!were!predicted!by!the!phonological!analysis,!what!is!known!about!phonological!intervention,!and!the!data!on!the!acquisition!of!Canadian!French.!Unlike!some!of!the!other!goals,!which!involved!adding!a!new!feature!to!Rémi’s!phonological!system,!this!goal!involved!combining!features!that!were!already!well!established!in!his!system.!Though!his!fricatives!infrequently!matched!the!target!sounds!at!Time!1,!Rémi!produced!many!alveolopalatal!fricatives!and!affricates.!This!indicated!that!Rémi!could!already!combine!the!features![+continuant,!Vsonorant],!and!that!therapy!could!focus!on!combining!them!with!other!place!features. /f, v/ were!good!targets!because![Labial]!was!strong!place!for!Rémi!(as!shown!with!his!high!match!of!/p, b, m/!in!both!singletons!and!clusters)!(Baker!&!Bernhardt,!2004;!Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!2000;!Bernhardt!&!StoelVGammon,!1994)!and!he!was!stimulable!for!these!speech!sounds!(Gierut,!2001;!Miccio!&!Elbert,!2006).!Additionally,!since!Rémi!could!become!shy!when!he!was!asked!to!repeat!himself!or!when!he!did!not!know!a!word,!research!would!recommend!choosing!developmentally!early!speech!sounds!as!initial!targets!for!these!types!of!clients!(Barker!&!Bernhardt,!2004;!Rvachew!&!Nowak,!2001);!both!MacLeod!et!al.!(2011)!and!Rvachew!et!al.!(2013)!found!that![Labial]!fricatives!tend!to!be!mastered!earlier!than!other!fricatives!in!French.!One!final!explanation!for!the!large!improvements!in!this!area!was!that!the!first!SLP!took!care!to!initially!select!words!where!the!other!consonants!also!had![Labial]!place.!For!example,!she!chose!words!like!famille"[faˈmi]"over!fatiguer"[fatiˈge].!This!helped!to!maximize!the!chance!for!Rémi!to!be!able!to!acquire!these!speech!sounds!at!the!single!word!level!(Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!2000).!!! ! 50!!Rémi!also!made!noticeable!gains!in!his!ability!to!produce!grooved!segments,!especially!/s/.!There!was!a!marked!decrease!in!alveolopalatalization,!stopping,!and!deletion!of!these!segments.!The!fricatives!and!affricates!/s, z, ʃ, ʒ, ts, dz/!all!showed!improvement,!even!though!only!half!of!these!speech!sounds!were!targeted!in!therapy.!This!generalized!improvement!supports!the!view!that!therapy!is!targeting!change!in!the!hierarchy!rather!than!individual!speech!sounds!(Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!1998,!2000).!!There!are!several!possible!reasons!for!why!/s/!made!larger!gains!than!any!of!the!other!grooved!fricatives!and!affricates!following!treatment.!The!first!is!that!compared!to!the!other!speech!sounds!in!this!category,!Rémi!was!getting!considerably!more!practice!with!/s/.!Not!only!was!it!targeted!both!as!a!singleton!and!in!clusters,!he!also!worked!on!it!with!both!SLPs!and!in!each!of!his!languages.!/s/!is!also!more!common!than!any!of!the!other![+grooved]!segments!is!his!language!environment,!both!with!English!and!French!speakers!(Bérubé,!et!al.,!2013;!Shipley!&!McAfee,!2009).!This!means!he!was!hearing!more!tokens!of!/s/!and!likely!getting!more!chances!to!practice!this!speech!sound!in!meaningful!words!outside!of!sessions.!In!addition!to!differences!in!therapeutic!focus!and!frequency!of!use,!his!phonological!system!at!Time!1!could!also!have!influenced!this!pattern!of!acquisition.!At!Time!1,!![Vvoiced]!segments!were!slightly!more!accurate!than![+voiced]!segments,!suggesting!that!voiceless!fricatives!should!have!been!easier!to!acquire.!It!is!also!the!least!complex!speech!sound!in!this!category,!meaning!that!is!it!the!closest!to!the!default!feature!settings!for!adult!speakers!in!both!languages.!Because!of!this,!nonlinear!phonology!would!predict!that!it!should!show!improvement!more!quickly!than!/z, ʃ, ʒ, dz/ (Bernhardt!&!! ! 51!Stemberger,!1998).!/s/!is!also!considered!less!marked!than!/z, ʃ, ʒ, ts, dz/,!which!should!make!it!easier!for!the!phonological!system!to!reorganize!its!constraints!to!allow!this!speech!sound!(Barlow,!2001a;!Barlow!&!Gierut,!1999).!Finally,!depending!on!how!the!speaker!produces!the!sound,!/s/!may!also!be!more!distinct!from!his!defaults![ɕ, ʑ, tɕ, dʑ];!unlike!/ʃ, ʒ/ which!only!differ!from!these!defaults!by![+grooved],!/s/!is![+anterior,!+grooved].!This!may!have!made!it!easier!for!his!system!to!produce!these!targets.!!Rémi’s!overall!improvement!with!grooved!fricatives!+!glide!clusters!suggest!that!the!therapy!goal!of!WI!/s/Vclusters!was!successfully!strengthening!his!phonological!system.!The!decision!to!target!these!clusters!in!WI!position!was!validated!by!the!data!at!Time!1,!the!findings!pertaining!to!the!acquisition!of!Canadian!French!as!well!as!their!frequency!of!occurrence!in!English.!In!both!the!spontaneous!and!imitative!contexts,!the!WI!position!was!Rémi’s!strongest!word!position!and!acquisition!data!suggest!that!WI!clusters!are!the!first!to!emerge!in!FrenchVspeaking!children,!choosing!to!target!/s/Vclusters!in!this!position!was!likely!to!lead!to!greater!success!(BrosseauVLapré!&!Rvachew,!2014;!Demuth!&!McCullogh,!2009;!Kehoe!et!al.,!2008;!MacLeod!et!al.,!2011).!Additionally,!WI!/s/Vclusters!are!common!in!English,!so!he!would!have!had!a!lot!of!opportunity!to!practice!these!sequences!during!the!school!day.!!Despite!the!noticeable!gains!he!made!with![Labial]!and![Coronal]!fricatives!and!affricates,!the!Time!2!data!show!that!Rémi!continued!to!have!difficulty!with!/k, g/!singletons.!At!the!reassessment,!there!was!only!one!token!of!a!singleton!velar!stop,!and!it!occurred!as!a!substitution!for!/ʁ/.!His!progress!on!other!therapy!targets,!plus!what!is!known!about!! ! 52!phonological!intervention!and!French!acquisition!would!have!predicted!some!improvement!by!Time!2.!By!the!end!of!the!summer!sessions,!Rémi!was!reportedly!producing!these!phonemes!correctly!around!75%!of!the!time!at!the!singleVword!level!in!French.!By!the!winter!holidays!four!months!later,!his!schoolVbased!SLP!reported!that!in!structured!tasks,!Rémi!was!able!to!produce!these!speech!sounds!at!the!phraseVlevel!in!English.!Unlike!with!/s/Vclusters,!generalization!was!not!observed!between!Rémi’s!two!languages!in!this!case.!Rémi’s!ability!to!accurately!produce!these!speech!sounds!in!the!clusters![kl, gl, kw, gw kχ, gʁ]!also!suggested!that!some!changes!could!be!expected!by!reassessment.!This!indicated!that!he!was!stimulable!for!these!speech!sounds;!thus!they!should!have!been!easier!for!him!to!acquire!(Baker!&!Bernhardt,!2004;!Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!2000;!Bernhardt!&!StoelVGammon,!1994).!The!therapy!he!received!for!these!targets!included!increasing!his!perception!as!well!as!his!production!of!these!target!sounds.!This!approach!has!been!shown!to!lead!to!greater!gains!than!production!only!(Tyler,!2003).!Finally,!given!that!/k, g/ are!developmentally!intermediate!phonemes!(MacLeod!et!al.,!2011),!targeting!laterVdeveloping,!more!complex!phonemes!like!/s, ʃ, ʒ/!should!have!potentially!led!to!greater!gains!in!singleton!velar!stops!(Gierut,!2001;!Miccio!&!Elbert,!1996).!!!One!possible!explanation!for!lack!of!change!in!these!phonemes!could!have!been!insufficient!tokens!in!the!assessment!tool!to!capture!progress!following!therapy.!This!seems!unlikely,!however,!since!the!assessment!contained!20!target!words!with![Dorsal]!sounds.!It!is!also!possible!that!the!assessment!was!not!structured!enough!and!that!the!examiners!did!not!give!enough!cues!in!order!for!him!to!produce!these!targets.!While!this!may!have!! ! 53!contributed!to!his!performance,!Rémi!was!familiar!with!the!assessment,!was!being!assessed!by!one!of!the!SLPs!who!worked!with!him!and!knew!that!he!needed!to!speak!clearly!so!that!he!could!be!heard!on!the!recording.!Listening!to!the!recording,!it!was!also!noted!that!Rémi!spoke!more!slowly!and!deliberately!during!the!assessment!compared!to!when!he!was!conversing!with!the!others!in!the!room.!These!factors!would!indicate!that!this!assessment!did!provide!a!fair!amount!of!structure.!!Another!potential!explanation!is!that!Rémi!may!not!clearly!perceive!the!difference!between!/t, d, k, g/!in!singletons.!Though!this!pattern!may!be!perceptually!driven!for!some!children!(Baker!&!MacLeod,!2011),!his!first!SLP!reported!that!this!was!not!likely!the!case!for!Rémi!and!he!had!shown!gains!in!perception.!Another!potential!explanation!for!this!lack!of!change!at!Time!2!is!that!the!therapy!that!targeted!/k, g/!was!not!structured!as!well!as!the!therapeutic!approaches!used!for!the!other!intervention!goals.!While!this!could!be!possible,!both!of!his!SLPs!reported!that!he!had!made!gains!during!therapy!sessions!and!at!Time!2,!he!was!working!on!these!phonemes!at!the!phraseVlevel.!This!would!suggest!that!the!therapy!was!structured!in!a!way!that!was!supporting!his!acquisition!of!these!singleton!consonants.!Though!all!the!previously!mentioned!factors!could!have!contributed!to!his!slow!progress!on!this!goal,!the!most!likely!explanation!is!that!it!was!related!to!the!fact!that!this!goal!was!maximally!distinct!from!the!other!goals!being!targeted!in!therapy.!While!selecting!maximally!distinct!goals!is!recommended!under!the!nonlinear!phonological!approach!to!intervention!(Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!1999,!2000),!Rémi’s!other!three!goals!overlapped!to!some!extent.!This!meant!that!while!three!goals!were!targeting![+continuant,!Vsonorant]!segments,!singleton!velar!stops!were!the!only!targets!strengthening![Dorsal]!place.!!!! ! 54!One!final!area!that!might!have!been!expected!to!show!improvement!at!Time!2,!despite!not!being!directly!targeted!in!therapy,!was!singleton!/ʁ/.!It!was!possible!that!the!goals!that!were!being!targeted!could!have!led!to!generalized!improvement!in!this!speech!sound.!Targeting!velar!stops!would!presumably!strengthen![Dorsal]!place!node!in!his!phonological!system!(Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!1998),!and!as!previously!mentioned,!research!has!found!that!targeting!lateVdeveloping,!complex!speech!sounds!can!lead!to!greater!change!in!the!phonological!system!and!result!in!generalization!to!untreated!manner!classes!(Gierut,!2001;!Miccio!&!Elbert,!2006;!Shoaf!et!al.,!2009).!Rémi!also!inconsistently!produced!them!correctly!at!Time!1,!so!it!was!also!possible!that!as!his!phonological!system!matured,!they!could!have!improved!without!intervention!(MacLeod!et!al,!2011).!Though!the!overall!accuracy!did!not!increase,!his!repair!strategies!were!more!consistent!following!therapy.!These!changes!could!reflect!that!some!reorganization!and!strengthening!had!taken!place!in!his!system!as!well!as!his!system!maturing.!!4.3!!Additional!Analysis!of!Select!Words!Many!of!Rémi’s!productions!closely!followed!the!repair!strategies!outlined!in!Tables!6!–!9!and!15!–!18.!Some!tokens,!however,!showed!numerous!repair!strategies!or!had!multiple!possible!interpretations!for!the!resulting!output.!This!section!focuses!on!Rémi’s!productions!of!four!of!these!words"and!hypothesized!what!could!account!for!the!mismatch!patterns!at!Time!1!and!the!improvements!seen!at!Time!2.!!1. Target!word:!dinosaure:!/ʣinoˈzaʊʁ/!→![ʨinoˈjaʊ]!(Time!1!pronunciation)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!→![ʣinoˈʒɑʊ]!(Time!2!pronunciation)!! ! 55!The!substitution!of![j]!for!/z/!in!dinosaure"at!Time!1!can!be!interpreted!in!several!ways.!Given!that!it!occurs!in!other!words!in!the!place!of!a!voiced!fricative,!it!is!possible!that!the![j]!is!simply!an!uncommon!repair!for!/z/.!It!is!also!possible!that!this!is!driven!by!the!WF /ʁ/!in!the!same!syllable:!Rémi’s!phonological!system!may!have!originally!substituted!the![j]!for!the!/ʁ/!while!deleting!/z/,!and!metathesis!led!to!the![j]!being!realized!in!the!onset.!Another!interpretation!could!be!that!when!the!WF!/ʁ/ was!deleted!by!the!system,!its![Dorsal,!+sonorant]!features!linked!to!the!/z/.!Finally,!this!may!have!resulted!from!a!combination!of!metathesis!and!coalescence,!where!the!combination!of!features!from!both!segments!could!have!resulted!in!the![j]!being!produced.!At!Time!2,!Rémi!no!longer!produced!the![j]!in!this!position!and!there!are!several!explanations!for!this.!By!reassessment,!voiced!fricatives!were!no!longer!substituted!with![j]!nor!were!they!deleted!wordVmedially.!This!would!have!prevented!the!first!two!of!these!interpretations!from!triggering!the![j].!Additionally,!since!grooved!segments!were!stronger!by!this!time,!it!was!less!likely!that!his!phonological!system!would!have!reattached!delinked!features!to!the!/z/!or!used!metathesis!plus!coalescence.!!!2. Target!word:!fraise"/ˈfʁaɪz/!→![ˈkɬaɪʨː]!(Time!1!pronunciation)!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!→![ˈfχaɪs]!(Time!2!pronunciation)!While!/f, ʁ/!were!both!challenging!phonemes!for!Rémi!at!Time!1,!the!onset!in!fraise![ˈkɬaɪʨː] is!not!the!first!substitution!one!would!have!predicted,!given!that!he!also!had!difficulty!with!velar!stops!and!that![ɬ] is!not!a!phoneme!in!French.!This!production!can!be!interpreted!as!a!combination!of!multiple!repair!strategies.!Since!stop!+!/ʁ/!clusters!were!relatively!strong!for!Rémi,!and![t]!was!a!frequent!substitution!for!/f/,!it!is!likely!that!his!! ! 56!phonological!system!used!the!stopping!repair!with!this!token.!However,!since!his!system!did!not!allow!for![Coronal]!stops!+!uvular!sequences!at!Time!1,!his!system!combined!the!stopping!repair!with![Dorsal]!spreading.!Though![ɬ]!may!seem!like!an!odd!substitute!for!/ʁ/,!these!phonemes!are!both!fricatives!and!the!voiceless!lateral!fricative!matched!the!devoicing!pattern!observed!in!Rémi’s!other!WI!C/ʁ/!clusters.!Additionally,![+lateral]!was!a!strong!feature!at!Time!1!and![l] was!used!as!a!repair!for!singleton!/ʁ/ several!times.!Following!therapy,!Rémi!was!able!to!correctly!produce!/f/;!therefore!his!phonological!system!no!longer!needed!to!rely!on!stopping!and![Dorsal]!spreading!to!produce!it!in!WI!clusters.!Rémi’s!system!was!also!more!faithful!to!/ʁ/!in!WI!clusters,!minimizing!his!need!for!the!lateralization!repair.!!!3. Target!word:!girafe!/ʒiˈʁaf/!→![ʥ̰ḭlˈga]!(Time!1!pronunciation)!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!→![ʑiˈʁaf]!(Time!2!pronunciation)!One!interpretation!of!the!WM![l.g]!in!giraffe!at!Time!1!is!that!it!is!related!to!the!/ʁ/!in!the!adult!target.!As!mentioned!in!the!previous!paragraph,!there!are!several!instances!of![l]!being!substituted!for!/ʁ/,!as!well!as!multiple!occurrences!of![g]!epenthesis!before!the!uvular!fricative.!Following!this!interpretation,!the!system!could!have!used!both!these!repairs!in!this!word.!It!is!unusual,!however,!that!Rémi!did!not!produce!a![gl]!cluster,!since!WM!codas!from!adult!targets!had!a!tendency!to!be!deleted!by!his!system,!/g/!singletons!were!especially!challenging!for!him!and!/gl/!clusters!were!strong!in!WI!onset!positions.!Perhaps!because!the!system!deleted!the!WF!consonant!in!the!adult!target,!it!allowed!a!consonant!to!be!in!another!coda!position.!Another!interpretation!is!that!the!/ʁ/!in!the!adult!target!was!produced!as![g] and!the![l] is!related!to!an!article.!As!described!in!the!! ! 57!introduction,!there!are!several!phonotactic!processes!in!French!that!can!result!in!epenthesis!of!consonants,!reVsyllabification!of!speech!sounds!and!deletion!(Rose!&!WauquierVGravelines,!2007).!His!system!may!have!reVsyllabified!part!of!the!article!la!into!this!word,!even!though!it!does!not!match!the!adult!phonotactic!processes.!This!is!an!unlikely!interpretation,!however,!given!that!Rémi!produced!the!article!une!before!this!token.!By!Time!2,!he!was!able!to!produce!the!target!/f/!in!the!WF!position,!and!because!of!this,!/f/!would!not!have!triggered!movement!for!the!other!speech!sounds!in!his!production.!Additionally,!given!that!the!data!indicated!a!strengthening!in!Rémi’s!phonological!system!following!therapy,!it!is!possible!that!there!were!generalized!improvements!at!the!prosodic!phraseVlevel!of!the!hierarchy.!These!improvements!could!have!prevented!the!system!from!producing!an!article!in!the!middle!of!the!word!because!it!would!not!match!the!phonotactic!processes!used!by!adults.!!!4. Target!word:!hippopotame"/ʔipɔpɔˈtam/!→![mɛpɔpɔˈtam]!(Time!1!pronunciation)!! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!→![lɛpɔpəˈtʰam] (Time!2!pronunciation)!Though!Rémi!was!encouraged!to!avoid!producing!any!articles!during!the!assessment,!he!did!occasionally!produce!them.!The!WI![m]!in!hippopotame"at!Time!1!is!likely!an!article!that!underwent!the!process!of!enchaînement!(Rose!&!WauquierVGravelines,!2007)!as!well!as!assimilation!to!the!other!consonants!in!the!word.!While!this!is!the!only!instance!where!the!article!was!assimilated!to!the!following!consonant,!it!could!be!related!to!unstressed!WI!onsets!being!vulnerable!to!phonological!repairs!in!French!(BrosseauVLapré!&!Rvachew,!2014;!Rvachew!&!BrosseauVLapré,!2015;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2014),!and!that!findings!suggest!that!repairs!are!more!common!in!multisyllabic!words!(Rvachew!et!al.,!2014).!! ! 58!4.4!!Multilingual!Phonological!Intervention!Though!this!study!did!not!set!out!to!examine!the!effects!of!multilingual!phonological!intervention,!Rémi!did!receive!therapy!in!both!of!his!languages!(in!sequential!programs)!and!the!potential!impact!of!this!is!briefly!outlined!here.!While!much!research!has!examined!multilingual!language!acquisition!and!therapy!(Grosjean!&!Li,!2013),!there!are!relatively!few!studies!that!have!examined!the!effect!of!therapy!on!a!client’s!phonological!abilities!in!all!of!their!languages,!and!even!fewer!examining!the!impact!of!multilingual!phonological!therapy!(GildersleeveVNeumann!&!Goldstein,!2015).!Though!not!all!of!these!studies!have!observed!generalized!improvement!in!the!untreated!language(s),!a!case!series!with!two!SpanishVEnglish!bilinguals!with!similar!profiles!to!Rémi!(i.e.!sequential!bilinguals,!low!PCC,!and!enrolled!in!an!EnglishVonly!elementary!school)!found!that!these!children!made!similar!phonological!gains!in!both!of!their!languages!following!intervention!primarily!in!Spanish!(GildersleeveVNeumann!&!Goldstein,!2015).!These!findings!suggest!that!therapy!in!Rémi’s!stronger!language!(French)!may!have!led!to!similar!gains!in!English.!Despite!limited!evidence!in!the!literature,!phonological!theory!also!supports!the!possibility!of!this!generalized!improvement!following!therapy.!For!example,!under!nonlinear!phonology,!therapy!is!viewed!as!strengthening!the!tiers!in!a!client’s!phonological!hierarchy!and!while!goals!may!be!languageVspecific,!improvement!should!be!generalized!(to!a!certain!extent)!to!all!their!languages!because!they!rely!on!a!relatively!similar!hierarchy!(Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!1998).!Given!that!there!is!a!fair!amount!of!overlap!between!English!and!French!phonologies,!goals!worked!on!in!either!language!had!even!more!potential!to!lead!to!improvement!in!the!other!language!(Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!1998;!GildersleeveVNeumann!&!Goldstein,!2015).!There!was!some!evidence!of!generalization!between!! ! 59!languages!in!the!present!case!study.!Time!2!data!showed!that!even!though!/s/Vclusters!were!only!ever!worked!on!in!English,!Rémi!had!made!improvements!in!his!ability!to!produce!French!onset!clusters!with!a!grooved!fricative!followed!by!a!glide.!Though!grooved!singletons!were!targeted!in!French,!Rémi!reportedly!required!a!great!deal!of!focus!and!cueing!to!be!able!to!produce!them!by!the!end!of!his!first!treatment!block,!so!the!therapy!he!received!in!his!stronger!language!alone!could!not!account!for!this!improvement.!English!was!not!formally!assessed!in!this!study;!thus,!the!true!extent!of!the!effects!of!the!multilingual!therapy!can!only!be!speculated!on!for!this!child.!!4.5!!Discussion!of!the!Mismatch!Patterns!Observed!The!tables!discussed!in!the!previous!chapter!revealed!numerous!phonological!patterns!in!Rémi’s!speech.!This!section!compares!his!patterns!to!those!that!have!been!reported!in!literature!and!discusses!potential!explanations!for!some!of!these!phonological!mismatches.!!!Many!of!the!mismatches!observed!in!Rémi’s!data!are!ones!that!are!commonly!reported!for!other!children,!both!with!and!with!no!PPD!(i.e.!used!by!more!than!5%!of!children)!(Smit!et!al.,!1990).!For!example,!WM!and!WF!consonant!deletions!are!both!reported!to!be!common!syllable!structure!mismatches!for!FrenchVspeaking!children!(BrosseauVLapré!&!Rvachew,!2014;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2014).!Many!of!his!segmental!mismatches!have!also!been!documented!in!the!acquisition!literature.!Rémi!displayed!multiple!instances!of![Dorsal] spreading,!which!is!reported!to!be!a!common!segmental!mismatch!for!FrenchVspeaking!children!(BrosseauVLapré!&!Rvachew,!2014;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2014).!The!stopping!of!fricatives!and!the!fronting!of!velar!stops!are!regularly!observed!in!EnglishVspeaking!! ! 60!children!(Shipley!&!McAfee,!2009)!and!have!also!been!reported!for!some!FrenchVspeaking!children!(BrosseauVLapré!&!Rvachew,!2014).!Finally,!alveolopalatalization!is!a!common!process!for!EnglishVspeaking!children!(especially!for!young!children),!and!is!partially!caused!by!the!need!to!learn!the![±grooved]!distinction!as!well!as!the!anatomy!of!children’s!vocal!tracts!(Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!1998;!Rose!&!WauquierVGravelines,!2007).!Since!research!has!found!that![+grooved]!segments!are!also!challenging!in!French!(MacLeod!et!al.,!2011;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2013),!it!is!not!surprising!that!FrenchVspeaking!children,!like!Rémi,!would!show!this!pattern!as!well.!!!In!addition!to!these!common!mismatches,!Rémi’s!data!displayed!several!repair!strategies!that!are!less!common,!both!for!TD!children!and!those!with!PPD!(BrosseauVLapré!&!Rvachew,!2014;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2014;!Shipley!&!McAfee,!2009).!He!frequently!produced!target![Labial]!and![Coronal]!fricatives!as!alveolopalatal!affricates!(e.g.!moufette"/muˈfɛt/!!→ ![muˈʨɛtʰ]).!This!occurred!even!when!they!were!not!in!stop!clusters!(meaning!that!this!was!not!the!result!of!coalescence!or!metathesis)!as!well!as!in!contexts!that!would!not!have!resulted!in!an!allophonic!affricate.!Of!the!21!total!affricates!he!produced,!4!matched!the!manner!of!the!adult!target,!4!were!allophonically!driven,!1!appeared!to!be!the!result!of!coalescence!and!1!the!result!of!assimilation.!The!remaining!11!did!not!have!a!clear!phonological!reason!for!being!produced.!Additionally,!his!productions!of!crocodile"([kχʌkχʌˈdij])!and!cochon"([thɪˈthɔ̃])!should!have!resulted!in!an!affricate!but!did!not.!This!repair!may!have!resulted!from!his!system!combining!his!two!default!segments:!alveolopalatal!fricatives!and!alveolar!stops.!However,!given!that!affricates!were!used!as!! ! 61!substitutions!more!often!than!fricatives,!it!is!also!possible!that!this!was!an!unintentional!strategy!to!control!the!air!pressure!needed!to!produce!a!segment!that!is![+continuant,!!Vsonorant].!This!pattern!might!also!reflect!the!allophonic!affricates!being!overVgeneralized!by!his!phonological!system.!!!Another!uncommon!pattern!was!the!stopping!+!glide!epenthesis!that!occurred!several!times!as!a!repair!for!some!voiced!fricatives!(e.g.!zoo!/ˈzu/!→ [ˈgju]).!Though!epenthesis!is!reported!to!be!an!infrequent!phonological!process!in!both!English!and!French!(BrosseauVLapré!&!Rvachew,!2014;!McLeod!et!al.,!2011;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2014;!Shipley!&!McAfee,!2009),!epenthesizing!the!glide!allowed!him!to!preserve!both!the![+continuant,!Vsonorant]!features!of!the!target!fricatives!by!splitting!them!across!two!segments.!A!similar!pattern!was!observed!with!some!/ʁ/!targets!(e.g.!rêve"/ˈʀaɪv/!→![ˈkweɪ]).!These!instances!with!/ʁ/ are!not!as!clearVcut!however.!While!these!may!be!examples!of!splitting!the!features!of!the!challenging!phoneme!between!two!segments,!it!is!also!possible!that!these!represent!a!combination!of!the!repairs!velar!stop!epenthesis!(described!below)!and!gliding/lateralization.!Research!supports!that!/ʁ/!can!be![+sonorant]!and!tends!to!pattern!with!the!other!liquids,!in!which!case!gliding!or!lateralization!of!this!phoneme!would!follow!the!segmental!mismatches!that!are!used!by!EnglishVspeaking!children!when!dealing!with!a!rhotic!consonant!(Shipley!&!McAfee,!2009). !A!final!uncommon!repair!was!the!epenthesis!of![k, g] before!/ʁ/!singletons.!In!addition!to!epenthesis!being!an!uncommon!repair,!Rémi!had!great!difficulty!producing!/k, g/ as!singletons.!His!ability!to!produce![k, g]!in!clusters!suggests!that!in!order!to!produce!! ! 62!consonants!that!only!have![Dorsal]!as!their!place!feature!(vs.!/ɲ, j, ɥ/,!which!also!have![Coronal]!place,!and!/w, ɥ/,!which!also!has![Labial]!place),!he!needed!to!have!it!adjacent!to!another![Dorsal]!consonant!or!glide.!When!an!adjacent!consonant!was!not!available!in!the!target!word,!Rémi’s!phonological!system!epenthesized!a![Dorsal]!sound!that!obeyed!the!sonority!hierarchy!(e.g.!robot!/ʁoˈbo/!→![gʁoˈbo]).!Though!this!epenthesis!interpretation!of!the!data!seems!to!best!explain!this!pattern!(e.g.!it!reflects!his!phonological!strengths!at!Time!1,!matches!his!pattern!of!splitting!with!other!consonants,!and!becomes!more!frequent!at!Time!2!when!the!other!fricatives!are!infrequently!showing!the!affrication!repair),!it!is!also!possible!to!interpret!these![gʁ]!clusters!as!being!affricates.!The!affricate!repair!would!be!consistent!with!the!view!that!this!phoneme!is!phonetically!a!fricative!most!of!the!time!and!this!was!a!common!repair!for!the!other!fricatives!at!Time!1.!Unfortunately,!because!of!Rémi’s!rapid!rate!of!speech!and!the!noise!overlap!on!the!recording,!it!was!too!difficult!to!do!an!acoustic!comparison!to!resolve!the!affricate!versus!cluster!debate.!!While![Dorsal]!spreading!and![Dorsal]!stop!epenthesis!suggest!a!requirement!to!have!two!adjacent![Dorsal]!segments,!this!does!not!account!for!Rémi’s!ability!to!produce!/kl, gl, pʁ̥, bʁ/!clusters.!According!to!MacLeod!et!al.!(2011)!and!Rvachew!et!al.!(2014),!/k, g, ʁ/!are!intermediate!phonemes!in!French!and!typically,!FrenchVspeaking!children!first!acquire!them!as!singletons!before!acquiring!them!in!clusters,!which!is!the!same!as!the!pattern!observed!in!most!EnglishVspeaking!children!(Shipley!&!McAfee,!2009).!One!explanation!for!Rémi’s!mastery!of!WI!/kl, gl/!clusters!ahead!of!/k, g/!singletons!could!be!related!to!the!fact!that!C/l/Vclusters!tend!to!be!the!first!clusters!mastered!by!FrenchVspeaking!children,!especially!WI!(BrosseauVLapré!&!Rvachew,!2014;!Kehoe!et!al.,!2008;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2013).!! ! 63!This!pattern!seemed!to!be!the!case!for!Rémi;!WI!C/l/!clusters!had!the!highest!match!out!of!any!of!the!clusters!at!Time!1.!Another!possibility!is!that!his!phonological!system!treated![kl, gl]!as!a!unit!rather!than!a!sequence. There!are!also!several!possible!explanations!for!his!ability!to!produce!/pʁ̥, bʁ/!clusters.!One!is!that!WI /p, b/!were!both!strong!speech!sounds!in!his!inventory.!Another!explanation!is!that!these!phonemes!did!not!add!a!competing![Coronal]!place!feature!to!the!sequence.!A!third!alternative!is!that!these!sequences!are!less!articulatorily!complex!than!/tʁ̥, dʁ/;!unlike!these![Coronal]!stop!clusters,!Rémi!is!able!get!his!tongue!in!place!for!the!uvular!fricative!while!he!is!articulating!the![Labial]!stop.!These!interpretations!would!suggest!that!while![Dorsal]!+![Dorsal]!consonant!sequences!may!be!preferable,![Labial]!+![Dorsal]!sequences!are!allowed!because!they!do!not!trigger!problems!with!the![Dorsal]!place!feature.!This!restriction!on![Coronal]!+![Dorsal]!also!appears!to!affect!nasal!stop!+!glide!sequences,!e.g.!he!fronts!the!nasal!consonant!in!his!production!of!nuît"(/ˈnɥi/!→ [ˈmɥi]),!but!not!in!his!production!of!nuâge"(/nyˈaʒ/!→![nyˈja]).!!!4.6!!Comparing!Rémi’s!Data!with!the!Emerging!Norms!for!the!Acquisition!of!Canadian!French!In!addition!to!analyzing!the!changes!in!Rémi’s!phonological!system!following!therapy,!this!case!study!provided!data!about!the!order!in!which!Rémi!acquired!different!speech!sounds!and!clusters,!as!well!as!information!about!the!types,!frequencies!and!locations!of!his!mismatch!patterns.!Using!the!emerging!norms!for!the!acquisition!of!Canadian!French,!Rémi’s!speech!data!were!compared!with!those!of!sameVage!peers!from!the!same!language!! ! 64!background,!both!with!and!with!no!PPD.!Before!analyzing!Rémi’s!data,!the!following!hypotheses!were!made!about!his!phonology!based!on!the!existing!literature:!that!he!would!have!a!relatively!high!PCC!at!both!time!points,!that!he!would!be!able!to!spontaneously!produce!most,!if!not!all,!of!the!target!sounds!at!Time!1!(even!if!they!are!not!mastered),!that!he!would!be!able!to!produce!WI!clusters,!and!that!he!would!use!syllable!structure!mismatches!more!often!than!segmentVbased!ones.!!By!grade!1,!TD!FrenchVspeaking!children!have!an!average!PCC!between!90!–!95%,!with!a!SD!ranging!from!4.9%!to!6.3%!(MacLeod!et!al.,!2011;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2013).!Several!researchers!(BrosseauVLapré!et!al.,!2016;!BrosseauVLapré!&!Rvachew,!2014;!MacLeod!et!al.,!2014;!Rvachew!&!BrosseauVLapré,!2015)!have!also!found!that!children!between!the!ages!of!4;0!and!5;11,!who!have!a!primary!diagnosis!of!PPD,!have!an!average!PCC!between!65.7%!V!77.3%!(each!with!a!SD!of!~12%)."At!Time!1,!Rémi’s!PCC!(47.0%)!on!the!Test"de"Phonologie"en"Français"was!more!than!two!standard!deviations!below!those!reported!for!children!his!age,!both!with!and!with!no!phonological!delay.!By!reassessment,!however,!he!was!within!one!standard!deviation!of!the!other!children!with!PPD.!It!is!possible!that!some!of!this!discrepancy!was!due!to!these!other!studies!using!different!assessment!tools!from!the!one!administered!in!this!study.!However,!despite!the!Test"de"Phonologie"en"Français"(Bérubé!et!al.,!2013)"having!twice!as!many!target!words!as!the!Test"Francophone"de"Phonologie"(Paul!&!Rvachew,!2009),!and!being!originally!designed!for!Manitoban!rather!than!Québécois!French,"both!test!descriptions!report!that!the!target!consonants!are!sampled!at!a!rate!proportional!to!their!use!in!Canadian!French,!and!are!sampled!in!a!variety!of!word!positions,!word!shapes!and!stress!patterns.!This!suggests!that!their!findings!should!be!! ! 65!comparable.!Additionally,!if!the!tests!were!influencing!the!outcomes,!this!should!have!affected!both!of!his!speech!samples.!Thus,!his!low!PCC!score!at!the!first!assessment!indicates!that!his!phonological!delay!was!more!severe!than!those!of!the!children!studied!in!the!literature!and!this!may!impact!his!performance!on!the!remaining!hypotheses.!!In!addition!to!having!a!relatively!high!PCC,!the!majority!of!the!children!with!PPD!in!BrosseauVLapré!(2014)!(as!cited!in!BrosseauVLapré!et!al.,!2016)!had!a!complete!or!near!complete!consonant!inventory!by!6;0!(missing!only!/ʃ, ʒ/).!This!means!that!even!when!a!sound!was!not!mastered!in!all!word!positions,!these!children!were!still!using!them!some!of!the!time.!Including!speech!sounds!that!were!inconsistent!or!were!present!but!not!for!the!adult!targets,!Rémi!spontaneously!produced!at!least!one!token!of!all!of!the!French!consonants,!except!for!/v, s, z, ʃ, ts, dz/,!at!Time!1.!By!the!followVup!assessment,!he!spontaneously!produced!multiple!accurate!tokens!of!all!of!the!consonants!assessed.!Despite!his!severe!phonological!delay,!Rémi’s!productions!follow!this!trend!in!the!literature.!!In!the!first!assessment,!Rémi’s!strongest!speech!sounds!were!/p, m, t, n, l/,!and!data!from!MacLeod!et!al.!(2011)!and!Rvachew!et!al.!(2013)!suggests!that!most!of!these!sounds!are!early!developing,!and!are!acquired!in!all!word!positions!with!90%!accuracy!by!kindergarten!in!TD!FrenchVspeaking!children.!These!studies!also!showed!that!grooved!fricatives!tend!to!be!the!latest!developing!phonemes!in!French.!When!comparing!Rémi’s!productions!at!Time!1!to!these!norms,!it!appears!that!he!had!acquired!some!of!the!early!developing!phonemes!(particularly!voiceless!ones)!and!had!difficulty!with!sounds!that!were!classified!as!intermediate!and!lateVdeveloping.!At!Time!2,!Rémi’s!strongest!phonemes!! ! 66!were!/p, b, m, f, v, t, d, n, s, l/.!These!findings!show!that!he!had!acquired!many!of!the!early!and!intermediate!phonemes!following!treatment,!but!still!had!difficulties!with!the!laterVdeveloping!sounds.!Overall,!the!order!in!which!Rémi!was!acquiring!his!speech!sounds!fits!the!general!trends!for!phoneme!acquisition!in!French.!!!Research!has!also!examined!the!acquisition!of!WI!clusters.!In!TD!FrenchVspeaking!children,!WI!C/l/!clusters!tend!to!be!acquired!earliest,!followed!by!WI!glide!clusters,!followed!by!WI!C/ʁ/!and!/s/Vclusters!(Kehoe!et!al.,!2008;!MacLeod!et!al.,!2011;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2013).!All!of!these!clusters!tend!to!be!mastered!by!most!FrenchVspeaking!children!before!entering!kindergarten!(MacLeod!et!al.,!2011).!The!same!order!of!acquisition!had!been!observed!in!children!with!phonological!delays!(Rvachew!et!al.,!2014).!Tables!5,!14!and!21!show!that!Rémi’s!mastery!of!WI!consonant!clusters!followed!this!pattern!as!well.!At!Time!1,!Rémi’s!C/l/!clusters!had!an!accuracy!of!83%!(5/6),!whereas!C/ʁ/!and!glide!clusters!had!an!accuracy!of!!~50%.!By!Time!2,!the!accuracy!of!C/l/!and!glide!clusters!had!increased!to!100%!and!80%!respectively,!while!C/ʁ/!clusters!showed!no!change.!The!data!also!showed!that!while!Rémi!could!produce!WI!clusters!with!varying!degrees!of!accuracy,!he!did!not!produce!any!WF!clusters!at!either!time!point.!This!matches!the!pattern!found!in!the!literature!of!WI!clusters!emerging!before!WF!ones!(Demuth!&!McCullough,!2009;!Kehoe!et!al.,!2008;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2013).!!Another!area!that!has!received!a!lot!of!attention!is!the!differences!in!the!types!of!mismatches!used!by!EnglishVspeaking!children!and!FrenchVspeaking!children.!The!literature!has!found!that!FrenchVspeaking!children,!both!TD!and!those!with!PPD,!tend!to!! ! 67!produce!syllable!structure!mismatches!more!frequently!than!segmentVbased!ones!(BrosseauVLapré!&!Rvachew,!2014;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2013;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2014;).!Moreover,!when!PCC!is!controlled,!syllable!mismatches!(especially!deletion)!occur!at!a!higher!rate!in!FrenchVspeaking!children!than!what!has!been!reported!for!their!EnglishVspeaking!counterparts!(BrosseauVLapré!&!Rvachew,!2014;!Macrea!&!Taylor,!2014;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2013;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2014).!BrosseauVLapré!and!Rvachew!(2014)!argue!that!this!results!from!a!tradeVoff!between!prosodic!and!segmental!accuracy!when!a!child’s!phonological!system!is!developing;!they!have!to!prioritize!what!they!will!be!most!faithful!to.!Researchers!have!suggested!that!since!phonemes!tend!to!be!acquired!much!earlier!in!French,!FrenchVspeaking!children!will!be!more!faithful!to!segments!than!word!structure!in!their!productions.!If!they!cannot!produce!a!sound!accurately,!they!are!more!likely!to!delete!it!than!to!modify!its!features.!The!reverse!has!been!argued!for!English!learners,!because!even!TD!children!may!not!master!certain!phonemes!before!the!end!of!grade!1!(Shipley!&!McAfee,!2009).!Tables!19!and!20!show!that!Rémi!did!not!fit!the!expected!pattern!from!FrenchVspeaking!children!at!either!time!point;!in!fact!it,!his!phonological!system!appeared!more!like!the!EnglishVspeaking!children!studied!by!BrosseauVLapré!and!Rvachew!(2014).!This!remained!true!even!when!separating!the!data!into!singletons!and!clusters;!segmental!mismatches!were!either!much!more!frequent!or!roughly!equal!to!the!syllable!structure!mismatches.!Several!explanations!can!account!for!these!results.!First,!the!fact!that!Rémi!had!been!living!in!an!EnglishVdominant!community!for!several!months!and!attending!a!partVtime!EnglishVonly!preschool!prior!to!the!first!assessment,!and!an!EnglishVonly!kindergarten!before!Time!2,!could!have!influenced!his!rates!of!the!different!mismatch!types.!However,!it!seems!unlikely!that!this!would!have!resulted!in!a!complete!reversal,!especially!given!that!at!! ! 68!Time!1,!most!of!his!dailyVinteractions!were!with!other!French!speakers!and!he!only!conversed!in!French.!The!results!from!Rvachew!et!al.!(2013)!support!this!view;!while!the!bilingual!FrenchVspeaking!kindergarten!students!in!their!study!used!twice!as!many!segmentVbased!mismatches!as!the!monolingual!speakers,!syllable!structure!mismatches!were!still!more!common!in!both!groups!when!speaking!in!French.!A!more!likely!interpretation!of!these!patterns!is!that!given!that!his!segments!were!so!restricted!at!Time!1,!his!system!resorted!to!using!substitutions!in!order!to!avoid!deleting!multiple!segments!per!word!(Flint!&!Klein,!2005).!Further!research!is!needed!to!see!if!this!pattern!is!common!for!other!FrenchVspeaking!children!with!a!similar!degree!of!phonological!delay.!!One!additional!area!where!Rémi!showed!some!deviation!from!the!current!Canadian!norms!was!in!his!rate!of!deletions!by!different!word!positions,!between!singletons!and!clusters!and!by!word!length.!Deletion!was!used!as!a!repair!for!all!constraints!except!“no!velar!stops”!at!Time!1.!Some!of!these!patterns,!especially!WM!and!WF!consonant!deletion,!were!predicted!by!the!findings!in!the!research.!WF!codas!are!prone!to!deletion!by!adults!in!colloquial!speech!as!well!as!in!children!with!and!with!no!phonological!delay!(MacLeod!et!al.,!2011;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2013),!and!WM!codas!have!been!shown!to!be!especially!vulnerable!to!deletion!in!FrenchVspeaking!children!with!PPD!(Rose!&!WauquierVGravelines,!2007;!Rvachew!&!BrosseauVLapré,!2015;!Rvachew!et!al.,!2014).!Rémi’s!data!therefore!seems!to!fit!these!trends.!It!is!important!to!note!that!WM!codas!in!this!assessment!tended!to!contain!segments!that!were!challenging!for!Rémi!(especially!/ʁ, s/)!so!once!again!this!pattern!may!be!driven!by!his!segment!constraints!rather!than!this!word!position!being!particularly!weak!(for!example,!he!never!deleted!stops!and!nasals!in!WF!codas!even!though!! ! 69!fricatives!and!/ʁ/!were!deleted!numerous!times).!These!studies!have!also!found!that!branching!onsets!(clusters!where!the!second!consonant!is!not!a!glide)!are!more!vulnerable!to!reduction!than!other!types!of!onsets!(BrosseauVLapré!&!Rvachew,!2014).!BrosseauVLapré!and!Rvachew!(2014)!found!that!branching!onsets,!both!wordVinitially!and!wordVmedially,!were!reduced!45%+!of!the!time!by!the!24!children!in!their!study.!Though!Rémi’s!productions!of!branching!onsets!were!not!always!correct,!the!analyses!showed!that!he!rarely!reduced!them!at!either!time!point,!which!goes!against!these!findings!(BrosseauVLapré!&!Rvachew,!2014;!Rvachew!&!BrosseauVLapré,!2015).!Finally,!previous!research!has!found!that!deletions!tend!to!occur!at!a!higher!rate!in!multisyllabic!words!for!children!with!and!with!no!phonological!delay.!Though!Table!21!shows!that!this!was!the!case!for!Rémi!at!Time!2,!the!first!assessment!found!that!the!rates!were!roughly!equal!across!all!word!lengths.!!In!summary,!Rémi’s!data!followed!some!of!the!hypotheses!made!at!the!outset!of!this!paper.!He!acquired!singletons!and!clusters!in!approximately!the!same!order!as!other!FrenchVspeaking!children,!and!had!many!instances!of!WM!and!WF!coda!deletion.!On!the!other!hand,!his!PCC!(especially!at!Time!1),!rate!of!segmentVbased!mismatches!and!rate!of!deletions!in!branching!onsets!deviated!from!the!patterns!in!the!literature.!!!4.7!!Proposed!Treatment!Goals!After!Time!2!Given!the!data!from!Time!2,!and!what!is!known!about!phonological!intervention!and!the!acquisition!of!French!and!English,!the!treatment!goals!for!Time!2!are!proposed!here!(also!see!Table!24).!!! ! 70!1. Type"of"Goal:!New!Combinations!of!Old!Features!Target:!Singleton/ʃ/!Rationale:!Though!/s/!made!significant!gains!following!therapy,!Rémi’s!system!is!now!using!it!inconsistently!as!a!substitution!for!all![+grooved]!fricatives.!The!analysis!also!suggested!that!there!was!a!tendency!for!his!system!to!produce![s]!for!voiceless!grooved!fricatives!in!the!adult!targets!and![ʒ]!for!the!voiced!grooved!fricatives.!This!pattern!suggests!that!while!his!system!now!allows!for!grooved!fricatives,!the!value!of![±anterior]!influences!the!voicing!of!that!fricative.!Targeting!/ʃ/!in!therapy!may!help!his!system!to!separate!the!laryngeal!setting!from!the!place!features.!/ʃ/!would!be!preferable!over!/z/!for!several!reasons.!Firstly,!at!Time!2,![Vvoiced]!speech!sounds!continued!to!be!slightly!more!accurate,!indicating!that!therapy!might!have!greater!success!in!targeting!a!voiceless!speech!sound!(Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!1998,!2000).!Secondly,!though!/z/!is!more!common!than!/ʃ, ʒ/!in!English,!they!are!all!relatively!equal!in!French!(New!&!Pallier,!2001).!Since!French!continued!to!be!his!stronger!language!at!Time!2!and!he!was!returning!to!Québec!not!long!after!the!reassessment,!improving!his!accuracy!of!/ʃ/!might!have!a!larger!impact!on!his!intelligibility!because!it!has!the!potential!to!strengthen!/ʒ/!at!the!same!time!(Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!1998;!Flint!&!Klein,!2005).!Finally,!/ʃ/!is!also!a!more!complex!target,!and!arguably!laterVdeveloping!than!/z/!in!FrenchVspeaking!children!(MacLeod!et!al.,!2011);!thus!targeting!it!in!therapy!has!the!potential!to!lead!to!greater!change!in!the!system!(Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!1998;!Gierut,!2001;!Miccio!&!Elbert,!1996).!Because!of!this,!it!is!! ! 71!possible!that!Rémi’s!accuracy!of!/z/!will!improve!without!having!to!directly!target!it.!!2. Type"of"Goal:!New!Word!Positions!for!Old!Segments!Target:!Singleton!/ʁ/!Rationale:!Rhotics!have!a!high!frequency!in!both!French!and!English!(New!&!Pallier,!2001;!Shipley!&!McAfee,!2009),!and!can!impact!the!intelligibility!of!the!speaker.!Though!it!would!be!developmentally!appropriate!for!Rémi!not!to!have!the!English!/ɹ/!(this!was!not!examined!in!this!study),!/ʁ/!is!classified!as!an!intermediate!speech!sound!in!French!(acquired!before!48!months)!(MacLeod!et!al.,!2011).!Improving!the!accuracy!of!singleton!/ʁ/!could!impact!intelligibility!in!multiple!ways.!It!might!lead!to!improvement!in!his!WM!and!WF!/ʁ/!clusters,!which!continued!to!undergo!deletions!and!substitutions!at!Time!2.!Additionally,!just!as!/k, g/!singletons!could!have!affected!change!in!/ʁ/!because!they!target!the!same!place!feature,!the!reverse!may!be!true!when!targeting!/ʁ/!(Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!1998;!Gierut,!2001;!Miccio!&!Elbert,!1996).!This!would!be!helpful!given!that!/k, g/!have!shown!little!generalization!outside!of!therapy!sessions,!and!to!continue!working!on!them!may!lead!to!frustration!and!boredom!(Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!1998;!Kaderavek,!2015).!!!! /ʁ/!is!a!good!target!for!therapy!for!two!reasons.!The!first!is!that!it!is!currently!inconsistent!as!a!singleton;!targeting!/ʁ/!may!lead!to!more!rapid!! ! 72!improvement!compared!to!a!target!that!is!consistently!mismatched.!Another!reason!is!that!his!system!allows!for!C/ʁ/!clusters,!which!suggests!that!less!therapy!would!be!needed!to!acquire!this!singleton!than!if!he!were!working!on!a!new!segment!(Baker!&!Bernhardt,!2004;!Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!2000;!Bernhardt!&!StoelVGammon,!1994).!!!3. Type"of"Goal:!New!Sequences!of!Old!Segments!Target:!/s/!+!Stop!Clusters!Rationale:"Between!both!languages,!/s/Vclusters!occur!in!all!word!positions!(there!are!many!WI!and!morphologyVbased!WF!examples!in!English,!as!well!as!WM!and!WF!occurrences!in!French)!(Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!2015b;!Bernhardt!et!al.,!2015).!Though!/s/Vclusters!had!previously!been!targeted!in!therapy!and!the!full!range!of!English!/s/Vclusters!were!not!assessed!in!this!case!study,!Rémi’s!data!indicate!that!he!has!not!yet!mastered!these!clusters!in!WM!and!WF!positions!in!French.!Since!these!clusters!tend!to!undergo!both!deletions!and!substitutions,!they!would!be!impacting!his!intelligibility,!and!could!benefit!from!continued!therapy.!Without!enough!information!about!the!accuracy!of!his!/s/Vclusters!at!Time!2,!therapy!should!continue!with!WI!/s/Vclusters!because!this!has!been!Rémi’s!strongest!word!position!for!clusters.!Given!that!/m, t, w/!were!well!established!in!his!consonant!inventory,!therapy!could!start!with!WI!/sm, st, sw/!clusters,!and!monitor!for!generalization!to!other!/s/Vclusters!and!other!word!positions!(Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!1998,!2000).!! ! 73!4. Type"of"Goal:!New!Word!Positions!for!Old!Segments!Target:!Generalization!of!singleton!/k,!g/!Rationale:"Though!Flint!and!Klien!(2005)!found!that!velar!fronting!does!not!have!a!large!impact!on!intelligibility!in!English,!/t, k/!and!/d, g/!have!closer!frequency!of!occurrence!in!French,!which!may!result!in!velar!fronting!having!a!larger!impact!in!French.!Like!/s/Vclusters,!these!have!already!been!targeted!in!therapy,!but!have!had!limited!generalization!outside!of!therapy!sessions.!!!4.8!!Limitations!Similar!to!any!other!case!study,!the!results!of!this!study!have!limited!generalizability!to!other!FrenchVspeaking!children!(Cozby,!2009).!Some!of!the!factors!affecting!the!external!validity!of!these!results!include:!(1)!Rémi!was!an!emerging!bilingual,!(2)!he!had!received!therapy!in!both!of!his!languages,!and!(3)!his!PPD!appeared!to!be!more!severe!than!those!of!the!children!currently!represented!in!the!literature.!Though!it!is!not!uncommon!for!children!to!have!home!languages!that!differ!from!the!dominant!one!in!their!community!(especially!in!multicultural!cities!like!Vancouver),!it!may!be!less!common!for!children!in!Canada!to!be!sequential!bilinguals!when!their!L1!is!French.!This!makes!it!harder!to!compare!Rémi’s!data!to!those!of!other!bilingual!FrenchVspeaking!children.!Additionally,!outside!of!Québec!and!other!FrenchVspeaking!communities,!FrenchVspeaking!children!are!less!likely!to!receive!therapy!in!their!dominant!language,!limiting!the!generalizability!of!Rémi’s!progress!following!his!therapy!program.!Finally!given!that!the!data!indicates!that!Rémi!had!a!severe!phonological!delay!at!Time!1,!there!would!be!fewer!peers!with!the!same!degree!of!phonological!delay!to!compare!him!with!than!if!he!had!a!mild!or!moderate!delay.!! ! 74!Another!limitation!was!that!English!data!was!not!analyzed!in!this!study.!This!data!could!have!shed!further!light!on!how!Rémi’s!phonological!system!was!changing!following!therapy!as!well!as!highlight!differences!in!the!mismatch!patterns!and!constraints!between!his!two!languages.!!!4.9!!Clinical!Implications!Several!clinical!implications!can!be!drawn!from!the!findings!in!this!study.!The!analyses!showed!that!Nonlinear!Phonology!and!Optimality!Theory!could!identify!and!account!for!match!and!mismatch!patterns!in!languages!other!than!English.!It!also!showed!that!these!theories!could!be!useful!for!goal!and!targetVword!selection!with!FrenchVspeaking!children.!For!example,!one!strategy!that!clinicians!could!use!to!address!the!/ʁ/!singleton!goal!is!to!split!the!phoneme!from!clusters!where!it!may!occur;!in!Rémi’s!case,!/pʁ, bʁ, kʁ, gʁ/.!Clinicians!could!pair!words!to!create!these!clusters!across!word!boundaries!(e.g.!“tuque"rouge”!where!the![k]!is!the!WF!coda!of!tuque!and![ʁ]!is!the!WI!onset!of!rouge),!and!slowly!increase!the!pause!time!between!the!two!words.!The!analyses!indicate!that!it!would!not!be!recommended!to!try!this!across!syllable!boundaries!within!the!same!word,!as!WM!codas!were!still!vulnerable!to!deletion!at!Time!2.!This!case!study!was!also!written!in!English!so!it!is!available!to!SLPs!who!have!FrenchVspeaking!children!on!their!caseload!but!who!do!not!speak!French!themselves.!!It!is!also!important!to!mention!that!having!his!mother’s!pronunciations!of!the!same!set!of!target!words!contributed!valuable!information!to!the!analysis!of!Rémi’s!data.!This!practice!does!not!appear!to!be!commonly!used!in!other!studies!or!in!clinical!practice,!but!without!it,!! ! 75!researchers!and!clinicians!cannot!be!as!certain!about!why!a!child!may!be!producing!words!in!a!particular!way.!In!this!study,!this!information!helped!to!distinguish!between!mismatches!and!dialectal!differences.!!Another!clinical!finding!had!to!do!with!his!inconsistencies!across!different!productions!attempts.!The!variability!analysis!at!Time!1!suggested!that!Rémi!might!have!met!the!criteria!for!Inconsistent!Speech!Sound!Disorder!(ISSD).!Researchers!have!recommended!using!a!Core!Vocabulary!approach!for!children!with!this!diagnosis;!clients!receive!intensive!treatment!focusing!on!increasing!their!production!consistency!(but!not!necessarily!accuracy)!of!a!list!of!at!least!50!functional,!personallyVrelevant!words!(Dodd!et!al.,!2006;!RoseberryVMcKibbin!&!Hedge,!2016).!These!researchers!have!argued!that!traditional!articulation!therapy!is!not!as!beneficial!for!these!clients!(Dodd!et!al.,!2006).!Rémi’s!SLPs!did!not!use!the!Core!Vocabulary!approach!with!him!and!despite!this,!he!showed!progress!in!most!areas!of!his!phonology!following!therapy!and!decreased!variability.!These!findings!suggest!that!a!traditional!approach!to!articulation!therapy!may!be!an!alternative!to!the!Core!Vocabulary!approach!for!clients!with!ISSD!when!the!therapy!goals!and!treatment!plan!are!guided!by!an!inVdepth!phonological!analysis.!!4.10!!Future!Directions!Though!a!lot!of!progress!has!been!made!towards!establishing!normative!data!for!FrenchVspeaking!children!and!documenting!the!phonological!mismatch!patterns!that!are!common!for!this!population,!many!areas!require!further!investigation.!Future!studies!should!focus!on!establishing!norms!for!the!different!assessment!tools!available!as!well!as!expanding!the!! ! 76!investigation!into!the!different!types,!frequencies!and!locations!of!mismatches!produced!by!TD!FrenchVspeaking!children!and!those!with!different!degrees!of!phonological!delay.!Additional!case!studies,!both!analytical!and!experimental,!would!also!be!beneficial!for!increasing!our!understanding!of!phonological!acquisition!in!French.!And!lastly,!more!data!in!all!of!these!areas!are!needed!for!bilingual!FrenchVspeaking!children.!! ! 77!5.!Conclusion!This!present!study!met!its!three!aims.!Firstly,!this!nonVexperimental!case!study!provided!an!inVdepth!analysis!of!the!data!from!a!boy!who!speaks!a!dialect!of!Québécois!French,!and!since!it!was!written!in!English,!can!be!used!as!a!resource!by!SLPs!who!do!not!speak!French!but!have!clients!who!do.!Secondly,!it!used!both!nonlinear!and!constraintVbased!analyses!to!examine!the!data.!The!analysis!highlighted!areas!of!strength!and!need!at!all!levels!of!this!child’s!phonological!hierarchy,!and!was!used!to!hypothesize!possible!explanations!for!various!patterns!in!the!data,!as!well!as!guide!the!selection!and!ordering!of!hypothetical!treatment!goals!moving!forward.!Finally,!this!paper!compared!Rémi’s!data!to!the!emerging!norms!for!the!acquisition!of!Canadian!French.!While!Rémi’s!data!follows!many!of!the!patterns!observed!in!the!literature,!there!were!some!notable!deviations.!The!findings!in!this!paper!suggest!that!while!theoreticallyVdriven!analyses!and!the!existing!acquisition!research!can!be!used!to!help!to!identify!phonological!delays!in!children!learning!Canadian!French!as!well!as!guide!goal!selection!and!prioritization,!more!research!is!needed!in!this!area.!!! ! 78!6.#Tables#Table!1.!Consonant!and!Vowel!Inventories!for!English!and!Québécois!French!! Consonant!Inventory1,2,3,4!!English:!! ([ʔ])!p(h)!b!!m!!t!(h)!!d!!(WM!ɾ)!!n!!!!!!!k(h)!g!!ŋ!!f!!v!!θ!!ð!!!s!!!z!!!ʃ!!ʒ!!tʃ!dʒ!!l!/ɫ!!w!!j!!!!!!ɹ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!h!!French:! !!!!!!!!!!p(h)!b!!m!!t!(h)!!d!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!n!!ɲ!!k(h)!g!!ŋ!!f!!v!!!!!!!!!!!!s!!z!!!!ʃ!!ʒ!!!!!!!!!!!!!l!!!!!!!w!!j!ɥ!!!ʁ/ʀ/r/ɾ!!!!!!!!!!! !! Vowel!Inventory!!!English:! !i ɪ ɛ æ (a) ə ʌ ʉ/u ʊ ɔ ɑ!!!!!!Diphthongs:!eɪ oʊ aʊ aɪ ɔ!!!!!!!Rhotic!Vowels:!ɚ!!!ɝ!!!!!French:! !i ɪ e ɛ a y ʏ ø œ ɶ ə ʌ ɔ u o ɑ!!!Nasal!vowels:!ɛ̃ œ ̃ ɑ̃ ɔ̃!!!(Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!2015b;!Bernhardt!et!al.,!2015).!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!English!has!no!word^initial!/ʒ/!or!/ŋ/,!nor!any!syllable^final!/w,!j,!h/.!(Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!2015b).!2!French!has!no!word^initial!/ɲ/!or/ŋ/.!(Bernhardt!et!al.,!2015)!3!Both!languages!allow!for!syllabic!/m ̩, n ̩, l ̩/.!(Bernhardt!&!Stemberger,!2015b;!Bernhardt!et!al.,!2015)!4!In!English,!/l/!is!velarized!when!it!comes!after!a!vowel!(e.g.!pill![phɪɫ])!and!when!it!preceeds!a!consonant!at!the!end!of!the!word!(e.g.!talc![tæɫk]).!In!these!cases,!the!back!of!the!tongue!arches!up!and!backwards!while!the!tongue!tip!maintains!contact!with!the!alveolar!ridge.!The!/l/!in!French!does!not!have!this!secondary!articulation!(Ladefoged!&!Johnson,!2011). ! ! 79!Table!2.!Word!Structure!Analysis!at!Time!1!(Pg.!3!from!French!SCAN)'Colour!Codes:!match,!absent,!(inconsistent!match),!and!present!but!not!for!adult!target!!Inventory#summary## Inventory:##client#forms#used#(parentheses!=!optional)!#19syllable#words#used?!!!!✔!!!!!!Strength?!✔!!!!Need?!!(influenced!by!segments)!!Most#complex#CV#shapes:!!CCVVCC!Missing#data?!!2!CC/word!!Frequent#word#structures#in#CV:##CV(V)##CV(V)C#########Other#CV,#CCV,#CCVC,#CCV(V)CC,##CCV(C),#CCVV,#CCCCV##Single#C#Onsets?###Single#C#Codas?##Clusters:#WI####WF!#29syllable#words#used?!!!✔!!!!Strength?!✔!!!!Need?!✔!(influenced!by!segments)!!Most#complex##CV#shapes:!!CVCCV(C),!CCVCV(C)!Missing#data?####!Frequent#word#structures#in#CV:###CV(V)CV##CV(V)CVC#(C)VCCV(C)########Other:#CCVCV(C),#CVCC(C)VVC,##VCVVC,#CCVCV,#CVCVV,#CVCCVV##Stress:!wS!!!!!!!!!Other:!Sw##Single#Cs:#####WI##!########WM##########WF#!#CC:####WI#####WM####WF##############CC:#1#CC/word####2#CC/word###CCC:#WM#3#or#more#syl.#used?#✔####!!Strength?! !!Need?!✔!(influenced!by!segments)!Most#complex#CV#shapes?#CVCVCVCV(C)!CVCVCCV!!Missing#data?##CCC!Examples#of#long#word#shapes#(CV):#CVCVCVCVC,#CVCVCV(C),#CVCVC(C)VC,#CVCVCVVC,##CVCCVCV,##VCVCV(C),#CCVCCVCVC,#CVCVCCV(V),#CVCVCVCV,##CVCVCVV!#Stress:!wwS!!wwwS!!!Other!!!#Single#Cs:##WI##!########WM##########WF#!CC:#!!!!WI#####WM######WF!!!!!!!!2^3!CCs!in!a!word!!!!!!!!!CCs!&!WF!C!in!word!!!!!Comparison#to#Adult#Targets:#Word#Length#and#Stress!Pattern# 1#syllable# 2#syllables# Multisyllabic#Syllable!deletion! ! Yes!!!!!!!Often?!!!!!Where?! Yes!!!!Often?!!!!!Where?!Syllable!addition!!(V!epenthesis)! Yes#!!!!Often?!No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Where?!WF! Yes!!!!!!!Often?!!!!!Where?! Yes#!!!!Often?!No!!!!!!!!!!!!!Where?!WM!Stress!Shift! ! Yes!!Often?!No!!Type:! Yes!!Often?!!Type:!!!Comparison#to#Adult#Targets:#Word#Shape!Pattern# WI# WM# WF# More#in#long#words#Adds!Cs!! Yes#!!Often?!7x! Yes#!!Often?!No! Yes!!!Often?!! Yes!!!!!Often?!!Singleton!C!deletion! Yes!!!Often?!! Yes!!!Often?!! Yes#!!Often?!14x! Yes!!!!!Often?!!C!deletion!in!CC(C)! Yes!!!Often?!No! Yes!!!Often?!8x! Yes!!!Often?!4x! Yes!!!!!Often?!!!!!! ! 80!Table!3.!Inventory!of!Client’s!Singleton!Consonants!at!Time!1!(Pg.!4!from!French!SCAN)! #WI##WM##WF#Mostly!match:!Strength! p(h), b, m, th, n, l p(h), m, t(h), d, n, l, ɲ, w ph, m, t(h), n, l, j Inconsistent:!Partial!strength! ʒ (1 token), b, ʁ, ɡ f (one token, imitation), k (one token) Present!but!not!for!adult!target!(can!include!segments!also'used'as'matches)!!Need?! m, t(h), d, j, l, g, w gʁ t(h), d, j, χ ph, t(h), d, j, f Ø, diphthong Tested'but'absent!or!very!marginal!from!inventory:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Need?! f, v, s, z, ʃ, ʒ, t ͡s, d ͡z, k, g, ʀ/ʁ f, v, s, z, ʃ, t ͡s, d ͡z, k b, v, d, s, z, ʃ, ʒ, g, ʀ/ʁ Non^French!speech!sounds! ʑ, tɕ͡, dʑ͡, tj, dj, gj5 b ̥, dj, ʑ, tɕ͡, dʑ͡, dj, l.g, gw, kw d ̥, də, ʑː, ʑ, ʑ̥, tɕ͡ Not!elicited!/!Noisy!token! ɥ, w w ŋ, ɥ, w Frequent!substitutions!(potential!default!segments)! t(h), d, tɕ͡ t(h), d, tɕ͡ t(h), d, tɕ͡, j, Ø !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!5 While /d, j, g/ occur independently in French, /dj/ and /gj/ clusters do not ! ! 81!Table!4.!Singleton!Substitution!Patterns:!Consonants,!Features!at!Time!1!(Pg.!6!from!French!SCAN)!The!segments!of!greatest!need!are!in!red.!#Adult#feature##Adult#Target##Initial##Medial##Final##Manner###Glides:!#[^consonantal]!!!([+sonorant])! j w ɥ j : VV !Liquids:![+sonorant!&!+consonantal]!! ʁ~ʀ~r l ʁ/ʀ: t, l, gʁ, kw ʁ/ʀ : gw, g, lg, kw l : j ʁ/ʀ : j, VV, Ø ![+lateral]! l l : fːld !Nasals:![+nasal]! m n ŋ !Stops:!![^continuant]!!(&![^nasal])! p b t d k g (ʔ) k : t ͡ɕ k : tɕ͡ k : tɕ͡ f : th, tɕ͡ s : tɕ͡, th ʃ : th v : dj, gj, g z : gj ʒ : dʑ͡ f : tɕ͡ s : tɕ͡, th ʃ : tɕ͡, th v : d ͡ʑ, j z : dj, j ʒ : dj f : t̚, Ø s : Ø ʃ : Ø v : ʑː, j, Ø, f z : t ͡ɕ, j ʒ : Ø !Fricatives![+continuant]!!(&![^sonorant)! f v s z ʃ ʒ ʁ ʁ : l, gʁ ʁ : gw, g, lg, kw ʁ : j, VV, Ø !Allophonic!affricates!! ts dz dz : d #Place:#Labial! p b m f v w ɥ f : th, tɕ͡ v : dj, gj, g f : t ͡ɕ v : dʑ͡, j f : t̚, Ø v : ʑ, j, Ø, f !Labiodental! f v f : th, tɕ͡ v : dj, gj, g f : tɕ͡ v : dʑ͡, j f : t̚, Ø v : ʑ, j, Ø, f !Coronal!!!!![+anterior]! t d n s z ts dz l s : t ͡ɕ ts : t ͡ɕ z : ʑ, gj dz : tɕ͡ s : tɕ͡ ts : t ͡ɕ z : dj, ʑ, j dz : d s : Ø l : j z : t ͡ɕ, j !!!!!!![^anterior]! ʃ ʒ j ɥ ʃ : th ʃ : th ʒ : dj ʃ : Ø ʒ : Ø !!!![+grooved]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!or!!!![+strident]! ts s z dz ʃ ʒ s : t ͡ɕ, th ʃ : th ts : t ͡ɕ z : ʑ, gj ʒ : dʑ͡ dz : tɕ͡ s : tɕ͡, th ʃ : t ͡ɕ, th ts : tɕ͡ z : dj, ʑ, j ʒ : dj dz : d s : Ø ʃ : Ø z : tɕ͡, j ʒ : ʑ, ʑ̥, Ø !Dorsal![+high]! k g ŋ j w ɥ k : t(h), t ͡ɕ g : d k : th, tɕ͡, g : d k : tɕ͡ g : də !Dorsal![^hi][^lo]! ʀ ʁ ʁ/ʀ : l, gʁ, kw ʁ/ʀ : gw, g, lg, kw ʁ/ʀ : j, VV, Ø #Laryngeal#[^voiced]! p t k f s ts ʃ ![+voiced]!stops!and!fricatives! b d g v z dz ʒ ʁ d : tɕ͡ ʁ/ʀ : kw b : b ̥ b : ph d : d ̥z : tɕ͡ ʒ : ʑ̥, Ø ʁ/ʀ : Ø ![+spread!glottis]! f s ts ʃ f : t̚, Ø s : Ø ʃ : Ø ! ! 82!Table!5.!Neighbouring!Consonant!Sequences!(“Clusters”)!at!Time!1!(Pg.!5!from!French!SCAN)!Colour!Codes:!match,!absent,!and!(inconsistent!match)!CC#type# WI# Medial#Cross#Syl# Medial,#Onset# WF#With!/w/,!/j/,!nasal!! Cj: pj bj > phj ʃj > tɕ͡j Cw: pw vw dw> duˈw sw > thw ʒw > dju ̆w ʀw > w Cɥ: nɥ > mɥ m.j C/w/: tw sw > th, thw C/j/: mj, sj > th With!/l/!! C/l/: pl kl gl bl > l C/l/: gl > th With!ʁ!ʀ/r!!! C/ʁ ʀ/r/: pχ bʁ, kχ, gʁ fʁ̥ > kɬ dʁ > gʁ tʁ̥ > kʁ̥, kχ ʀ.k > th ʁ.t ͡s > tɕ͡ ʁ.sj > tɕ͡ C/ʁ ʀ/r: tʁ̥ > χ /ʁ ʀ r /C: ʁbʁ > ph ʁs > ʑ (WI) CC!with!fric!other!than!/s/! fʁ̥ > kɬ ʒw > djŭw ʃj > tɕ͡j With!/s/!! sw > thw s.t > th s.k > tɕ͡ ʁ.sj > tɕ͡ /s/C: sj sw > th, thw /s/C: st > Ø C/s/: ʁs > ʑ (WI) CCC!! skɥ > th stʁ̥ > th !#############! ! 83!Table!6.!High!Ranking!Negative!Constraint!Involving!Manner!Features!and!Its!Repairs!at!Time!1!Constraint) Faithful)to) Repair)Strategy) Cs)Affected) Where) Type) Outputs) Frequency)[+cont,!Eson]!!(within!1!segment)! Affrication! f,!v,!s,!z,!ʃ, ʒ! All!positions! Cs,!CCs! tɕ, dʑ! 16!(3#allophonic)![+cont,!Eson]!!(across!2!segments)! Stopping!+!Glide!Epenthesis!! v,!z,!ʒ WI,!WM! Cs,!CCs! dj,!gj! 5![Esonorant]! Stopping! f,!v,!s,!dz,!ʃ, ʒ! WI,!WM! Cs,!CCs! t(h),!d! 19![+continuant]! Gliding! v,!z! WM,!WF! Cs! j! 4!Neither!feature! Deletion! f,!v,!s,!ʃ, ʒ! WM, WF Cs, CCs Ø! 13!!!No!fricatives!or!affricates,!except!those!with![Coronal,!!Eanterior,!Egrooved]!place!!([+continuant,!Esonorant])!! !Exceptions:!!There!were!twelve!tokens!that!matched!the!target!sounds’!manner!features!but!not!the!place!ones!and!four!tokens!that!had!an!exact!sound!match!(plonger![pʰlɔ ̃ˈʒe],!oef![ʔœf],!lave![ˈfːlda]!(Imitation!token),!and!voiture![vwaˈʨœj])!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! 84!Table!7.!High!Ranking!Negative!Constraints!Involving!Place!Features!and!Their!Repairs!at!Time!1!Constraints) Faithful)to) Repair)Strategy) Cs)Affected) Where) Type) Outputs) Frequency)Alveolopalatalization6! s,!z,!ts,!dz,!ʃ, ʒ All!positions! Cs,!CCs! ɕ, ʑ, tɕ, dʑ 21!Stopping! s,!dz,!ʃ, ʒ! WI,!WM! Cs,!CCs! t,!d! 16!Affrication! s,!z,!ts,!ʃ, ʒ All!positions! Cs,!CCs! tɕ, dʑ 12!Stopping!+!Glide!Epenthesis! z,!ʒ WI,!WM! Cs,!CCs! dj,!gj! 3!!![Coronal]!Gliding! z! WM,!WF! Cs! j! 2!No!place!features! Deletion! s,!ʃ, ʒ! WM,!WF! Cs,!CCs! Ø! 11!!!!No!grooved!fricatives!or!affricates!!Exception:!plonger![pʰlɔ ̃ˈʒe]!! ! Alveolopalatalization! f,!v! All!positions! Cs! ʑ, tɕ, dʑ! 4!Stopping!+!Backing!to![Coronal]!Place!(+!Palatal!Glide!Epenthesis)! f,!v! WI,!WF! Cs,!CCs! t(h),!dj! 3!Stopping!+!Backing!to![Dorsal]!Place!(+Palatal!Glide!Epenthesis)! v! WI! Cs! g,!gj! 2!Gliding!+!Palatalization!! v! WM,!WF! Cs! j! 2!!!!!!!No!place!features!Deletion! f,!v! WF! Cs! Ø! 2!!!!!!No!labiodental!fricatives!!!Exceptions:!oef![ʔœf],!lave![ˈfːlda]!(Imitation!token),!voiture![vwaˈʨœj]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!6 Alveolopatalization frequently overlapped with the affication repair ! ! 85!Table!8.!High!Ranking!Negative!Constraints!Involving!Place!and!Manner!Features!and!Their!Repairs!at!Time!1!Constraints) Faithful)to) Repair)Strategy) Cs)Affected) Where) Type) Outputs) Frequency)Fronting! k,!g! All positions Cs, CCs t(h),!d,!tɕ! 19!![Econtinuant]! Affrication! k! All positions Cs, CCs tɕ! 3!(1#allophonic)!!No!velar!stops!!([Dorsal,!Econtinuant])! !Exceptions:!Any!words!with!/kl,!gl,!kʁ, gʁ/!and!musique![myˈʑik]!!! !! Gliding!+!Velar!Stop!Epenthesis! ʁ WM! n/a! gw,!kw! 2!Gliding! ʁ WF!! n/a! j! 1!Stopping!+!Lateral!Epenthesis! ʁ WM! n/a! lg! 1!Vowel!Prolongation! ʁ WF! n/a! ɑː! 1!!!![Dorsal,!+continuant]!Velar!Stop!Epenthesis! ʁ WI! n/a! gʁ, 1![+continuant]! Lateralization! ʁ WI! n/a! l! 2![Dorsal]!! Stopping! ʁ WM! n/a! g,! 1!No!features! Deletion! ʁ WF! n/a! Ø! 4!!!!!!No!singleton![ʁ]!([Dorsal,!+continuant,!E!sonorant,!+rhotic,])!!!!Exceptions:#kangourou![tʰɑ̃duʀuˈgu],!anaignée#[ʔaʁɛˈɲe],!perroquet#[piˈʁ̰ːʌtʰɛ],!rouge![ˈʁu]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! 86!!Table!9.!High!Ranking!Negative!Constraints!Involving!Word!Structure!and!Place!Features!and!Their!Repairs!at!Time!1!Constraints! Faithful)to) Repair)Strategy) Cs)Affected) Where) Type) Outputs) Frequency)Dorsal!Spreading! tʁ̥,!dʁ WI! ! kχ,!kʁ̥,!gʁ! 3!No![Coronal]!+!uvular!CC!sequences!! !Uvular!C! Deleting!of![Coronal]!C! tʁ̥! WM! ! χ! 1!! ! ! ! ! ! !No!/ʁ/C!sequences! Second!C! Deletion!of!Uvular!C! ʀw, ʁk, ʁ.sj, ʁs, ʁ.ts, ʁb All!positions! ! w,!t,!tɕ, ʑ, ph 6!! ! ! ! ! !No!features! Deletion! ʁ WF! Cs,!CCs! Ø! 5!Gliding! ʁ WF! Cs! j! 3!!No!WF![ʁ]!([Dorsal,!+continuant,!+rhotic])! [Dorsal,!+cont]! Vowel!Prolongation! ʁ WF! Cs! ɑː! 1!! ! 87!Table!10.!Therapy!Targets!Worked!on!Between!Assessments!! Word!Structure! Positional,!sequences! Features,!Segments:!p,!4!(6,7)!Goals!for!first!treatment!block!with!numbered!order!!Word!shapes:!!4.!WI!CCs:!/s/C!!!Positional:!!1.!/k,!g/!singletons!from!!!!!!CCs!!4.!/s/C!Individual!features:!3.![+grooved]!!Existing!features!to!combine!into!new!segment(s):!2.![Labial,!+cont,!Lson]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! 88!Table!11.!Word!Structure!Analysis!at!Time!2!(Pg.!3!from!French!SCAN) Colour!Codes:!match,!absent,!(inconsistent!match),!and!present!but!not!for!adult!target!!Inventory!summary!! Inventory:!!client!forms!used!(parentheses!=!optional)!!1Isyllable!words!used?!!!!✔!!!!!!Strength?!!✔!!!Need?!!(influenced!by!segments)!!Most!complex!CV!shapes:!!CCVVC!Missing!data?!!CCC!!Frequent!word!structures!in!CV:!!CV(V)!!CV(V)C!!!Other!CCV(V)(C),!CCV,!CCVV,!CVCC(C)!!Single!C!Onsets?!!!Single!C!Codas?!!Clusters:!WI!!!!WF!!2Isyllable!words!used?!!!✔!!!!Strength?!✔!!!!Need?!!(influenced!by!segments)!!Most!complex!!CV!shapes:!!(C)CV(C)CVV,!!CVCCV(C)!Missing!data?!!!!!Frequent!word!structures!in!CV:!!CV(V)CV!!CV(V)CVC!!CVCCV(C)!!!!!!!!Other:!CCVCVC,!CCVCV,!CVCC(V)(C),!(C)CV(C)CVV,!CVVCV!Stress:!wS!!!!!!!!!Other:!Sw!!Single!Cs:!!!!!WI!!!!!!!!!!!WM!!!!!!!!!!WF!!CC!!!!WI!!!!!WM!!!!WF!!!!!!!!!!CC:!1!CC/word!!!2!CC/word!!!!!!!!!!!!!!CCC:!!!!!WM!!3!or!more!syl.!used?! ✔!!!!!!Strength?!✔!!Need?!!(influenced!by!segments)!Most!complex!CV!shapes?!CVCVCVCV(C)!CCVCVCCV!wSw!stress?!!Missing!data?!CC!!WF,!!!!CCC!!WI!!WM!Examples!of!long!word!shapes!(CV):!CVCVCV(C),!CVCVCVCVC,!VCVCV,!CVCVCCV(C),!CVCVCVV(C).!CVCVCCV(C),!CCVCCVCVC!!Stress:!wwS!!wwwS!!!Other!!!!Single!Cs:!!!!!WI!!!!!!!!!!!WM!!!!!!!!!!WF!!CC:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WI!!!!!!!!WM!!!2L3!CCs!in!a!word!!!!!!!CCs!&!WF!C!in!word!!✔!!!Comparison!to!Adult!Targets:!Word!Length!and!Stress!Pattern! 1!syllable! 2!syllables! Multisyllabic!Syllable!deletion! ! Yes!!!!!!!Often?!No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Where?!1!token! Yes!!!!!!!Often?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Where?!Syllable!addition!!(V!epenthesis)! Yes!!!!!!!Often?!No!!!Where?!To!resolve!WI!CC! Yes!!!!!!!Often?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Where?! Yes!!!!!!!Often?!No!Where?!To!resolve!WM!CC!Stress!Shift! ! Yes!!!!!!!Often?!No!!!!!Type:! Yes!!!!!!!!Often?!!Type:!!!Comparison!to!Adult!Targets:!Word!Shape!Pattern! WI! WM! WF! More!in!long!words!Adds!Cs!! Yes!!!Often?!5x! Yes!!!Often?!7x! Yes!!!Often?!! Yes!!!!!Often?!!No!Singleton!C!deletion! Yes!!!Often?!! Yes!!!Often?!! Yes!!!Often?!5x! Yes!!!!!Often?!!C!deletion!in!CC(C)! Yes!!!Often?!No! Yes!!!Often?!4x! Yes!!!Often?!4x! Yes!!!!!Often?!!!!!!! ! 89!Table!12.!Inventory!of!Client’s!Singleton!Consonants!at!Time!2!(Pg.!4!from!French!SCAN) !! WordIinitial! WordImedial!intervocalic!WordIfinal!Mostly!match:!Strength! p, b, m, f, v, t, d, n, s, d ͡z, l, p, b, m, f, v, t, d, n, s, l, p, b, m, f, t, d, n, s, l, j, ɲ, ŋ Inconsistent:!Partial!strength! z, ʃ, ʒ z, ʒ, ɲ Present!but!not!for!adult!target!(can!include!segments!also%used%as%matches)!!!!!!!!!Need?! t(h), d, t ͡s, ʒ, χ st, kχ, gʁ t(h), s, ʃ, ʒ, g, w tw, gʁ, gl, kχ ph, f, t(h), s, ʃ diphthong, Ø Tested%but%absent!or!very!marginal!from!inventory:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Need?!!t ͡s, k, g, ʁ/ʀ ʃ, t ͡s , d ͡z, k, g, ʁ/ʀ v, z, ʃ, ʒ, k, g, ʁ/ʀ NonLFrench!speech!sounds! t ͡ʃ, d ͡ʒ, ʑ b ̥, t ͡ʃ, d ͡ʒ b ̥, d ̥, t ͡ʃ, ɕ, ʑ Not!elicited!/!Noisy!token! ɥ, w ɥ, w ɥ, w Frequent!substitutions!(potential!default!segments)! t(h), d t(h), d ͡ʒ, s t(h), d, s !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! 90!Table!13.!Singleton!Substitution!Patterns:!Consonants,!Features!at!Time!2!(Pg.!6!from!French!SCAN)!!The!segments!of!greatest!need!are!in!red.!!Adult!feature!!Adult!target!!Initial!!Medial!!Final!!Manner!!!Glides:!![Lconsonantal]!!!([+sonorant])! j w ɥ !Liquids:![+sonorant!&!+consonantal]!! ʁ ʀ/r l ![+lateral]! l !Nasals:![+nasal]! m n ŋ !Stops:!![Lcontinuant]!!(&![Lnasal])! p b t d k g ([ʔ]) d : dʒ͡ k : tʃ͡: !Fricatives![+continuant]!!(&![Lsonorant)! f v s z ʃ ʒ ʁ ʃ : t, t ͡s ʁ : kχ, gʁ ʒ : dʒ͡ ʁ : g, gl, gʁ ʁ : VV, Ø !Allophonic!affricate!! ts dz ts : st ts : θ.tw, k.t !Place:!Labial! p b m f v w ɥ !Labiodental! f v !Coronal!!!!![+anterior]! t d n s z ts dz l (r) z : ʒ d : dʒ z : dʒ͡, ʒ dz: d ͡ʒ s : ɕ !!!![Lanterior]! ʃ ʒ j ɥ ʃ : t, t ͡s ͡ ʃ : s 2 ʃ : s ʒ : s !![+grooved]!or!!![+strident]! ts s z dz ʃ ʒ ʃ : t ʒ : ʑ s : ɕ ʒ : ʑ !Dorsal![+high]! k g ŋ j w ɥ k : t(h) g : d k : th g : d k : t(h), tʃ͡: g : d, d ̥!Dorsal![Lhi][Llo]! ʀ ʁ ʁ/ʀ : kχ, gʁ ʁ/ʀ : g, gl, gʁ ʁ/ʀ : VV, Ø !Laryngeal![Lvoiced]! p t k f s ts ʃ t : d ![+voiced]!stops!and!fricatives! b d g v z dz ʒ ʁ ʁ/ʀ : kχ b : b ̥ b : p, b ̥ v : f d : d ̥ z : s ʒ : s, ʃ g : d ̥![+spread!glottis]! f s ts ʃ !!!! ! 91!Table!14.!Neighbouring!Consonant!Sequences!(“Clusters”)!at!Time!2!(P.g.!5!from!French!SCAN)!Colour!Codes:!match,!absent,!and!!(inconsistent!match)!CC!type! WI! Medial!!Cross!Syl!Medial,!Onset! WF!!With!/w/,!/j/,!nasal! Cj: pj bj, ʃj > sj Cw: pw dw ʒw, ʁ̥w sw > ʃw nw > nuw Cɥ: nɥ > nuw m.j C/w/: tw sw > ʃw, ʃu.w C/j/: mj, sj With!/l/!! C/l/: pl bl kl gl fl C/l/: gl > d With!ʁ!ʀ/r!!! C/ʁ ʀ/r/: pχ fχ kχ gʁ bʁ > pχ dʁ > χ tʁ̥ > kχ ʀ.k > t(h) ʁ.t ͡s > θ.tw C/ʁ ʀ/r: fχ tʁ̥ > kχ /ʁ ʀ r /C: ʁbʁ > b ʁs > ɕ CC!with!fric!other!than!/s/! fl, fχ, ʒw ʃj > sj With!/s/!! sw > ʃw s.t > th s.k > tʃ͡ ʁ.sj > sj skɥ > tw /s/C: sj sw > ʃw, ʃu.w /s/C: C/s/: ʁs > ɕ st > s CCC!and!other! k.t > th skɥ > tw stʁ̥ > ʃ !! ! 92!Table!15.!High!Ranking!Negative!Constraints!Involving!Place!and!Manner!Features!and!Their!Repairs!at!Time!2!Constraints! Faithful.to. Repair.Strategy. Cs.Affected. Where. Type. Outputs. Frequency.Fronting! k,!g! All!positions! Cs,!CCs! t(h),!d,!d ̥ 20![Icontinuant]! Fronting!+!Affrication! k! WM,!WF! Cs,!CCs! tʃ! 2!!(1!allophonic)!No!features! Deletion! k! WM! CCs! Ø! 1!!No!Velar!stops!!([Dorsal,!Icontinuant])!!Exceptions:!Any!words!with!/kl,!gl,!kʁ, gʁ/!!! All!features! Velar!Stop!Epenthesis! ʁ! All!positions! n/a! kχ,!gʁ 8![Dorsal,!+cont]!(in!1!segment)! Vowelization! ʁ! WF! n/a! ʊ! 1![Dorsal,!+cont]!(across!2!segments)! Velar!Stop!Epenthesis!+!Lateralization! ʁ! WM! n/a! gl! 1![Dorsal]! Stopping! ʁ! WM! n/a! g! 1![+continuant]! Vowelization!+!Fronting! ʁ! WF! n/a! ɪ 1!No!Features! Deletion! ʁ! WF! n/a! Ø! 5!!!No!singleton![ʁ]!([Dorsal,!+continuant,!Isonorant,!+rhotic])!!!Exceptions:!Perroquet [pɛʁ̰ɔˈtʰɛ], Girafe [ʑiˈʁaf], Drapeau [χaˈpo] !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! 93!Table!16.!High!Ranking!Negative!Constraints!Involving!Word!Structure!and!Place!Features!and!Their!Repairs!at!Time!2!Constraints! Faithful.to. Repair.Strategy. CCs.Affected. Where. Outputs. Frequency.Uvular!C!Deletion! ʁb, ʁs, ʁ.sj, ʁ.k, WM,!WF! b,!ɕ, sj, th 4!!No!Uvular!+!Obstruent!Sequences!! Obstruent!C! [θ]!Substitution! ʁ.t ͡s,! WM! θ.tw! 1!! ! ! ! ! ! !Dorsal!Spreading! tʁ WI,!WM! kχ! 3!Uvular!C! [Coronal]!C!Deletion! dʁ WI! χ! 1!No![Coronal]!+!Uvular!Sequences! [Coronal]!C! Uvular!C!deletion! dʁw, stʁ WI,!WF! dw,!ʃ 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! 94!Table!17.!High!Ranking!Constraint!Involving!Word!Structure,!Place!and!Laryngeal!Features!and!Its!Repairs!at!Time!2!Constraint! Faithful.to. Repair.Strategy. CCs.Affected. Where. Outputs. Frequency.[+voiced]! Devoicing!(+!Deletion)! bʁ, dʁ WI! pχ,!χ! 2!Uvular!C! Obstruent!Deletion! dʁ WI! χ! 1!Only!Voiceless!Obstruent!+!Voiceless!Uvular!Sequences. !Exceptions:!Grenouille![gʁəˈnʊj],!and!any![g]!epenthesis!used!to!deal!with!singleton!/ʁ/!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! 95!Table!18.!High!Ranking!Constraint!Involving!Word!Structure,!Place!and!Manner!Features!and!Its!Repairs!Constraint! Faithful.to. Repair.Strategy. CCs.Affected. Where. Outputs. Frequency.Stop!C! Fricative!Deletion! st,!skɥ WM,!WF! th,!tw 2!No!/s/!+!Stop!Sequences! Aspects!of!both! Coalescence!+!Alveolopalization! sk WM! tʃ, 1!! ! 96!Table!19.!Rates!of!Matches!and!Different!Mismatch!Types!at!Time!1! !Singletons! !In!Clusters! !Overall!C!Matches!and!Mismatches7! !#! !%! !#! !%! !#! !%!!Matching!segments!(PCC)!!69!/!159!!43.4%!!47!/!88!!53.4%!!116!/!247!!47.0%!!Segment!mismatches!!72!/!159!!45.3%!!21!/!88!!23.9%!!93!/!247!!37.7%!!Syllable!structure!mismatches!!20!/!159!!12.8%!!22!/!88!!25.0%!!42!/!247!!17%!!!!!!!!!Consonant!Deletions! !12!/!159! ! 7.5%! !20!/!88! !22.7%! !32!/!247! !13.0%!!!!!!!!!Epenthesis! !8!/!159! !5.0%! !2!/!88! !2.2%! !10!/!247! !4.0%!!Distortions8!!6!/!159!!3.7%!!0!/!88!!0.00%!!6!/!247!!2.4%! !Rate!of!Mismatch!CoMoccurrence!in!Cs!! ! ! ! ! !!Target!Cs!with!segmental!mismatches!and!epenthesis! ! !7!/!159! !4.4%!! ! ! ! !!Rate!of!Mismatch!CoMoccurrence!in!CCs! ! ! ! !!Whole!Matched!CCs! ! ! ! ! !16!/!42! !38.1%!!Target!CCs!with!only!segmental!mismatches! ! ! !8!/!42! !19.4%!!Target!CCs!with!only!syllable!structure!mismatches! ! ! !6!/!42! !14.3%!!Target!CCs!with!segmental!mismatches!and!deletions!! ! ! !11!/!42! ! 26.2%!!Target!CCs!with!segmental!mismatches!and!epenthesis!! !1!/!42! !2.4%! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!7 Bolded rows correspond to the measures described in Brosseau-Lapré and Rvachew (2014) 8 A.k.a. Small Phonetic Deviations. These include mismatches that “did not affect the phonemic category of target sound” (p.103), such as the /b/ in hibou /iˈbu/ → [iˈb ̥u]. (Brosseau-Lapré & Rvachew, 2014) ! ! 97!Table!20.!Rates!of!Matches!and!Different!Mismatch!Types!at!Time!2!! !Singletons! !In!Clusters! !Overall!!C!Matches!and!Mismatches9! !#! !%! !#! !%! !#! !%!!Matched!segments!(PCC)!!126!/!188!!67.0%!!62!/!94!!66.0%!!188!/!282!!66.7%!!Segment!mismatches!!54!/188!!28.7%!!19!/!94!!20.2%!!73!/!282!!25.9%!!Syllable!structure!mismatches!!17!/188!!9.0%!!13!/!94!!13.8%!!30!/!282!!10.6%!!!!!!!!!!Consonant!Deletions! !5!/!188! !2.7%! !11!/!94! !11.7%! !16!/!282! !5.7%!!!!!!!!!!Epenthesis! !12!/188! !6.4%! !2!/!94! !2.1%! !14!/!282! !5.0%!!Distortions10!!3!/!188!!1.6%!!4!/!94!!4.3%!!7!/!282!!2.3%!! ! ! ! ! ! !!Rate!of!Mismatch!CoMoccurrence!in!Cs!! ! ! ! ! !!Target!Cs!with!segmental!mismatches!and!epenthesis!! !! !!5!/!188! !2.7!%!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!Rate!of!Mismatch!CoMoccurrence!in!CCs! ! ! ! ! !!Whole!Matched!CCs!! ! ! !22!/!46! !47.8%!!Target!CCs!with!only!segmental!mismatches!! ! ! !6!/!46!! !13.0%!!Target!CCs!with!only!syllable!structure!mismatches!! ! ! !5!/!46! !10.9%!!Target!CCs!with!only!distortions!! ! ! !4!/!46! !8.7%!!Target!CCs!with!segmental!mismatches!and!deletions!! ! !7!/!46! !15.5%!!Target!CCs!with!segmental!mismatches!and!epenthesis!! ! !2!/!46! !4.8%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!9 Bolded rows correspond to the measures described in Brosseau-Lapré and Rvachew (2014) 10 A.k.a. Small Phonetic Deviations. These include mismatches that “did not affect the phonemic category of target sound” (p.103), such as the /b/ in hibou /iˈbu/ → [iˈb ̥u]. (Brosseau-Lapré & Rvachew, 2014) ! ! 98!Table!21.!Rates!of!Consonant!Deletion!by!Syllable!Position!and!Word!Length!Codes:!WI!=!wordMinitial;!WM!=!wordMmedial;!WF!=!wordMfinal!!!!!!!!! !Time!1! !Time!2!!Syllable!Position! !#! !%! !#! !%!!WI!Simple!Onset!! !0!/!46! !0.00%! !0!/!60! !0.00%!!WI!Branching!Onset! !2!/15! !13.3%! !1!/15! !6.70%!!!!!!!!!!WI!Branching!Onset:!/l/! !1!/!6! !16.7%! !0!/!8! !0.00%!!!!!!!!!!WI!Branching!Onset:!/ʁ/! !1!/!9! !11.1%! !1!/!7! !14.3%!!WI!Rising!Diphthong!Onset! !1!/!7! !14.3%! !0!/!8! !0.00%!W!WM!Simple!Onset!! !0!/!69! !0.00%! !0!/!71! !0.00%!!WM!Branching!Onset! !1!/15! ! 6.70%! !1!/15! !6.70%!!!!!!!!!!WM!Branching!Onset:!/l/! !n/a! !n/a! !n/a! !n/a!!!!!!!!!!WM!Branching!Onset:!/ʁ/! !1!/!2! !50.0%! !0!/!3! !0.00%!!WM!Rising!Diphthong!Onset! !3!/!7! !42.3%! !0!/!5! !0.00%!!WM!Coda! !5!/!6! !83.3%! !6!/!8! !75.0%!!WF!Coda! !12!/!50! !24.0%! !5!/!64! !7.80%!!WF!Cluster! !5!/!5! !100.0%! !4!/!4! !100%!! ! ! ! !!By!Word!Length! !#! !%! !#! !%!!1!syllable! !11!/!40! !27.5%! !4!/!50! !8.00%!!2!syllables! !13!/!41! !31.7%! !9!/!40! !22.5%!!3+!syllables! !4!/!16! !25.0%! !4!/!16! !25%!! ! 99!Table!22.!Hypothetical!Treatment!Goals!Based!On!Time!2!Data!! Word!Structure! Positional,!sequences! Features,!Segments:!p,!4!(6,7)!Goals!for!first!treatment!block!with!numbered!order!!Word!shapes:!!3.!WI!CCs:!/s/C!!Positional:!!2.!/ʁ/!singleton!from!CCs!!3.!/s/C!!4.!/k,!g/!singletons!from!!!!!!!CCs!Individual!features:!!Existing!features!to!combine!into!new!segment(s):!1.![+grooved,!Manterior,!Mvoiced]!!!! (/ʃ/)!!!! ! 100!7.!Figures!!Figure!1.!Representation!of!the!different!tiers!of!the!phonological!hierarchy.!!!!!!!!!!! ! 101!!!!Figure!2.!Representation!of!the!different!features!in!feature!hierarchy!and!their!relation!to!the!root!node! ! 102!References(Adda(Decker,!M.,!Mareüil,!P.!B.,!Adda,!G.,!&!Lamel,!L.!(2005).!Investigating!syllabic!structures!and!their!variation!in!spontaneous!French.!Speech&Communication,&46(2),!119(139.!doi:10.1016/j.specom.2005.03.006!Auger,!D.!(1994).!Casse3tête&d’évaluation&de&la&phonologie.&Montréal,!QC:!Published!by!the!author.!Baker,!E.,!&!Bernhardt,!B.!M.!(2004).!From!hindsight!to!foresight:!Working!around!barriers!to!success!in!phonological!intervention.!Child&Language&Teaching&and&Therapy,&20(3),!287(318.!doi:10.1191/0265659004ct276oa!Baker,!E.,!&!Mcleod,!S.!(2011).!Evidence(based!practice!for!children!with!speech!sound!disorders:!Part!1!narrative!review.!Language,&Speech,&and&Hearing&Services&in&Schools,&42(2),!102(139.!doi:10.1044/0161(1461(2010/09(0075)!Barlow,!J.!A.!(2001a).!Case!study:!Optimality!theory!and!the!assessment!and!treatment!of!phonological!disorders.!Language,&Speech,&and&Hearing&Services&in&Schools,&32,!242(257.!doi:10.1044/0161(1461(2001/022)!Barlow,!J.!A.!(2001b).!Epilogue:!Recent!advances!in!phonological!theory!and!treatment.!Language,&Speech,&and&Hearing&Services&in&Schools,&33(1),!295(297.!doi:10.1044/0161(1461(2002/006)!Barlow,!J.!A.,!&!Gierut,!J.!A.!(1999).!Optimality!theory!in!phonological!acquisition.!Journal&of&Speech,&Language,&and&Hearing&Research,!42,!1482(1498.!doi:10.1044/jslhr.4206.1482!Bernhardt,!B.!M.!(1990).!Application&of&nonlinear&phonological&theory&to&intervention&with&six&phonologically3disordered&children.!(Unpublished!doctoral!dissertation).!University!of!British!Columbia,!Vancouver,!BC,!Canada!! ! 103!Bernhardt,!B.!M.!(1992a).!The!application!of!nonlinear!phonological!theory!to!intervention!with!one!phonologically!disordered!child.!Clinical&Linguistics&&&Phonetics,&6(4),!283(316.!doi:10.3109/02699209208985537!Bernhardt,!B.!M.!(1992b).!Developmental!implications!of!nonlinear!phonological!theory.!Clinical&Linguistics&&&Phonetics,&6(4),!259(281.!doi:10.3109/02699209208985536!Bernhardt,!B.!M.,!&!Gilbert,!J.!(1992).!Applying!linguistic!theory!to!speech(language!pathology:!the!case!for!nonlinear!phonology.!Clinical&Linguistics&&&Phonetics,&6(1/2),&123–145.!Bernhardt,!B.!M.,!&!Major,!E.!(2005).!Speech,!language!and!literacy!skills!3!years!later:!A!follow(up!study!of!early!phonological!and!metaphonological!intervention.!International&Journal&of&Language&&&Communication&Disorders,&40(1),!1(27.!doi:10.1080/13682820410001686004!Bernhardt,!B.!M.,!&!Stemberger,!J.!(1998).!Handbook&of&phonological&development:&From&the&perspective&of&constrain3based&nonlinear&phonology.&San!Diego,!CA:!Academic!Press.!Bernhardt,!B.!M.,!&!Stemberger,!J.!(2000).!Workbook&in&nonlinear&phonology&for&clinical&application.&Austin,!TX:!PRO(ED.!Bernhardt,!B.!M.,!&!Stoel(Gammon,!C.!(1994).!Nonlinear!phonology.&Journal&of&Speech,&Language,&and&Hearing&Research,&37(1),!123(143.!doi:10.1044/jshr.3701.123!Bernhardt,!B.!M.,!&!Stemberger,!J.!(2015a).!Phonological&development&tools&and&cross3linguistic&phonology&project.!Retrieved!July!15,!2016,!from:!http://phonodevelopment.sites.olt.ubc.ca!! ! 104!Bernhardt,!B.!M.,!&!Stemberger,!J.!(2015b).!Nonlinear&phonological&scan&analysis&of&intervention&planning:&English.&Retrieved!July!15,!2016,!from:!http://phonodevelopment.sites.olt.ubc.ca/selected(references(march(20(2015/!Bernhardt,!B.!M.,!Stemberger,!J.,!&!Bérubé,!D.!(2015).!Nonlinear&analysis&in&Canadian&French.!Retrieved!July!15,!2016,!from:!http://phonodevelopment.sites.olt.ubc.ca/practice(units/french/!Bernhardt,!B.!M.,!&!Zhao,!J.!(2010).!Nonlinear!phonological!analysis!in!assessment!of!Mandarin!speakers.!Canadian&Journal&of&Speech3Language&Pathology&and&Audiology,!34,!168(180.!!Bérubé,!D.,!Bernhardt,!B.!M.,!&!Stemberger,!J.!(2016,!June).!Consonant&acquisition&in&Manitoba&French&preschool&children&within&a&nonlinear&phonology&framework&[PowerPoint!Slides].&International!Clinical!Phonetics!and!Linguistics!Association!Conference,!Halifax,!Canada.!Bérubé,!D.,!Bernhardt,!B.!M.,!Stemberger,!J.,!&!Bertrand,!A.!(2015).!Analyse!phonologique!en!français!manitobain:!Étude!de!cas!selon!la!phonologie!non!linéaire.&Rééducation&Orthophonique,&263,&105(148!Bérubé,!D.,!Bernhardt,!B.!M.,!&!Stemberger,!J.!(2013).!Un!test!de!phonologie!du!Français!:!Construction!et!utilisation.!Canadian&Journal&of&Speech3Language&Pathology&and&Audiology,&37(1),!26(40.!Boudeault,!M.!C.,!Cabriol,!E.!A.,!Trudeau,!N.,!Poulin(Dubois,!D.,!&!Sutton,!A.!(2007).!Les!inventaires!MacArthur!du!développement!de!la!communication:!Validité!et!données!normatives!préliminaires.!Revue&Canadienne&d’Orthophonie&et&d’Audiologie,&31(1),!27(37.!!! ! 105!Braine,!M.!D.!S.!(1971).!The!acquisition!of!language!in!infant!and!child.!In!C.!E.!Reed!(Ed.),!The&learning&of&language&(p.!7!–!95).!New!York,!NY:!Appleton(Centure(Crofts.!Brosseau(Lapré,!F.,!&!Rvachew,!S.!(2014).!Cross(linguistic!comparison!of!speech!errors!produced!by!English(!and!French(speaking!preschool(age!children!with!developmental!phonological!disorders.!International&Journal&of&Speech3Language&Pathology,&16(2),!98(108.!doi:10.3109/17549507.2013.794863!Brosseau(Lapré,!F.,!Rvachew,!S.,!MacLeod,!A.,!Findlay,!K.,!Bérubé,!D.,!&!Bernhardt,!B.!M.!(2016).!Une!vue!d’ensemble!:!Les!données!probantes!sur!le!développement!phonologique!des!enfants!francophones!canadiens.![A!group!view:!Normative!data!for!phonological!development!in!Canadian!French(speaking!children].!Unpublished!manuscript.!Budgell,!B.!(2008).!Guidelines!to!the!writing!of!case!studies.!Journal&of&the&Canadian&Chiropractic&Association,&52(4),!199(204.!Campbell,!T.!F.,!Dollaghan,!C.!A.,!Rockette,!H.!E.,!Paradise,!J.!L.,!Feldman,!H.!M.,!Shriberg,!L.!D.,!.!.!.!Kurs(Lasky,!M.!(2003).!Risk!factors!for!speech!delay!of!unknown!origin!in!3(year(old!children.!Child&Development,&74(2),!346(357.!doi:10.1111/1467(8624.7402002!Cozby,!P.!C.!(2009).!Methods&in&behavioural&research&(10th!ed.).!New!York,!NY:!McGraw(Hill!Publishing.!Damico,!J.!S.,!&!Simmons(Mackie,!N.!N.!(2003).!Qualitative!research!and!speech(language!pathology.!American&Journal&of&Speech3Language&Pathology,&12(2),!131(143.!doi:10.1044/1058(0360(2003/060)!Delattre,!P.!(1965).!Comparing&the&phonetic&features&of&English,&German,&Spanish&and&French:&An&interim&report.!Julius!Groos.!! ! 106!Dell,!F.!(1995).!Consonant!clusters!and!phonological!syllables!in!French.!Lingua,&95,&5(26.!Demuth,!K.,!&!Johnson,!M.!(2003).!Truncation!to!subminimal!words!in!early!French.!The&Canadian&Journal&of&Linguistics&/&La&Revue&Canadienne&De&Linguistique,&48(3),!211(241.!doi:10.1353/cjl.2004.0025!Demuth,!K.,!&!Mccullough,!E.!(2009).!The!longitudinal!development!of!clusters!in!French.!Journal&of&Child&Language,&36(2),!425(448.!doi:10.1017/s0305000908008994!Dodd,!B.,!Holm,!A.,!Crosbie,!S.,!&!McIntosh,!B.!(2006).!A!core!vocabulary!approach!for!management!of!inconsistent!speech!disorder.!Advances&in&Speech3Language&Pathology,&8(3),!220(230.!Dollaghan,!C.!A.!(2007).!The&handbook&for&evidence3based&practice&in&communication&disorders.!Baltimore,!MD:!Paul!H.!Brookes!Pub.!Dunn,!L.!M.,!&!Dunn,!L.!M.!(1997).!Peabody&Picture&Vocabulary&Test&(3rd!ed.).!Circle!Pines,!MN:!American!Guidance!Service.!Dunn,!L.!M.,!Theriault(Whalen,!C.,!&!Dunn,!L.!M.!(1993).!Échelle&de&vocabulaire&en&images&Peabody.!Toronto,!ON:!Psycan!Farwell,!C.!B.!(1997).!Some!strategies!in!the!early!production!of!fricatives.!Papers&and&Reports&on&Child&Language&Development,&Stanford&University,&12,!97(104.!Flint,!C.!B.,!&!Klein,!E.!S.!(2005).!Measurement!of!intelligibility!in!disordered!speech.!Language,&Speech,&and&Hearing&Services&in&Schools,&37(3),!191(199.!doi:10.1044/0161(1461(2006/021)!Gierut,!J.!A.!(2001).!Complexity!in!phonological!treatment.!Language,&Speech,&and&Hearing&Services&in&Schools,&32(4),!229(305.!doi:10.1044/0161(1461(2001/021)!! ! 107!Gildersleeve(Neumann,!C.,!&!Goldstein,!B.!A.!(2015).!Cross(linguistic!generalization!in!the!treatment!of!two!sequential!Spanish–English!bilingual!children!with!speech!sound!disorders.!International&Journal&of&Speech3Language&Pathology,!17(1),!26(40.!Glaspey,!A.!M.,!&!Macleod,!A.!A.!(2010).!A!multi(dimensional!approach!to!gradient!change!in!phonological!acquisition:!A!case!study!of!disordered!speech!development.!Clinical&Linguistics&&&Phonetics,&24(4(5),&283(299.!doi:10.3109/02699200903581091!Goldsmith,!P.!(1976).!Autosegmental&phonology.!(Doctoral!thesis).!Massachusetts!Institute!of!Technology.!New!York,!NY:!Garland!Press.!Grosjean,!F.,!&!Li,!P.!(2013).!The&psycholinguistics&of&bilingualism.!West!Sussex,!UK:!Wiley(Blackwell.(Grunwell,!P.!(1989).!Developmental!phonological!disorders!and!normal!speech!development:!A!review!and!illustration.!Child&Language&Teaching&and&Therapy,&5(3),!304(319.!doi:10.1177/026565908900500305!Johnson,!C.!J.,!Beitchman,!J.!H.,!Young,!A.,!Escobar,!M.,!Atkinson,!L.,!Wilson,!B.,!.!.!.!Wang,!M.!(1999).!Fourteen(year!follow(up!of!children!with!and!without!speech/language!impairments:!Speech/language!stability!and!outcomes.!Journal&of&Speech,&Language,&and&Hearing&Research,&42(3),!744(760.!doi:10.1044/jslhr.4203.744!Kaderavek,!J.!N.!(2015).!Language&disorders&in&children:&Fundamental&concepts&of&assessment&and&intervention&(2nd!ed.).!New!York,!NY:!Pearson!Higher!Ed.!Kager,!R.!(2010).!Optimality&Theory.&Cambridge,!U.K.:!Cambridge!University!Press.!Kehoe,!M.,!Hilaire(Debove,!G.,!Demuth,!K.,!&!Lleó,!C.!(2008).!The!structure!of!branching!onsets!and!rising!diphthongs:!Evidence!from!the!acquisition!of!French!and!Spanish.!Language&Acquisition,&15(1),!5(57.!doi:10.1080/10489220701774229!! ! 108!Klein,!H.!B.!(2008).!A!progressive!consonant(substitution!pattern!in!a!typically!developing!child.&International&Journal&of&Speech3Language&Pathology,&10(6),!470(479.!doi:10.1080/17549500802283235!Ladefoged,!P.,!&!Johnson,!K.!(2011).!A&course&in&phonetics&(6th!ed.).!Boston,!MA:!Cengage!Learning.!Law,!J.,!Boyle,!J.,!Harris,!F.,!Harkness,!A.,!&!Nye,!C.!(2000).!Prevalence!and!natural!history!of!primary!speech!and!language!delay:!Findings!from!a!systematic!review!of!the!literature.!International&Journal&of&Language&&&Communication&Disorders,&35(2),!165(188.!doi:10.1080/136828200247133!Lewis,!B.!A.,!Avrich,!A.!A.,!Freebairn,!L.!A.,!Hansen,!A.!J.,!Sucheston,!L.!E.,!Kuo,!I.,!.!.!.!Stein,!C.!M.!(2011).!Literacy!outcomes!of!children!with!early!childhood!speech!sound!disorders:!Impact!of!endophenotypes.!Journal&of&Speech,&Language,&and&Hearing&Research,&54,!1628(1643.!doi:10.1044/1092(4388(2011/10(0124)!Lewis,!B.!A.,!Freebairn,!L.,!Tag,!J.,!Ciesla,!A.!A.,!Iyengar,!S.!K.,!Stein,!C.!M.,!&!Taylor,!H.!G.!(2015).!Adolescent!Outcomes!of!Children!With!Early!Speech!Sound!Disorders!With!and!Without!Language!Impairment.!American&Journal&of&Speech3Language&Pathology,&24,!150(163.!doi:10.1044/2014_ajslp(14(0075!Lewis,!B.!A.,!Patton,!E.,!Freebairn,!L.,!Tag,!J.,!Iyengar,!S.!K.,!Stein,!C.!M.,!&!Taylor,!H.!G.!(2016).!Psychosocial!co(morbidities!in!adolescents!and!adults!with!histories!of!communication!disorders.!Journal&of&Communication&Disorders,&61,!60(70.!doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2016.03.004!MacLeod,!A.!A.,!Sutton,!A.,!Sylvestre,!A.,!Thordardottir,!E.,!&!Trudeau,!N.!(2014).!Outil!de!dépistage!des!troubles!du!développement!des!sons!de!la!parole:!Bases!théoriques!et!! ! 109!données!préliminaires.!Canadian&Journal&of&Speech3Language&Pathology&and&Audiology,&38(1),!40(56.!Macleod,!A.!A.,!Sutton,!A.,!Trudeau,!N.,!&!Thordardottir,!E.!(2011).!The!acquisition!of!consonants!in!Québécois!French:!A!cross(sectional!study!of!pre(school!aged!children.!International&Journal&of&Speech3Language&Pathology,&13(2),!93(109.!doi:10.3109/17549507.2011.487543!Macrae,!T.,!&!Tyler,!A.!A.!(2014).!Speech!abilities!in!preschool!children!with!speech!sound!disorder!with!and!without!co(occurring!language!impairment.!Language,&Speech,&and&Hearing&Services&in&Schools,&45,!302(313.!doi:10.1044/2014_lshss(13(0081!Markham,!C.,!Laar,!D.!V.,!Gibbard,!D.,!&!Dean,!T.!(2009).!Children!with!speech,!language!and!communication!needs:!Their!perceptions!of!their!quality!of!life.!International&Journal&of&Language&&&Communication&Disorders,&44(5),!748(768.!doi:10.1080/13682820802359892!Mattys,!S.!L.,!Davis,!M.!H.,!Bradlow,!A.!R.,!&!Scott,!S.!K.!(2012).!Speech!recognition!in!adverse!conditions:!A!review.!Language&and&Cognitive&Processes,!27(7(8),!953(978.!McCarthy,!J.!J.!(1988).!Feature!geometry!and!dependency:!A!review.!Phonetica,&45,!84(108.!doi:10.1159/000261820!Mcleod,!S.,!Harrison,!L.!J.,!Mcallister,!L.,!&!Mccormack,!J.!(2013).!Speech!sound!disorders!in!a!community!study!of!preschool!children.!American&Journal&of&Speech3Language&Pathology,&22,!503(522.!doi:10.1044/1058(0360(2012/11(0123)!Menn,!L.!(1971).!Phonotactic!rules!in!beginning!speech.!Lingua,&26,!225(251.!Miccio,!A.!W.,!&!Elbert,!M.!(1996).!Enhancing!stimulability:!A!treatment!program.!Journal&of&Communication&Disorders,&29(4),!335(351.!doi:10.1016/0021(9924(96)00016(0!! ! 110!Major,!E.,!&!Bernhardt,!B.!M.!(1998).!Metaphonological!skills!of!children!with!phonological!disorders!before!and!after!phonological!and!metaphonological!intervention.!International&Journal&of&Language&&&Communication&Disorders&33(4),&413(444.!doi:10.1080/136828298247712!New,!B.,!&!Pallier,!C.!(2001).!Lexique:!Une!base!de!donnée!lexicales!libre.!Retrieved!July!15,!2015,!from!http://www.lexique.org/!!Paul,!M.,!&!Rvachew,!S.!(2009).!Test&Francophone&de&Phonologie&(Unpublished!Test).!McGill!University.!Montréal,!Québec,!Canada.!Peterson,!R.!L.,!Pennington,!B.!F.,!Shriberg,!L.!D.,!&!Boada,!R.!(2009).!What!influences!literacy!outcome!in!children!with!speech!sound!disorder?!Journal&of&Speech,&Language&and&Hearing&Research,&52,!1175(1188.!doi:10.1044/1092(4388(2009/08(0024)!Petticrew,!M.,!&!Roberts,!H.!(2003).!Evidence,!hierarchies,!and!typologies:!horses!for!courses.!Journal&of&Epidemiology&and&Community&Health,!57(7),!527(529.!Preston,!J.!L.,!Hull,!M.,!&!Edwards,!M.!L.!(2013).!Preschool!speech!error!patterns!predict!articulation!and!phonological!awareness!outcomes!in!children!with!histories!of!speech!sound!disorders.!American&Journal&of&Speech3Language&Pathology,&22(2),!173(184.!doi:10.1044/1058(0360(2012/12(0022)!Recasens,!D.!(2013).!On!the!articulatory!classification!of!(alveolo)palatal!consonants.!Journal&of&the&International&Phonetic&Association,&43(1),&1(22,!doi:10.1017/S0025100312000199.!Rose,!Y.!(2003).!Place!specification!and!segmental!distribution!in!the!acquisition!of!word(final!consonant!syllabification.!Canadian&Journal&of&Linguistics,!48!(3/4),!409(435.!!! ! 111!Rose,!Y.!&!MacWhinney,!B.!(2014).!The!PhonBank!project:!Data!and!software(assisted!methods!for!the!study!of!phonology!and!phonological!development.!Retrieved!July!17,!2016,!from:!http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.725.8916!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.!Proceedings&of&the&Annual&Boston&University&Conference&on&Language&Development.&(p.!489).!NIH!Public!Access.!Rose,!Y.,!&!Wauquier(Gravelines,!S.!(2007).!French!speech!acquisition.!In!S.!McLeod!(Eds.),!The&International&Guide&to&Speech&Acquisition!(364!(384).!Clifton!Park,!NY:!Thomson!Delmar!Learning.!Roseberry(McKibbin,!C.,!&!Hedge,!M.!N.!(2016).!An&advanced&review&of&speech3language&pathology:&Preparation&for&the&praxis&and&comprehensive&examination!(4th!ed.).!Austin,!Tx:!Pro(ed.!Roulstone,!S.!(2011).!Evidence,!expertise,!and!patient!preference!in!speech(language!pathology.!International&Journal&of&Speech3Language&Pathology,&13(1),!43(48.!doi:10.3109/17549507.2010.491130!Rvachew,!S.,!&!Brosseau(Lapré,!F.!(2015).!A!randomized!trial!of!12(week!interventions!for!the!treatment!of!developmental!phonological!disorder!in!francophone!children.!American&Journal&of&Speech3Language&Pathology,&24(4),!637.!doi:10.1044/2015_ajslp(14(0056!Rvachew,!S.,!Leroux,!É.,!&!Brosseau(Lapré,!F.!(2014).!Production!of!word(initial!consonant!sequences!by!francophone!preschoolers!with!a!developmental!phonological!disorder.!Canadian&Journal&of&Speech3Language&Pathology&and&Audiology,&37(4),!252(267.!! ! 112!Rvachew,!S.,!Marquis,!A.,!Brosseau(Lapré,!F.,!Paul,!M.,!Royle,!P.,!&!Gonnerman,!L.!M.!(2013).!Speech!articulation!performance!of!francophone!children!in!the!early!school!years:!Norming!of!the!Test!de!Dépistage!Francophone!de!Phonologie.!Clinical&Linguistics&&&Phonetics,&27(12),!950(968.!doi:10.3109/02699206.2013.830149!Rvachew,!S.,!&!Matthews,!T.!(2015).!Exploring!underlying!speech!processes!in!childhood!apraxia!of!speech.!Unpublished!manuscript.!Rvachew,!S.,!&!Nowak,!M.!(2001).!The!effect!of!target(selection!strategy!on!phonological!learning.!Journal&of&Speech,&Language,&and&Hearing&Research,&44(3),!610(623.!doi:10.1044/1092(4388(2001/050)!Rvachew,!S.,!Nowak,!M.,!&!Cloutier,!G.!(2004).!Effect!of!phonemic!perception!training!on!the!speech!production!and!phonological!awareness!skills!of!children!with!expressive!phonological!delay.!American&Journal&of&Speech3Language&Pathology,&13(3),!250(263.!doi:10.1044/1058(0360(2004/026)!Sagey,!E.!C.!(1986).!The&representation&of&features&and&relations&in&non3linear&phonology.&Doctoral!dissertation,!Massachusetts!Institute!of!Technology.!Scheffner!Hammer,!C.!(2011).!Expanding!our!knowledge!base!through!qualitative!research!methods.!American&Journal&of&Speech3Language&Pathology,&20(3),!161(162.!doi:10.1044/1058(0360(2011/ed(03)!Shiller,!D.!M.,!Rvachew,!S.,!&!Brosseau(Lapré,!F.!(2010).!Importance!of!the!auditory!perceptual!target!to!the!achievement!of!speech!production!accuracy.!Canadian&Journal&of&Speech3Language&Pathology&and&Audiology,&34(3),!181(192.!Shipley,!K.!G.,!&!McAfee,!J.!G.!(2009).!Assessment&in&speech3language&pathology:&A&resource&manual.&Clifton!Park,!NY:!Delmar!Cengage!Learning.!! ! 113!Shoaf,!K.,!Iyer,!S.,!&!Bothe,!A.!(2009).!Using!a!single(subject!experimental!design!to!implement!a!nonlinear!phonology!approach!to!target!selection.!Contemporary&Issues&in&Communication&Sciences&and&Disorders,!36,!77(88.!Shriberg,!L.!D.,!Tomblin,!J.!B.,!&!Mcsweeny,!J.!L.!(1999).!Prevalence!of!speech!delay!in!6(year(old!children!and!comorbidity!with!language!impairment.!Journal&of&Speech,&Language,&and&Hearing&Research,&42,!1461(1481.!doi:10.1044/jslhr.4206.1461!Smit,!A.!B.,!Hand,!L.,!Freilinger,!J.!J.,!Bernthal,!J.!E.,!&!Bird,!A.!(1990).!The!Iowa!articulation!norms!project!and!its!Nebraska!replication.!Journal&of&Speech&and&Hearing&Disorders,&55(4),!779(798.!doi:10.1044/jshd.5504.779!Snowling,!M.!J.,!Bishop,!D.,!Stothard,!S.!E.,!Chipchase,!B.,!&!Kaplan,!C.!(2006).!Psychosocial!outcomes!at!15!years!of!children!with!a!preschool!history!of!speech(language!impairment.!Journal&of&Child&Psychology&and&Psychiatry,&47(8),!759(765.!doi:10.1111/j.1469(7610.2006.01631.x!Statistics!Canada.!(2011).!French!and!the!francophonie!in!Canada.!Retrieved!July!2,!2016,!from!https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census(recensement/2011/as(sa/98(314(x/98(314(x2011003_1(eng.cfm!Trudeau,!N.,!Frank,!I.,!&!Poulin(Dubiose,!D.!(1999).!Une!adaptation!en!français!québecois!du!MacArthur!Communicative!Development!Inventory.!Journal&of&Speech3Language&Pathology&and&Audiology,&23,&31(73.!Tyler,!A.!A.!(2003).!Outcomes!of!different!speech!and!language!goal!attack!strategies.!Journal&of&Speech,&Language,&and&Hearing&Research,&46(5),!1077(1094.!doi:10.1044/1092(4388(2003/085)!! ! 114!Ullrich,!A.,!Stemberger,!J.,!&!Bernhardt,!B.!M.!(2008).!Variability!in!a!German(speaking!child!as!viewed!from!a!constraint(based!nonlinear!phonology!perspective.!Asia&Pacific&Journal&of&Speech,&Language&and&Hearing,!11(4),!221(237.!Vinter,!S.!(2001).!Les!habiletés!phonologiques!chez!l’enfant!de!deux!ans.!Glossa,!77,!4(19.!Weiner,!F.!F.!(1981).!Systematic!sound!preference!as!a!characteristic!of!phonological!disability.!Journal&of&Speech&and&Hearing&Disorders,!46(3),!281(286!Wladyslaw,!C.,!&!Perreault,!Y.!(2016).!Contribution&à&l’étude&phonétique&et&géolinguistique&du&R&en&français&parlé&au&Nouveau&Brunswick,!Colloque!international!Les!Français!d’ici,!University!of!Saint(Boniface.!Williams,!A.!L.!(2005).!Assessment,!target!selection,!and!intervention:!Dynamic!interactions!within!a!systematic!perspective.!Topics&in&Language&Disorders,&25(3),!231(242.!doi:10.1097/00011363(200507000(00006!Williams,!A.!L.!(2006).!A!systematic!perspective!for!assessment!and!intervention:!A!case!study.&Advances&in&Speech&Language&Pathology,&8(3),!245(256.!doi:10.1080/14417040600823292!!Yavas,!M.,!&!Hernandorena,!C.!M.!(1991).!Systematic!sound!preference!in!phonological!disorders:!A!case!study.!Journal&of&Communication&Disorders,&24(2),!79(87.!doi:10.1016/0021(9924(91)90012(8!! ! 115!Appendix(Table!A!1.!Rémi’s!Productions!That!Were!Included!in!the!Analysis!for!Each!Time!Point C1((Target(Word( Adult(Target( Target(Word(Shape(Time(1((T1)(Production(Word(Shape( Code( Time(2((T2)(Production(Word(Shape(Code(Peigne! ˈpeŋ CVC! n/a n/a! ! ˈpʰeŋ CVC! C!Perroquet! pɛʁɔˈkɛ CVCVCV! piˈʁ̰ːʌtʰɛ CVCCVCV! ! pɛʁ̰ɔˈtʰɛ CVCVCV! !Poisson! pwaˈsɔ̃ CCVCV! pwaˈtʰɔ̃ CCVCV! ! pwaˈsõ CCVCV! !p!!Pomme! ˈpɔm CVC! ˈpʰɔm CVC! ! ˈpɔm CVC! !pj! Piano! pjaˈno CCVCV! pʰjaˈno ̰ CCVCV! N! pjaˈno CCVCV! !Plonger! plɔ̃ˈʒe CCVCV! pʰlɔ̃ˈʒe CCVCV! ! plɔ̃ˈʤeɪ̆ CCVCV! C!pl! Plume! ˈplʏm CCVC! n/a n/a! ! ˈplʏm CCVC! PP!pʁ! Princesse! pʁ̥ɛ̃ˈsɛs CCVCVC! ˈpχɛ̃ʨɛ̰ CCVCV! I! pχɛ̃ˈsɛs CCVCVC! !Balançoire! balɑ̃ˈswɑʁ CVCVCCVC! balɑ̃ˈtʰwɑ̰ CVCVCCV! I,!O! balɑ̃ʃuˈwɑʊ CVCVCVCVV! !Biscuit!(Des!biscuits)! T1: biˈskɥi T2: debiˈskɥi T1:!CVCCCV!T2:!CVCVCCCV! biˈtʰwit CVCCVC! I! debiˈtwi CVCVCCV! !Bol! ˈbɔl CVC! ˈbɔl CVC! I,!N! ˈbɔl CVC! !b!!Bulle! ˈbʏl CVC! ˈbøl CVC! ! ˈbʏl CVC! !bj! Bien! ˈbjɛ̃ CCV! ˈpʰjɛ̰̃ CCV! ! ˈbjɛ̃ɪ̆ CCV! !Bleu! ˈblø CCV! ˈblu CCV! N! ˈblœ ̰ CCV! !bl! Bluet! bløˈɛ CCVV! ˈløɛ CVV! ! bløˈwɛ CCVCV! !bʁ! Brun! ˈbʁœ ̃ CCV! ˈbʁœ ̃ɪ̆ CCV! I! ˈpχaœ ̃ CCVV! !Magasin! magaˈzɛ̃ CVCVCV! madaˈdjãɪ̆ CVCVCCV! I,!N! n/a n/a! !Maison! mɛˈzɔ̃ CVCV! meˈʑɔ̃ CVCV! ! ˈmezɔ̃ CVCV! !Montagne! mɔ̃ˈtæɲ CVCVC! mɔ̃ˈtɛ̰n CVCVC! N! mɔ̃ˈtaɲ CVCVC! !Monstre!(Un!monstre)! (ʔ)œ ̃ˈmɔ̃s(tʁ) ̥ (C)VCVC(CC)! ʔaɪ̆ˈmɑ̃tʰ CVCVC! ! ʔãɪ̆ˈmɔ̃ʃ CVCVC! C!Moufette! muˈfɛt CVCVC! muˈʨɛtʰ CVCVC! ! muˈfɛtʰ CVCVC! !m!Musique! myˈzɪk CVCVC! myˈʑɪk CVCVC! N! myˈzɪt CVCVC! !!Codes:!A!=!Preceded!by!an!article;!I!=!Imitation;!PP!=!Phonemic!Prompt;!C!=!Given!a!choice;!O!=!Overlapping!Speech;!N!=!Background!Noise!!! ! 116!Table!A!1.!Rémi’s!Productions!That!Were!Included!in!the!Analysis!for!Each!Time!Point!(Continued)!C1( Target(Word( Adult(Target( Target(Word(Shape(Time(1((T1)(Production(Word(Shape( Code( Time(2((T2)(Production(Word(Shape(Code(Fountaine! fɔ̃ˈtɛn CVCVC! tʰɔ̃ˈtʰɛ̰n CVCVC! ! foˈtʰɛn CVCVC! C!f! Phoque! ˈfɔk CVC! ˈʨʌ̰tʰ CVC! ! ˈfʌʧː CVCC! fl! Fleur! ˈfla ͜œʁ CCVVC! n/a n/a! ! ˈfla ͜œ CCVV! !fʁ! Fraise!(Une!fraise)! T1: ˈfʁaɪz T2: (ʔ)ʏnˈfʁaɪz T1:!CCVVC!T2:!(C)VCCCVVC! ˈkɬaɪʨː CCVVCC! I! ʔʏnˈfχaɪs CVCCCVVC! !Vague!(Une!vague)!(Des!vagues)! T1: (ʔ)ʏnˈvag T2: deˈvag T1:!(C)VCCVC!T2:!CVCVC! ʔʏn ˈdjadᵊ CVCCCVC! ! deˈvatʰ CVCVC! !Vache!(Une!vache)! T1: (ʔ)ʏnˈvaʃ T2: ˈvaʃ T1:!(C)VCCVC!T2:!CVC! ʔʏnˈgja ̰ CVCCCV! ! ˈvas CVC! !v!Valise! vaˈliz CVCVC! gaˈlij CVCVC! N! vaˈlis CVCVC! !vw! Voiture! vwaˈʦʏʁ CCVCVC! vwaˈʨœj CCVCVC! I! n/a n/a !Tasse! ˈtas CVC! n/a n/a ! ˈtaʊɕ CVVC! !Tête! ˈtaɪt CVVC! n/a n/a ! ˈtʰaɪtʰ CVVC! !Tomate! tʌˈmat CVCVC! tʰʌˈmatʰ CVCVC! N! tʰɔˈmatʰ CVCVC! !Tortue! tɔʁˈʦy CVCCV! tʰʌˈʨy CVCV! ! dʌθˈtwit̚ CVCCCVC! !t!!Tuque! ˈʦʏk CVC! ˈʨʏʨ CVC! ! ˈstʏtʰ CCVC! !Tracteur! tʁ̥akˈtœʁ CCVCCVC! kʁ̥aˈtʰɑ̰ː CCVCVV! ! kχaˈtʰaɪ CCVCVV! !tʁ! Triste! ˈtʁ̥ɪs(t) CCVC(C)! ˈkʰχe CCV! ! ˈkχɪs CCVC! !Dentifrice! dɑ̃ʦiˈfʁ̥ɪs CVCVCCVC! n/a n/a ! dɑ̃k̚tʰiˈfχɪs CVCCVCCVC! I!Dinosaure! ʣinoˈzaʊʁ CVCVCVVC! ʨinoˈjaʊ CVCVCVV! ! ʣinoˈʒɑʊ CVCVCVV! !d! Docteur! dɔkˈtəʁ CVCCVC! n/a n/a ! dʌˈtʰaʊ CVCVV! !dʁ! Drapeau! dʁaˈpo CCVCV! gʁaˈpʰoː CCVCVV! ! χaˈpo CVCV! !dw! Doigt! ˈdwa CCV! duˈwa CVCV! ! ˈdwa CCV! !Nager! naˈʒe CVCV! naʊˈdʲe CVVCV! ! nɑʊˈʒ̰ḛ CVVCV! !n!! Neige! ˈnaɪʒ CVVC! ˈneʑ CVC! N! ˈnaɪs CVVC! !!Codes:!A!=!Preceded!by!an!article;!I!=!Imitation;!PP!=!Phonemic!Prompt;!C!=!Given!a!choice;!O!=!Overlapping!Speech;!N!=!Background!Noise!!! ! 117!Table!A!1.!Rémi’s!Productions!That!Were!Included!in!the!Analysis!for!Each!Time!Point!Continued)!!C1( Target(Word( Adult(Target( Target(Word(Shape(Time(1((T1)(Production(Word(Shape( Code( Time(2((T2)(Production(Word(Shape(Code(Nez!(Un!nez)! T1: (ʔ)œ ̃ˈne T2: ˈne T1:!(C)VCV!T2:!CV! n ̩ˈne CCV! ! ˈne CV! !n( Nuage! nyˈaʒ CVVC! nyˈja CVCV! N! ˈnyaʑ CVVC! !nw! Noix! ˈnwa CCV! n/a n/a ! ˈnuwʌ CCV! !nɥ! Nuit!(Une!nuit)! T1: (ʔ)ʏnˈnɥi T2: ˈnɥi T1:!(C)VCCCV!T2:!CCV! m ̩ˈmɥi CCCV! ! ˈnuwi CCV! !Citrouille! siˈtʁ̥ʊj CVCCVC! tʰiˈχoj CVCVC! O! siˈkχʊj CVCCVC! !Salade! saˈlad CVCVC! tʰaˈlad ̥ CVCVC! N,!O! saˈlad CVCVC! !Saucisses! sɔˈsɪs CVCVC! tʰuˈʨɪ CVCV! ! sʌˈsɪs CVCVC! !Singe!(Un!signe)! ʔœ ̃ˈsɛ̃ʒ (C)VCVC! ʔœ ̃ˈʨɛ̃ʑ̥ CVCVC! ! əˈsaɛ̃s VCVVC! !Soupe! ˈsʊp CVC! ˈʨʊpʰ CVC! N! ˈsʊp CVC! !s!Sorcière! sɔʁˈsjaɪʁ CVCCCVVC! tʰœˈʨḛj CVCVC! I! sʌˈsjaɪ CVCCVV! !sw! Siof! ˈswaf CCVC! ˈtʰwat̚ CCVC! N! ˈʃwaf CCVC! !Zèbre! ˈzɛb(ʁ) CVC(C)! ˈʑãpʰ CVC! N! ˈzɛb ̥ CVC! !z! Zoo! ˈzu CV! ˈgju CCV! I,!N! ˈʒu CV! !Lait! ˈlɛ CV! ˈlɛ CV! N! ˈlɛ CV! !Lampe! ˈlɑ̃p CVC! ˈlɑ̃pʰ CVC! N! ˈlɑ̃p CVC! !Langue! ˈlɑ̃g CVC! n/a n/a! ! ˈlɑ̃d CVC! !Lapin! laˈpɛ̃ CVCV! laˈpɛ̃ɪ̆ CVCV! ! laˈpɛ̃ɪ̆ CVCV! !Lave! ˈlav CVC! ˈfːlda CCCCV! I,!N! n/a n/a !Livre! ˈliv CVC! ˈliʑː CVCC! N! ˈlif CVC! !l!Lumière! lymˈjaɪʁ CVCCVVC! jymˈjaɪ CVCCVV! N! lymˈjaɪ CVCCVV! !Champignon! ʃɑ̃piˈɲɔ̃ CVCVCV! tʰɑ̃pʰiˈɲɔ̃ CVCVCV! N! ʃɑpiˈɲɔ̃ CVCVCV! !ʃ! Chandelle! ʃɑ̃ˈdɛl CVCVC! tʰɔ̃ˈdɛl CVCVC! PP! tʰɑ̃ˈdɛl CVCVC! !!Codes:!A!=!Preceded!by!an!article;!I!=!Imitation;!PP!=!Phonemic!Prompt;!C!=!Given!a!choice;!O!=!Overlapping!Speech;!N!=!Background!Noise!!! ! 118!Table!A!1.!Rémi’s!Productions!That!Were!Included!in!the!Analysis!for!Each!Time!Point!(Continued)!!C1( Target(Word( Adult(Target( Target(Word(Shape(Time(1((T1)(Production(Word(Shape( Code( Time(2((T2)(Production(Word(Shape(Code(Cheminée!(La!cheminée)! T1: laʃəmiˈne T1: ʃəmiˈne T1:!CVCVCVCV!T2:!CVCVCV! latʰəmiˈne CVCVCVCV! N! ʦamiˈne CVCVCV! (Cheveux! ʃəˈvø CVCV! tʰəˈʥœ ̰ɪ̆ CVCV! N! ʃɛˈvø CVCV! (ʃ(Chocolat! ʃɔkɔˈlɑ CVCVCV! tʰœtʰœˈlɑ CVCVCV! ! tʰœtʰœˈlɑ̰ CVCVCV! ʃj! Chien! ˈʃjɛ̃ CCV! ˈʨjɛ̃ CCV! ! ˈsjɛ̃ɪ̆ CCV! Jambe! ˈʒɑ̃b CVC! n/a n/a ! ˈʒɑ̃b CVC! ʒ! Girafe!(Une!girafe)! T1: (ʔ)ʏnʒiˈʁaf T2: ʒiˈʁaf T1:!(C)VCCVCVC!T2:!CVCVC! ʔʏnʥ̰ḭlˈga CVCCVCCV! ! ʑiˈʁaf CVCVC! ʒw! Jouets! ˈʒwɛ CCV! ˈdjŭwɛ CCCV! ! ˈʒ̊wɛ CCV! Cadeau! kaˈdo CVCV! tʰaˈdo CVCV! ! tʰaˈdo CVCV! Camion! kaˈmjɔ̃ CVCCV! tʰaˈmjɔ̃ː CVCCVV! ! tʰaˈmjɔ̃ CVCCV! Casquette! kasˈkɛt CVCCVC! ˈtaʨɛ̰t̚ CVCVC! O! tʰaˈʧɛtʰ CVCVC! Cochon! kɔˈʃɔ̃ CVCV! tʰɪˈtʰɔ̃ CVCV! ! tʰʌˈsɔ̃ CVCV! Kangourou! kɑ̃guˈʀu CVCVCV! tʰɑ̃duʀuˈgu CVCVCVCV! ! tɑ̃duˈgʁũ CVCVCCV! k!Queue! ˈkø CV! ˈʨøɪ̆ CV! ! ˈtʰø CV! Cloche! ˈklɔʃ CCVC! ˈkʰlɔ CCV! ! ˈklʌs CCVC! kl! Clown!(Le!clown)! T1: lœˈklʊn T2: ˈklʊn T1:!CVCCVC!T2:!CCVC! lœˈkʰloᵊn CVCCVC! N! ˈklʊ̰n CCVC! kʁ! Crocodile*!(Un!crocodile)! T1: (ʔ)œ ̃kχɔkχɔˈʣɪl T2: kχɔkχɔˈʣɪl CCVCCVCVC! ʔœ ̃kχʌkχʌˈdij CVCCVCCVCV! ! kχɔkχɔˈʤɪl CCVCCVCVC! Gant!(Des!gants)! T1: ˈgɑ̃ T2: deˈgɑ̃ T1:!CV!T2:!CVCV! ˈdɑ̰̃ CV! O! deˈdɑ̃ CVCV! I Gâteau! gɑˈto CVCV! dɑˈtʰo ̰ CVCV! ! dɑʊˈtʰo ̰ CVVCV! g!Gorille! gɔˈʁij CVCVC! dɔˈgij CVCVC! I,!N! dɔˈgʁij CVCCVC! !Codes:!A!=!Preceded!by!an!article;!I!=!Imitation;!PP!=!Phonemic!Prompt;!C!=!Given!a!choice;!O!=!Overlapping!Speech;!N!=!Background!Noise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*!=!Mother’s!pronunciation!! ! 119!!Table!A!1.!Rémi’s!Productions!That!Were!Included!in!the!Analysis!for!Each!Time!Point!(Continued)!C1(V1(Target(Word( Adult(Target( Target(Word(Shape(Time(1((T1)(Production(Word(Shape( Code( Time(2((T2)(Production(Word(Shape(Code(! ! ! ! ! ! (gʁ! Grenouille! gʁəˈnʊj CCVCVC! gʁəˈnoj CCVCVC! ! gʁəˈnʊj CCVCVC! (Restaurant! ʁɛstɔˈʁɑ̃ CVCCVCV! lɛtʰœˈjɑ̃ CVCVCV! ! kχɛtʰɔˈgʁɑ̃ CCVCVCCV! (Rêve! ˈʁaɪv CVVC! ˈkweɪ CCVV! ! ˈkχaɪf CCVVC! !Robe!(Une!robe)! T1: ˈʁɔb T2: (ʔ)ʏnˈʁɔb T1:!CVC!T2:!(C)VCCVC! n/a n/a ! ʔœnˈgʁɔpʰ CVCCCVC! !Robot! ʁoˈbo CVCV! gʁʌˈbo CCVCV! ! gʁʌˈbo CCVCV! !ʁ!Rouge! ˈʁuʒ CVC! ˈʁu CV! ! ˈgʁuʃ CCVC! !ʁw! Roi!(Un!roi)!(Le!roi)! T1: (ʔ)œ ̃ˈʁwa T2: lœˈʁwa T1:!(C)VCCV!T2:!CVCCV! ʔœ ̃ˈwa ̰ CVCV! I! lœˈʁ̥wa CVCCV! C!Araignée! (ʔ)aʁɛˈɲe (C)VCVCV! ʔaʁɛˈɲe CVCVCV! ! ʔagaˈne CVCVCV! O!Arbre!(Un!Arbre)! T1:ˈ(ʔ)aʁb(ʁ) T2: (ʔ)œ ̃ˈaʁb(ʁ) T1:!(C)VCC(C)!T2:!(C)VVCC(C)! ˈtja ̰pʰ CCVC! N! n ̩ˈab CVC! !a!Arcieniciel!(Un!arcieniciel)! (ʔ)ɑʁkɑ̃ˈsjɛl (C)VCCVCCVC! ʔatʰɑ̃ˈtʰɛl CVCVCVC! N! n ̩atʰɑ̃ˈsjɛ̰l CVCVCCVC! !Échelle! (ʔ)eˈʃɛl (C)VCVC! ˈʨɛ̰l CVC! N! ʔeˈsɛl CVCVC! !Écureuil! (ʔ)ekyˈʁœj (C)VCVCVC! ʔeʨyˈgwœ ̰ː CVCVCCVV! ! ʔetʰyˈglœj CVCVCCVC! !Éléphant!(Un!éléphant)! T1: (ʔ)œ ̃eleˈfɑ̃ T2: (ʔ)eleˈfɑ̃ T1:!(C)VVCVCV!!T2:!(C)VCVCV! ʔœ ̃leˈt ͡ɕɑ̃ CVCVCV! N! ʔeleˈfɑ̃ CVCVCV! !e!Étoile! (ʔ)eˈtwal (C)VCCVC! ʔeˈtʰwal CVCCVC! N! ʔɛˈtwal CVCCVC! !Hibou!(Un!hibou)! T1: (ʔ)œ ̃ iˈbu T2: (ʔ) iˈbu T1:!(C)VVCV!T2:!(C)VCV! ʔœ ̃ˈib ̥u CVVCV! ! ʔiˈb ̥u CVCV! !i!! Hippopotame!!(Un!hippopotame)!(L’hippopotame)! T1: (ʔ)œ ̃ipɔpɔˈtam T2: lipɔpɔˈtam T1:!(C)VVCVCVCVC!T2:!CVCVCVCVC! mɛpɔpɔˈtam CVCVCVCVC! ! lɛpɔpəˈtʰam CVCVCVCVC! !!Codes:!A!=!Preceded!by!an!article;!I!=!Imitation;!PP!=!Phonemic!Prompt;!C!=!Given!a!choice;!O!=!Overlapping!Speech;!N!=!Background!Noise!!! ! 120!!Table!A!1.!Rémi’s!Productions!That!Were!Included!in!the!Analysis!for!Each!Time!Point!(Continued)!i! Hiver!(L’hiver)! T1: (ʔ)iˈvaɪʁ T2: liˈvaɪʁ T1:!(C)VCVVC!T2:!CVCVVC! niˈjʌ CVCV! I,!N! liˈvaɪ̰ CVCVV! !œ ̃ Un! ˈ(ʔ)œ ̃ (C)V! n/a n/a ! ˈʔãɪ CVV !œ! Oeuf!! ˈ(ʔ)œf (C)VC! ˈʔœf CVC! I,!PP! ˈʔɛf CVC !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!V1( Target(Word( Adult(Target( Target(Word(Shape(Time(1((T1)(Production(Word(Shape( Code( Time(2((T2)(Production(Word(Shape(Code(aø! Des!Oeufs! dɛˈzø CVCV! ˈʑœ CV! ! ˈʤɛf CVC! !o! Hôpital!(L’hôpital)! lɔpiˈtal CVCVCVC! lɔpʰiˈtʰal CVCVCVC! N! lʌpiˈtʰal CVCVCVC! C!ʊ! Ours! ˈ(ʔ)ʊʁ(s) (C)VC(C)! ˈʑo CV! ! ˈʔʊɕ CVC! !ɔ̃ Ongle!(Les!ongles)! T1: ˈ(ʔ)ɔ̃gl T2: leˈ ɔ̃gl T1:!(C)VCC!T2:!CVVCC! ˈdɔ̃tʰ CVC! ! leˈzɔ̃d CVCVC! !!Codes:!A!=!Preceded!by!an!article;!I!=!Imitation;!PP!=!Phonemic!Prompt;!C!=!Given!a!choice;!O!=!Overlapping!Speech;!N!=!Background!Noise!! !! ! 121!Table!A!2.!Time!1!Tokens!with!Multiple!Production!Attempts! !!!Target(word( Adult(target( Rémi’s(attempts(Bleu! /ˈblø/ [ˈblu] [ˈblœ] (I) Champignon! /ʃɑ̃piˈɲɔ̃/ [tʰɑ̃pʰiˈɲɔ̃] [tʰɑ̃pʰiˈɲɔ̃] Chandelle! /ʃɑ̃ˈdɛl/ [tʰɔ̃ˈdɛl] (PP) [tʰɑ̃ˈdɛl] (PP) Cheveux! /ʃəˈvø/ [tʰəˈʥœ ̰ɪ] [tʰəˈjøj] Dinosaure! /d ͡zinoˈaʊʁ/ [t ͡ɕinoˈjaʊ] [t ͡ɕinoˈjaʊ̰] Drapeau! /dʁaˈpo/ [gʁaˈpʰoː] [gʁaˈpʰo] (I) Échelle! /ʔeˈʃɛl/ [ˈʨɛ̰l] [pʰɛˈʨɛ] (I) Éléphant! /eleˈfɑ̃/ [leˈt ͡ɕɑ̃] [elefˈʨɑ̃] (O) Fraise! /ˈfʁaɪz/ [ˈkɬaɪʨː] (I) [ˈkɬeɪɕ] (N) [ˈkχeɪʑ̥] (I, O) Glissade! /gliˈsad/ [gliˈtʰad ̥] [gliˈtʰatʰ] Gorille! / gɔˈʁij/ [dɔˈgij] (I, N) [dɔˈʁḭj] (N) Hiver! /iˈvaɪʁ/ [niˈjʌ] (I) [vːliˈjaɪ] (I) Kangourou! /kɑ̃guˈʀu/ [tʰɑ̃duʀuˈgu] [ˈtʰɑ̃duʀugu] Lave! /ˈlav/ [ˈənapʰ] [ˈfːlda] (I) Oeuf! /ˈœf/ [ˈʔœf] (I, PP) [ˈfːjø] (O) Des!Oeufs! /deˈzø/ [ˈʑœ] [ˈʝœ] Ours! /ˈʊʁs/ [ˈʑo] [ˈʑʌ] [ˈʑːo] (I) [ˈʔoːt̚] (I) [uˈʒoː] Phoque! /ˈfɔk/ [ˈt ͡ɕʌ̰th] [ˈfːt ͡ɕʌ̰th] (I) Queue! /ˈkø/ [ˈt ͡ɕøɪ] [ˈthoj] (I) Rêve! /ˈʁaɪv/ [ˈkʁ̥eɪ̰] [ˈkweɪ] Singe! /ˈsɛ̃ʒ/ [ˈt ͡ɕɛ̃ʑ̥] [ˈt ͡ɕẽɕ Vache! /ˈvaʃ/ [ˈgja] [ˈba] (I) [ˈɘvːdja] (PP) Valise! /vaˈliz/ [gaˈlij] [vːjaˈliʑ] (I, O) !Codes:!(I)!=!Imitation;!(PP)!=!Phonemic!Prompt;!(O)!=!Overlapping!Speech!with!Examiner;!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(N)!=!Background!Noise!!Words!with!multiple!tokens!what!were!not!variable:!Drapeau,!Champignon!
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Audiology and Speech Sciences
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
A case study of a Canadian French-speaking child with protracted phonological development : nonlinear and constraint-based phonological perspectives
Text