Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

Cahiers de l'ayt:!

hologie

1982, 2.

Cognitive.

259-269.

ACCELERA TING THE UEVELOPMENT OF PIWNETIC


SEGMENTATION SKILLS IN KINDERGARTNERS

fllain

CONTENT,

Jo~

Laborat cire
de
de Bruxelles;

Jsus

dveloppement
enfants
de

les

ct

Paul

IlERTEL..<;ON

segmente!'

HoIs eLES :

des. mots

Pr-requis
de segment~tion

KEY \fOnDS

tation

ont

.la

de .1 '.hilbi 1et
d'analyse
maternelle.
Des enfaJ1to

pot
l.eW" hhaet
p/lOntique.
avant et,
aprs
un!')
proodtl!l d'app1>entiElSage.
Les teG/;s
oonsistaient.
ci. llupplter
~e pllOrw initial.'
de pseudo-mots
preents
oraLement.
le. phone supprimer taJ1t noit
une voyel.l.e.,
soit
une fricrltive.
soit
Ime expLoiJive.
L'appront1Mge
comportait
des jeux
de das!JiFication
et de manipratioM de mots au niveau phontique.
Les
groupe8
exprimentaux
ont
amUor
1.stpel'formance
p1.U3 que ~egroupe.
cOrJtrLe pota' l.e8te6te
de 8uppr-eGoion
dee consonn.es.
L'lulhiLet
acquise n'tait
pao spcifique
des phi:mes utiLiss
tOJ'sde
l. 'apprentiseag(!
et tait
tou.jours
prsente
six mais pLUE! tard.
On conal.ut
que
7.. 'habHet,
d'a.naLyse
pl!mltique
peut
tre apprise
avant
te de'but dG 1.. 'appNmtissage
dG .ta tectU1'e.

ci:

3rne matt'11.eUe

ALFX;RIA

ic f':xpd men t<1 le,


Un i v~l'si t Li bn
Adolphe
Ouyl 117,1050
Bruxelles

Psycholog
Avenue

le

Acclrer
phontique
chez

de

MORfilS,

l:o teatll

au, niveau

l'acquisition

de.la.

lecture,.

habilet

phontique.

f>rerequisite
skills .

of

reRding

acquisition,'

phonetic

s~gmen-

Wc Wi8h
ta thank tbe chii.d,l'en
a,nd the staff
from
Z 'Eco I.e liama'i.de,
in Brussels.
The present
,"'ork was Stlppoi-t~d
in rut
l,y th\' "Fonds dl' la '-Cdll~tcl,e scientifique
'mdicale"
(collt ra t nO 3.4553.79)
~lId by the "Fonds
de' la recherche
fondamentHe
collective"
(contrat
nO 2.4S3S.9J.
11

INT/WDIICTlOtl
Th!' pr{'~ent
raper
dC;Jh
wjth
("he po~sibility
o.f acceleriJ:ting
the
rlcvelol'lnC'nt
of
the
ilhiLity
to
ul\<llyze
5pee~h
into
phones
in
a
con sei ~\lS,
ex pl j ci t
Wil)'.
Th i.s
'abi1lty
Iliust'
be
cl early
di~titll;lIi~II{',1
l'l'Clm
th...
;lutOI""tic,
tlllint"lltion,tl
s~~rllcntation
"f
the
;IC('\18 f ; C st n'am I\UI"iIl~
sp,:t:cll
cOl11J;wrhc:ns i"".
i\wil n,"css
of
phones,
id thO\ll',h
l1<lt
n ..." ....'silry
to
undcrstnnd
spo\lcn
langlmge,
<:(\tltrH'\lt~~
ilt
l(,il,'t
to
,,"',
;lIIf"'J't~nt
function
ill (1\lr Clllturc,
[l"mcly
litrr.l<:J".
Sincc
thr
.lIphaL.ctic
sy~tem
["flpl'CScnts
SPCCcll
appt'Qxim,Hcly
as
a scqutncc
of
phonclnes,
the
chi Id ",ha
learns
t (l
l'~ild
mll!'t
<leH] (1P
ail
exp ilC i t
kml\dedllc
of
the phone tic
and
r1lt'!\l'lQgic(l]
unit!'
of
sp~cch
and
rtcquire
the
ability
to
m,lniplilate
thpsc
IInit~ .1t il COIISc:iO\l,~ lcvcl.
~tost
clli ldr{'r\
limier
six )'Cars
ilr\' unab.1.e tD d~iil explicitly
rh()lI~tic
segmC'nts,
r.xpel'inwiltai
st\ldi~s
on
the
issue
have
usC'd di ffer~llt
t~sks,
sucll "lS CO\I1\t j Il!; tile plwllos
in monosyllabic
wor'ds
):>r'esen t l'cl ol'a J.1 y (Li be rman,
Shalll<weil~r,
Fi 3111'1' and Cart er,
!<)4),
or
utterlli.1!
a WN'd 01' il. pselldmw['d
obt;1ined
by ildditioll
or
deletlon
of
c>ne plI l'ne
in
tl,e
initial
or
flllal
position
of
a lIord
si1id
by
tlie
tester
(Zhu['o'\l[l;
1973
i 'HOSIIC['
and
Simoll,
1971
J
IIlcl'.riil
,1 Ile!
florais,
1(79).
Theres:lts'cleai"ly'
'showed"
tba t ch i Id reli be Co're s;x .yean
0 f <1r,e expcriel1ce gl'ea t dlfficulties
in aIl
thC'sc
tnsl\s,
~I1i1c the}'
""ccccd
qui te I<cll
in scgmen'ting
speech
into
sy Ll.ab les,
0ne
possible
,'caS011
for
this
'phonetic
segmentat
ion
in<1billt)' mif;ht
be tllltt
those
children
have tienT
beetl
confrontcd
te
situr.tions
dcmilnding
to segment
speech
explidtly
into
phonetic
Ullits.
ln'
fact,
the"
very
pOOl'
per-fotmallce'
of
illiterate
adults
obse,ved
by
ftorais,
Cal'Y', . ,\l"'!:,ria'
ilrld
Bertelson
(1979)
in
similal'
ta~k~
sliggests
tllat
learning
t<;i
I"ead
oligll t be for' most
l'eor] e tin:
unique" "",creise
that
makes
phone t ic analp
is of spe cch imp'er~ t ive.
\>'itll

Howc\cr,
(\ few
(1bservatiolls
are
available'(l1ead;
'19711
Fox and Rl'uth,
J975 1 SIQbin,
l'J78)
indicatin/l,
that
some pre1iterate
chi Idrcn
grc1\,'illg
in ,1 l1i&:IIIY-5t illLlllating
milieu
"<ln analpe
speech
as a sequcnce
of
phon,,~.
Saine
lut hors
(Savin,
1972 1
Libe['man
and S!l;JI1I(1.;eiJer,
t9i6)
Ii,He suggcsted
tlmt
rhyme
idcntific"tionand'
Pl'oductian
and otllel"
lan,e:uage
games couLu'lead
the'
cllild
ta
becomc
""'arc
of
the
pholl!'tic
segments.
iliJt very
little
i ~ kllo",n
"bout
the
f;]f:t CIl"
tlH1 t Jnf l"plI""
such
nn acqu:i si tion,
"nd
the
',-o;!;rlltlv~
pJ'Qrc~~"s
it
implj"s.
OIIC
.\;!\y.
ta
c)Cple1r1!
tlJese
proces,<;cs
could
l:>e to
stutl}'
tl,e
;]cce~sibil
ity of.. sevelal
phonet ie
\lllit~,
Some
r1wI\es
,~ollld
he
mOl'e e<lsi ly
accesscd,
ilS fOll!ld
it1 ail a~ yet unpllt>l ished
\'xpcrirncnt
of ours.
The task
lias
to
dl etc
either
.1. HJ\,r)
01' il
consonant
iu
the initial
position,
and
the
reslilts
sho\,'c
that
the
'\IOI~el
was
easier
to
Sllrpre~s
than
the
CDIJSOllilnts,
CHl\
",hcn
the
vowcl
i3
not
a syllabLc
by itse!.f,
but is cOlltncd
in il syllabl.e
(ex.
J\lWV).
ln addition,
other
stuie~
hilYI
found
,be,tter
per'formal"jces
fol'

fricat

iVl'l:

than

plosi.ve~

wi. th se~cr;t l

tasks

demOlrldillg

ail explicit

Dcvelopmcnt

segmen turion
ofwords
and Mineo, 1977).

of

phonetic

(Coleman,

sc~mcntation

t 970

Skjeif

jord ,

1976

~b\'Sh

lYhatcver
the' develop~lc(1tal
coul'se
of
tll<!, nbilitYI
thi~
implies
the preexistence
of some,
so far
ul1spcci ficd,
cognitive
cap01.cities<
TlIase
cil,,~,c.i.ti~s
"YI'
all't"~d)'
T'n:,,~nt
certainly

al!:e'
of
s.i.x in
a m...j{1rity
or
cI1jJdn'n,
sinee
le'III'ldll!!
il\
"n
ipbabcti.c
~}'st"m
slIccccds
b,r
t11is
Il/:!e. Th".\'
mi",ht
l1owevcJ'
De! present
befon~1
even
in
pr{'] i tcratl'
dli Idl'rll
\/110
do
no t
perform
wdl
pl1011f't i c
sc~mcn ta t j Or! c .sks,
If
so,
<ln appro~riate
activitl"
of
,orHllysis
{1f speech, <\"
yd"t"'-l
ta
rcading,
mig~lt be enollgh
for
those
chi Idren
to Ife,,,me .11,are
'lf 1;h~ el'.istcr.ce
of
ph\ll1ettr:: Ulllts"
ln
tlls
vi~"'J
ph"nes
.ue
accessible,
but
no opportunity
has
becn
offcrcd
tCl
;lccess
ta
them,
1\
diff cretlt
yic",
(see
Ilruce,
1964
and
Leroy-Il,'uss
i 011,
1975)'
is that
the
difficulty
obscrved
iCl ~\<>st clhln~1\
bd'C'I'e
six
years
of age is a sign
of lack
of some cognitive
c.l.r.,citic~
that
are
!mppo$cd
to mature
spont <lneous l y betl/ecII
S amI 7 yeill' s.
l'Illen the und",rlying
capaci ries
ure missing,
the i1cces.'
ta the
phones
flould
not
be
pas sible,
and
therc fore,
no' sign i ficant
improvement after
il training
pro gram would b~ cxpectcd.
bl'

the

t,Il

l'\!p.d

in

GP,>:: Qf
the
be~t
Imown
training
studie~
deallilg
w-i th
children
i~ that
of
Elkonin
(t973).
He tested
rive
and
six
yeurs
010 by pl"Cscnting
them
pictu!'es,
each
<J,ssocji1tcd
with
a diugram
comprising
us many squares
as there
;tP:
I>hQIl<!S
in
the
depict ed
ward.
The
dlild
..,as
asked
pronoull~e
the
wDrd "aloud,
S~llarating,
<!l\dl,
S\lc>:\'ssi'/c
sound
)litn
" oruwlcd,
stressed
sound"
(p,
5(3) and sirnultlllleously
ta place
Olle counrel'
01\.
the
diagr.w.
for
cac\J
phono;:. }lost children
traincd
by this
procedur-c
cCluld
mllster
the
problem
and
i1pply,
the
s!d 11 to ltt~,.,
WOt'us.
Dut,
since
tlle
same ta~k Wi19 used
for training
and testing,
the generality
of the aCCiuisition
is not deUlonstr3_ted.
-

Pl'eschool

,to

~(<:lst of

stressirlg,

either

the

\'Jtner

sturiil!,~

the
visual
seMlenta tion.
flle
training
prO'viding
a model
the child
apply
tD new stimuli.

base~
on Elkonin's
lIork,
or
the
proces!
of
oral
consisted
gencrnlly
of
to imi.tate
and tlll!l\ t.:.

present
study,
\/e uscd
~ prQgram based on a diffcr~nt
The
phon'!s
lIere
Hever
pronounced
in isolilt ion by
tlle
elCpcl'mentcr,
50 thllt
ully effcct
of tralning
wC\1hi lwHc!\tl!
th!.>t
the
chJldi'en
!I,i~~
att!dtll~d
lUI
cxpllclt
a~'arerleS5
of,
at
le'!st,
some units
\i.tl\(~\lt
h;wil1g b\!cn direct 1y taughr.
/1 VHicty
of
garnes
were
built
-to
<lttract
the
hild' s attellt iCltl -(lrl
the
phonetic
aspect S of
speech.
As
pro pased
by
Elkonin,
vlsUo11concrete
supports
\"ere
providcd
c;lch
time
it w;).s p05sibh
in
or-der
ta
stimlliiltc
rcseaI'ch
and reflexio!1.
l'rogressive
difficulty
cl\al'ad eri::-ed bcth t\1C type nf unit
propos ed
to
the
ch il.d
~lId
the,' Jdlld of
game in
"'hic!!
this
unit
\oIas introduced.
Hcg.ardi[1g
tlle'
unit5,
vOliels
",cre
prescnted
first,
th"n
fricatiHS,
and
tllen plasi ves.
Rega.rdi.!lg glme3,
~he il T'St
tWr;! were
bascd
on
In

principle,

the

are

Sllpport
prol:cdure
hllcl first

~I';)rch

sinli 1 i tlldrs

for

S<gmerlt
to
{'xtrat
The
th l t,Ii
rlion~
III

thcm

~y

iS\J!.1ti(lll,

<lll\l "ll,li"r.: it
dtl!",'
[lt
~lr)!l'j.l
~l1d ~1,'I;li~
r l!lj(])

l ,,,:1\ l,;

\';1';

tlint
thcl"c
\{;)S
nCl necd
tlH~ occasion
was pr'ovided
shan'cl
hy i\ set
of words.
the
ch i 1d to
mnn i pl'] a te O'le
nss(wi"t
inl?, il
h'i!il
,1 I:'t.\phic
si~l1,
th,'
lwginllinl;
or ,the
clld
(If ~ ,word,
Il;1'' l'l'ol'iill'LI
cvi"~I'C'C'
thill! ,If! 'oll)diHnn

in l.or',ls,
int,o phN1Ctic
1.1lli.t~,
the
plwtlctic
pl'(1f1~ttl'
a1ld 1~ st
onr
"cqll i l'rd

to

1(' l'

111;111 ;1

LI\' 1 L" 1,,"

<;(1

~\lt

('IIL',

Cltildl'ctl
ri\'C
rI.' six
years
old,
\<ithout
O1l1y
rcndillg

(,l'e tcstcd
(On a rIIL'IIC ddC'tioll
tilsk !Jefon:
amI after
bein~
rUli thn'"c.h
Ihc
l'n'g!'a.".
In "niet'
to t{'st thc hypothesis
(If tr,11lsfrr
(1f
the
'1\:'1u i r'ecl
abi 1i ty,
th~ ['hon<,~ \lsed ill the
pC'sttrs!
.~n
C'.th~r' thr
~"nl~ ,1~ tllOse
\\sed
clul'il\ft
tl'i\.ll,lIg,
or' di fll'nl\t
('llleS,
ln addi t i(111, in oi'del'
ta cvalll<ltc
tlte longtl'"i"itlg

t~l'm
('frn't,
cof
~ix m..'nth~
l.1ttcr',

th.;'

O';dl1ing,

~ ~ec()ncl

J.'0~ttcst

~'''s

administered

HF:THllD

Subjects
lite subJccts
w('r'~ 27 k,lndC'rl!;"rtnel's
from
a' pd vatc
scheel
il!
1lt'lIS~elg
(10
i!;il'l s "url '17 boys).
Thei r' Clges varLed
bt'tween
5, t and
(" ( yC'lIl'~
(mC'nn
<'II1.C ,
5, 7years)
nt
tlie
time
of tl1e
fi t'st
te3t.
fv;;ccordit1!!
ta
fatllcl"3
occuration,
al.l'
wcre
issued
fl'om
familles
of
mtddle
to hil!;h .';(1c10-CCOtl0111ic
lev"l, The school
used
il
pure ,,'hole-\oo'ol'd
mct1tcd,
and this
itl~tr\lction
b"gan only
in
first
grade,
!'JO th<lt
no
pl'ere;J.ding
tl'~ining
was
pl'ovided.
~lost
of
t1re childl'cn
\,~t'e able
te
write
tlleir
n<tme lrld
some
of
them
~omc simple
\"ords.
r\l. th 0 \1Jl;1t their
I<nowlNlge
of illphabet
Wll~ !l()t
tC3ted
~pten1.1ti(',111r,
thosc' who lt",d Iligh
pCI'formJ.nccs
<lt
thc,l'!'ete~t
loir)' nsked
to 'nad
some sylbbles.
!t ;.ons clear
from
this
informal
nst
that
11cme had
grnsped
the alphabctic
princi
rIe.
of
the

Titre\'
.!!,l'OUpS
of
,,; Ile
r.hi Ld n~ll,
\~ith sirriilar
distri.bution
.1.gC' a ud
,~ex ,\00'('
1'1'
f Ol'mcd,
('Ine \oIas the
control
group and
othel'
t ....
o the,e"rcl'inlC'lltaL
EI'(1l1f1S.

Procedure
The'
experim('nt
il1\'olvcd
a
pI'ctest,
(1
two-week
training
pl'ogrllm
nnd
th'l.'
>,l'st tests.
The! pretes t,
the
trai.nillg
[lrogram
and
th!'
fi l'st
posttest
,.en
r;\rried
out
in
Janullry
for
haH
of
the cllildren,
jn
Febrtlary-flill'ch
for
tbe
others,
The
second
pC1~ttcst
w<\~
. ilprli~d
in Sc:ptembe!'
te
the
cbildren
who 1I'ere
still
att('nditlll;
the scboCll, lB in a11.
Each

the

first

test

of

presented
as a game bct~eentwo
tltter;ed
a rseudo-1>ord, and the, other

w~s

,,,bich

p~ppets,

repeated

IIt!velomcnt

of rholll!tlc

!:cgmcntatloll

it lthout
the initial
phone. Children
WCI'C toId
thut
pllprrt.~ sroke
an invented
lan!\II,1ge. The firs t pUppet
"'~<; de~cri bed ilS m~l{ j ne; il
mistake
wnid the other
corrected.
The tr~t
inr.ltlded
<;("Veral exrerinl\":l1taJ series,
c(lch composed of 5 to i ind\lction
tJ'i;d',~ follol"l'li
by 15 cxpC'rirn('ntal
tl'ial.~.
nlll'inl'; mluct ion,
the l'Iii Id Il';I~ ,,~I<("ll tl\
pay attention
hl ordr
to \llIdCI'st:1nd
ho'rl the ~ecol\d rlll'l'ct
OlTl~(:,trd,
sll"l(:l' IH' wnul,! !J;IV!' to h;IIICl!(' it af'!(,I'\~:H',I~. 1'1](' 1'~I'I'l'illLl'IIII'I'
ltillHl1 ('l\

~'lIl'l'l~1 ~I .. 111111 r'il,dlll:l'd

['l,lll

1IIII.'I'alll:('~

corl'E~ct.ing
puppet
\/;1.>
tlren
clltru~tcd
experimcntal
trinl~.
Feed-back was provldcd
The

to

at

alld
l ''In;\' 1 Illll:"
the
.. hi Id for'
till'
ea~h trlnl.

'fbc pJ'(!tetJt
and the fir'st
po.stter,t
illcJudd
ont' f'!,,1Ct ire ,~l'and
three
expcriment,11
series.
The
rri1ctice
~l'!'i,,'1
d,,;dt
with the
de1ction
of
the
initial
vowcd
which
h~.~ 11 sr! Ltbh',l!
fUllcti.on,.,
fr"am
il
vev
(l'awel-Consol1.1nt-Vowe
1~
lH t(,I'~IH',,"
J Il
the first "experimental
s<:'des
(VQweL
scr-ics),
tlle ~t ;llIliU
lliul
il
l'CCV{C) Nt'l"lIcture.The
aim or this
sc.rl's
\/a~ tu tl:st
tllCdc!('ti[,\ll
of
a
voweJ
aR
pill't
of
a
sylJ.lble.
IIowcver"
,Ill
~
postC'ri,,!'i
unalysj,$
of
the
'items ~how('d
that
only
six
~dmittcd
a \C-C\
syllabic
structllre,
\~hcr~~s
tlle
nine
otllCl'S
Irad
the
stnl\till'.:'
l'-ccv. Ils na differcnce
'lppeilred in the results
for
b()th types
of
items,
o~ly global
data
arc presented
hcre,
The
second
bnd
third
series
c01\cerned,
respcctively
thl:' deJ~tion
of a fricative'
and of .lI plosi Ve.
E~ch
series
inc1uded
CV, C\'C amI CVCV, i tem~,
The
ordcr
of
p!'e'lcntation
....06
chonsen
on
the a~SLlml'~j.['\n thnt
\'owe1
deLetion
would
be c:t~icr
th"n
COI!~onnllt deletion,
nnd
that,
among consonants,
fricatives
could
be '('asier
to
separnte
thatl plosiv,~s.
rips

The

,UJCo;W posttest

included
two sedes,
both r(!quiring
the
of
the
initial
[p 1
fl'om an utter"allce.
Tile
fil',~t
V) ~'as silnilur
to the piasive
series
fl'om th(' rrE;>viOIiS
tests.
The sec<.1i1d sedes
(e + C) concerned
de1etic1I1 of the pl o~ 1"~
followed by nnother- conson;rnt,
[RI, [1],
or [sI
([pHLlka]J.The
nuncber
of syllables varled
between one ,and three.

suppression
series
(e +

The. tr>a.in/g phase


.',fas orgilni%ed. in fout". ses.sions
of abo\lt
minutes
caeh. The dl.i.ld re!l "t t ended br pairs.
ln the
group"
the
teilching
time ",'03 devoted
to.
mathematic;l
games.
,Ooth
Experimental
groups
reccived
the
same.
training.
Experimental
group. sr (fOl'
"Same
Phones")
wasteste~
on the
,phones
..Lls~d
du ring
trilining,
when~as
ExrerimentnJ
.group
\Ir
(for
"1li:icI'ent
Phones")
!.'as
tcsted
011
different
ol1e~.
Hal f
of the. DP subjects
,had [el,
[v J and [b 1 i.n trilining
aT\d 1o'(,I'' t~st<,d
Idth .. [,al,,[.f
1. and [p j" allLl the oppo~ite
nn:ilngement ,,'ilS ll~rd for the
others.
Each
session
includcd
the
three
ta~ks
d~scl'ib('d
bc.lClr;
and was 'devoted
to one key phone
(fint
[01
then
[<lI or [~),
[f 1 Dr, {v],
nd[p]'
or lb]}., During the l'hole training
rhase, the
experimellter,
never
pronounccd
the
key-phone in isolation,
1101'
did he mention .the n(tme of the corresponding
letter.
tilirty
Contr'ol

1, Tcngue~twisters
Nards

of

the

lilst

a brie!
stary
l'as
sentence
beg,lll ",1th

old

and

the key

mos t
phone

of
for

the
the

Cahi~rs

de

rsycholo~ie

Cognitive

'.'

$CSS

ion.

The

ch LI d t'en

1\;\11 to

g.tICSS

"",I.il

t soulIdcd

one

can h(!ilf
in the srntence".
Tile ain! \,las to
ta the pholletic
simihlrity
of thase
~o'rds
and to
tryi.n,.; to prorHlllncc
the cOllilTIDI\phone in ;;Oliltioll.

il j ng
attentiofl
.'l(1lllct

stTilti.e;c,

attract
have

the

children

2,
Picturc
CL1SSificatioil
:
("'0
pictlll'CS
wc rI'
shown.
am!
the
cllild
had
t~ choQs~
the
one wlH'lsc) ",une began
\oIHh the
key-phone,
Wc
~i1v('
i111 rllH'!prl'
~,jlh
il f'i\llre
rc.f(.d'n~
ta
olle
ctelDent
,,[
the
t ~11"lIe-twis
t ~l'
stl'I"y,
all,J
\ole askeu
the
chi,Ld
to
take
the
card
~llCJwil\g ~tl <'bj"ct
lihose name
"sGuntled
like"
the
words
in
the
~ tOI")' al;d
t 1) put
i t in
the
euvelape,
~'hen 'ldlild
w~s
wrong,
~'C
took
tlt~
f'l'cl'i('usly
sdected
card!:
a n'cl utter\'.d
the
nam\'s
a ,!rain.
Ten
t da 1.,
were
run
and
the
child n:n
atlswel'ed
altl'rUiltely.
roI'
tell
fOll"ther
tt'Clls,
positi\'e
'llld
negative
pic t llr~~ . ,"'cre' "ho"'[1 one
i1t il t tille,
,\llcl the
child
had to decide
whether
it should
go into
the CIlVC!OpC or 110t.

J. Grllrhic
;r~~ociaticHl
ami blending
:
the
task
cOrlsisted
of
adding
a phone
dtl ..:r ;tt'~he
beginrting
Or at
tlle
elld of
a word.
The chi Ld w,,"s firs!
a~ked'to
draw
011
a: card a sign repl'esenting
th" set
of
~"ol"ds
lrs'ed
in
tilS]'
(2)
(for
exaillple,
hed',
baU,
bull,
,11\11<',
('(c.).
Tt1<~ ~i/Cn ~'''s
then
plriccd'
(Hl
the
table
in
front
of a pictul'c
[lnd !Ill'
~llb.i ccts
had
to blend
tlle. ](ey pllone
represcnted
by
the
sign
W11h rllC
n,tme of the
pictured
thing
(fOI" example,
the
sign
for
[b J "nct <ln igloo
picturc
gave "bigll'lo").
The
principl
e ~'aS (:omIllUl\icat~d
thro\lg;h'e]C~mpJes,
and the
task
include
tcn
to
fi ftecn
tr'ials.
The sign
"'as
al terJ]~tely
'placed
in
front
of,
or
behilld
the
picture.
The
e"perimenter
g<lve the
ansl,.crs
after
the chlldten'
s' plopos~ls.
.
RESULTS
Table
1 rcrrescn,,~
the menn percentage
of'corre'ct
'~espon3es
fl'r
each
grollp
and
series,
before
and
aft er" training,
The thrce
g.roups
'llad
similai"
r'sults
at
'pl"ctest
for
the
t'hr""
series.
The pcrfol"m.1nce
ho"'evct" '",as far higher' 011 vowels 'than
on consonants
and
ln [act
i1pproached
ccilillg
Oll'
vowcls
so thilt'
110
sbstilntial
improvement
could
be observed
for
thllt
mate'rial.'
For' the
CI)!lsonant
series..
howe ver,
bo t h
cxperimental
groups
showed
subs tantial
~mprovellients,
'much
gr"'lter
thiln
th'lt
obined
by 'tl{eC
group.
Ely
naly sis
of
variance,
nei thcl'the
differencebetweerl
groups
(.(2,24)
"
1.09)
nor'
the
group
x series
interacUon
(F < 1) ~cre
significant
rClr the
pl"etes t Decause 'of
the "eHing
phenomenon
on
the
yowe:l
series,
the
effcct
of
training
(prcversus
ros t test)
l,a sana
lyzed
o'n.lY on
tll e
consonant
series.
The
training
x
gl'OUp
interaction
was
significant,
indicating
tliat
the
progrcss
was
greatcr
in
tbe
and 'DP than
in
tbe
C group
(F(2,24)
"4.19
l'r <0.0\,).
The comparisoll
of the training
eCfect
betwcen
and DP groups
was not significant
(Fel).

sr

sr

Devclopment of phonetic sc~mcntation

Table 1. Pretest and first posttcat


results.
percentage
of' correct
respons~s
and
standard
deviations
(ln parenthesis)
for
C (Control)', SP (Experirnent, "Sarne Phones"),
and DP groups
(Experimental
"Different
Phones")
on the tlH'8r
expnrjmnn~nl ~rrlpn.
Mean

\'OWEl

Il

'FRICAfliE'

Pr.t.st

80

(15)

p~"ttest

98

(6)

DI ff.r e ne,

16 ',;

PLOSHE

2!

(23)

11,2

46

~4q

25..

49

(\0)

),

(JGI

7 );

I----------T-----~------,------------,------------T--------~---I
81

Pr.t.sl

SP

p,.ttest

(13),

9S

(6)

II, (20)

S9

(29)

JO

(ll)

61

(31)

1
1 Dj Her.ne,
1
14:t
1
1,5 %
1 31:t
1----------T------------,------------I------------I-------'---1
1
1

OP

1 Pretest
1 Posttest
1 Differenc,1

1 86
1 98

tbses)

~our

(3)

12%

Tableau 1. Rsultats
Pourcentage

1 27
1 ~7
11,0:>;

(Il)

81.1

moyen de rponses
les
group~s
C
DP (Exprimental,

phones) et
sries
exprimentales.

prtest
correctes

et

1
1

(21)
(21]

42

81

(JI,)
(III

Il9:1:

premier

posttest,
et cart-type
(811 tre
p81'el1(Contrale), ~P (Exprimentel,
mmes
phones
diffrents)
pour les trois
aU

Examina tian
of
the
indi vid,lal
p;J. tt erns
prevlous analysis.Table
Z gives
the
number
of
performance l'as ,less
than 33 % or greater 'than

conf i med

the

subjects whose
66 % for
eilch

of
the.
CorlSOllant
ser'ies.
Consistent
progresses
l'cre
obsened
in
neill-Iy
allchildren
in
the
experimental
groups,
in
a much
more clear
wa)' than i~ thoee of the control group.

Table 2. Number of subjects scof'ing wnder 33 % (-)or abo ...


e 66 % (+)
on the
oonsonant
series at pretest
and
first post test for C,
(Control),
SP ("Same
Phones),
and 'OP ("Different
Phones")
groups
(N = 9 in each group).
11
1

11

pnEI(ST
Frlc"t~,e

C
SP

1:1 -:

DP

Plo,l.e

fi

POST-TEST
Fricative
4'

fi

1,

6!

.Plo,l"

4
l

4
6

2. Nombre de suj ets dans chaque groupe (Contr6le


"mmes phones", "phones
diffrents") obtenant Un score infrieur
33 % (-)
ou suprieur
66 % (+), pour les sries
consonantiques
au prtest
et au premier posttest
(N = 9 pour chaque groupe).

Tableau

266

CalI iers

The

long-ter'm

de Psychologie

cffects

of

Cognitive

tt',1illi!\J;

"'cre

~tudied

by cornplIring

~lIb~l'oti p~
,.ho
p<1.t't id pH <,d
to tllc
second
pos tt es t,
six
cili ldren
from thc c,ontn:d
gr'''l'r,
and
twcJve
from
the
cxpcl"imcbtal
gnHlp~
14 from. 111' '\ild H fl'om ~r). Il!; tl,c~ec(1nd
p<:lsttest
d.::~lt
only
....HI\
tll(l
<1~l\c'l1
f'lo~i~o;:,
tll~ l'CS\l\.tS
of these
tests
(C + V an
C 4 C se dps)
Wl'C
comrn rcd to the da ta for the pJ osive
series'
nt the
pl'!:otest
(e +- V m~terial).
Table
3 shows the mcun pcrcel1tag<!
of
correct
n~rOl1~~
fDI'
<::l\cl1
Sllb~roltp.
A1\a.lysis
of
variilllce
~hO"Td
th;:lt
the
dl ffCl'l'nce
bctween
subg!'oup~
wa!'l not
si~niic<lnt
nt
pt'ete~t
(F <: l ,.
The: grollp
x scdes
interaction
was
significDnt
.'hen
comp,,,'ing
the
seDr'e,';
at
pr'ctest
and
at
the
C ~ V
1<el'i.e~
from tlle :<;cc('Illd pO.'ltte~t
tH l, 16) ~ 6.0.1 !
fi < o. Oj) . ~'hell
comp:l t'in/!
t hl' pl'e tes t te> t Ile C + C
sel'ie~!
the
intc';ilctLo1\
W;tS
rlcaI'Jy
gnific~nt
(F(I,llj)
" .4.02
J
P <: 0.07J.
Tilts
il\(\i,:\tc';
th;-ct th~ df~l:t
of tr<.1i.nS.l"/!,'Ws
5til1
present
after
si:-: nt0l1ths.
In
~duiti.ol1,
the
tra,in:il1.?;
effect
tr'ansferred
to il ~('d('~,
tilt'
c+c orle, \,hich. thcchildrenlli1d
,not inet bcfon~.
In
the
~('(,ol1d r'" t tp"t,
t'he C + C ser'ies
\;,lS
le~~ well
s~ccecdcd
than
the C + Vone
(HI,I(,)
~ 7.03
l r <0.025)

the

"r ;,

Table

3. Mean percentnge
of correct
respcmses
and st<lndard
deviation
(1 rl p~ren thes i s)
for th" subgroups
who had passed the second
po!;tte!;t.
The data
are
from th~ pl(}siv"
seri""
Il.t pretcst
andfrom
tht! two flerLos st the SE'<:O!HIpo~ l:t,,,~t,

1\

Control

'Ihp.ri~ental
1

Suhgroup

..

SubgrDup

,'Iii W r

.0

12

JI (29)

\1

Il:,

"

V}

(1.1.)

le ,v)

i, ~< III"
.'"
..

\ 40 (1,2)
1

59( 2\ )

1 7
(C

1.
1

\l W]

1
1

3.
Pourcentage
moyen de rponse9
correctes
parenthses)
pour
les
sous-groupes
.qui
second
posttest.
Les donnes
proviennent
de la
clu prtest et des d"ux sries du second posttest,

2l (201

Tableau
(entre

1:]

et
art t
srie

carttype
pass
le
"plosive"

The
expasur~
ta
th~
te~t1ng
matcl'i1J.l
SCClned to
prodllce
eff('ct
on p~rfornlOll\ce.
l'In inO'a-series
analysi:;
showed' that
t!1e
~ubJc(',t~
iml'rnvc,l
tl,d.
;tbIli.ty
by'rn""lis
of
tllc
fe~.d-bnck
prol'iden.
1"01' the
fil'st
consollant
SE'ries
st
the
pretest,
tbe
percent~ge
of
r:c>rrcct
l'esp"ll~es
i.ncrenscd
rcgularly
from
the
first
to
the firth,
itern
: 0 ~~, ,7 %,
11 %, 22 % 11.nd 48 %' of
correct
re~ 1.'''115 e~.
Th is
couJ cl
exp ta in
an
othcr",iSe
pu~~l.il1g
result,
Il ilme l.v
the,
fClct
thlt
NI
the
pretest,
performal1ce
\,las

!ln

bette!'
for
plosives
tltnn
for
friCfl.tives.
test
alllil}'sprcceded
tlte
p10,I'e
test,
be duc tothc
training.
prcviden
by the

Since
the
fric~tivc
the
differenc:c
ceuH
first
series.
Further

Development

of phonetic

segmentation

rese<lTcb wculd \)(, m~cess"ry to a:s~~ss hotl, the relntlve


of
photll;!tic
M!illysJs
nccol'clln/!,
to tllc
nature
of
n!ld the possibilitYof
slich immediate trnnsfer.

diffjculty
the
j:'hone~,

DISCUSSION
The
present
result~
clenl"ly
show that
it
jl;
ro~sjb.l<:
to
accelel'ilte
the
acquisition
of
cxplic1t
k"owled"e
of
tll"
phonetic
st ructure
of speeh through
t rairling
procedures.
Kind c 1'gartner3
aged
betwecn
fi~. and
six
years
Were lubmitted
to
a S!lO:rt'
training
pl"ogram '-equldng
the
manjplI]ntiorl
of wOI'cl'i
at the plionet le level.
Nearly all extract cd suffici
cnt informa t ion
fTom
thesE'. g<l\\\es to impro';e
wid"h
thetrperforman'ce
on 11 pi101IC'
deletiot1
tnsk. Two aspects
of this
acquisition
are worth
empl1n~izing.
First,
the training
effect
wa~ nat a translerJt
one.
I\h~n
testecl
six
months
Hf ter
the
traitl.nl!;
phlJ.s~,
cIldl'l~"
sho\J~d
a,level
of performilnce
comparable
to the one obscrved
immcdiately
aUer
training.
Second,
the
acqllired
.1bIli ty "'as, nQt lim i t t'cl
to the
phones tised duriHgtrainin~.
si~ce
~imiJar
lmprovemcnts
appearedwhethet
the 'chUdretl
I>'ere tested
on the.se
or orl, oth{'r
phones.
In
addition,
the
trilincod
children
h<tcl
bcttcr
rcsults
tlwn
the untrained
ones when flsl(ed to de]cte
a phone from il
CM8.0nantic
c.ltt.ste.t', '" .tas\r. tl\~y h;\d !\I:!vcr mct be{or~.
Tlle
,1m of
the trnlni!l,r;
prop,rnm \oIas to pt"f\v"I(f.' rl'r1cXl(\1I
Il,1' ~1('I~III(,lItl\l Mnl<'t'!l'I'
(1[.
1111:'. WClI"\!q.
'l'hl' !lllldr\'t\
Il'l'\ 1'11"1\
t II dl ~H'l\V~ j' 1. he giIlIlC," l'Ill (!, 1\l1d 1h~rl t 0 :1l'Ply 11,
(I! t Ile: 1,)('\1 t 11'1catlon
games
(tongttc-twistcrs,
picturc,
classIfication),
~"
explicit
segmentation
was not indispensable,
but il set
Clf words
wa, crcat~d
that
SliElred
11 comman piton!!.
The subJects
could
thus
rccognize
the sinlill1ri tybcth'ccn
the words ;MHI
e'vcntu!l1Jy
di~covcr
wl1J.t pan
t,flS
~'im,iJ.ar,
and
",bat
part
W,l~:
not,
The
p:l.tUres .i.nrl en\lelopes
providcd
a concrete
and permnllcnt
support
tha t 'could
facIlita
t ~ such
il di sco\"ery,
With
ton~lIe-twis t ers,
tile
childrcn
were able
ta
notice
the phonctie
pcculiarity
of
tne seotence,
but if they cou id isolat Il the scund WIW.li i t ..~:;
a vowd,
thi~
"'il~ l'.xcept .i.OJ\n<1l1y suceeeJed
\o/i th the fricn ri "es,
and ncver- .",i th . tlle plo~ ives.
On the
cClntrnry,
thcd<1.~s if iC<1t ion
game \oins succecded
rn.th~r
weU
\011th. al], phone!'.
In the addi t ion
gaIne)
accor-ding.
to
Elkonln 1S proposnls,visuaI
izing
thO
I\eyphone W<1!i a110wed by using a sign that WrlS crt'atcd
hl' tltc chPdrcn
..or sometimes
the xpe:r-imentl'.r.
Tllis ~olme, ",hieh ae tllll tL:v il11plied
n.
'limuJ.at ion
of tl1e 'nI pnnbct le pr\.nci rte,
sccmed
ra ther
en!';}'
wit.h
the
vowels,
With
the
consonants
on the
.contrary)
most
of
the
t::hildren
first
made
a syl.1llbic
hypothesis
about
the
se !!,)1lent: to
be blended..
They
n.sSOdRtcd
the
g,r.pIc. symoel
te
'a
CV syll'able,
whose' v(1wel varied
ilccording
to tlte prec('di Ilg
trials.
If,
,[ b J
was
the
]Iey-plwtle,
al1swers
I>'Cre oft~n
b<lscd
011
il [bi l sylhble
nfter
trials
liJ.:e ! b 1 + "i/!,loo",
(1r (1n ~ f b;l" l
syllable.
aftE'r
trials
like
[b 1 + "ana"''',
etc.
During the gamc
onl}' a few chi.ldren
pass'ed to. a phone tic hypothesis.
(\11

268

Cahiers

de l'$ychologie

Cognitive

The !'e~Hll t sor


tll~
present
cxperi!nent,
ilS weIl. R~ the.:
1l1fol'mal
datn
frOnl
the tJ<<lil\r,,~
ph"se,
~tl~est
th"t
th" aeCes~
to
the
v",,,,e] ~,
rnr
~asier,
wight
cOllstHutc
a tirSt
~ncp
the
krl<'~'J ~dge
of
thc
rl"'Clctic
structul'e
of
specd, .. YO\;el"
have
morr st~bl{'
"caLlstlc
CII(,~ th~Jl
In~.~t consonnnts
(Lib,,rm,ul,
Cooper,
Sh,~llk"", il r r
,~lld S \ "ctd e l't -1(Crillecty,
19(7) ,
t l1ey
call
I.>~ produced
ill
i:,obtlon
1111(j
~C'm<' of
the"
al'e
\i\lrd,~
irl ,l'n'ncll.
lt
is wQrth
rl\ltlIf::
th~t
in (1111' dddiol\
ti\~k
vClwels
thi\t,wen:
part
of
a
sy 11 al' l c '''(,l'c
,le 1 ('t cll 1'C'Hlltl,l..v s". easily
11S vClw.e.L~ that
[une d\lned
as
syJ labJe~.
'1\,,<1 \"hel1' th",
t;'sk "ilS
to
dcl,cte
'. a
consonant,'.'
a vocalie'
COllt!,,,t
cl.jcitcd
.som~\;hat
bette"
results
than ,il. con~onun'::
ti~,
"n(';
il
rcsu]t
;.iso
obt;,incd
by l,osner
and
Si,~on
(1971).
It
is
tll\IS
rC',<;siblc
th"t
tl1\' ilbillty
to ,.i~olate
vowels
\wuld
hl" 1 p the
chi l.Jl'<'n
to
hl'come
awarc
of
the
mOI~e cncoded
pllonetic

sC!'.!11~\\l:'\

ndl"fly,
th~
rr~lll rs c1~;lrly support
the
idea. t!lat' phC'rlctic.
;).n:\l,':,;'<;
~ki.ll<; tall
De imlf'pCli,1cilt.lr
,tiltlght
't;Jefon:.
the
bcginning
of forma J rcad illl: ins t l'I!ct i(1l1. (:anl,{'s i\S tho.'lc 1!scd in our tl,.n.lng'
pro.!';!'a," mL!;ht be us('!'1l1 tr inl t'(I'duccct ln thCl kindcl"l!;<lrtew classroorns
:in
Corder
to
\,vclop
ani\\pi.s
anivi,.tic,s
jn
.chilclren
and LH'ing
them progrcss inly to
tlie knowle~s;c
Qf the
pllOn~t.ic
units
Qf
spr:'ccb.
ilast
of rlw
rive
}'enrs
"id h.ave tll~ cognit-lvc
capaciti"s"
nU\!SSill')'
to
acq\lirl~
tllose
s\d \.ls.
11,(' question
IiOW j" to 1!nC>w
m(1fC
j't'cciscly-.;
which
actlv;tic!l
al'cmosJ
mlcqll.1tc
to
hdng
Clli J ,11'('11 t Cl all;r l)'?,(. ~l'r rdl a t Ilw l'h UJ le' 1 ic .1 ('V.!' 1

ABSTRACT
](indergartner~
W8r'8
tested
071'
theil'
ahi)_.ityto
segment
at
the phonetic
Levei.. be{ot'eand.
after '<1 fo= GeCIl'L.ollZ
training
proaedure.7'hrJ
testll
ccmuisted
of deLetion
orthe
litiat
phone
of uttered
pseudo-word:l,
either
Q
uowe~, a ft'icatire
or
a 'ptauiue.
~'he trl:ttting
wo!ued
games re,<f!.t'tg
to cto.ss1~f!j
and ta manipulate
I.'ord.'l at thr; plionetic
teueL,
']'11e e:r:pel"{mentat:,
groupcr
tmpl'oued
thoir
pel'[ornunce
ITIOJ'C
thcJ.n the control
g1'oup
on th!] c(:JttUO!iant
aetetwn
teGte;
1'/1P. acq1-tiredabiHtll
was
!lot
spet!ij'ic
ta the' plwT1eo used during
training and wcis stilL prssent
8W:: mont/'ll
tata]'.
ft
iOCOrlC ~udea' tha.t pilonetirJ
alkltysio ski Un
ca.n /Je ~etV7led before
the. beginning
of format
readinq
teac/1ing.

WOl'd6

REFERENCES
ft fIOI\A1S,J.
Le dveloppement
de l'babilet
d'analyse
i.qlll:! c-nH.i ('nt (' de la par'ol.e
et 1\ appren ti s"mge dl:! la
lecture.
AI'cJ/IJes
de PsyclwLog1:4,
1979, 183, 251-270.

ALJ;:CR l A , J.,
rbtl11,',t

nRUCf.,

l,.J. TllC ;\I\aly~l'i'(1.r


",Qr..is S\)Ulld'\
J01l!'no~ of r;dwcatiOlJa~ P:.Iychoogy,

Ily yO\l\1g dI.ren.

1964, 31, 158-170.

Dl'itis)1

Development

COLEflAN,
E.n.
Journat

'Colleeting
~
of EducatiO'lai

2].

FOX,

sc~mentation

do.tn btLse for' a rcarllll)!;


tcr:hnolog}'.
P8!1cho~ogy Monqgraph,
1970, 61"
4, 1_

..

In J. Downin!l; (Ed.),
Hucmillan,
1973, ,551-57,9.

ComparQtive

!J. fi . USSR.

ELKONHI,
.

cf phonetic

YOl'k:'

IL,

&'ROUTfl,'

O.K.

and

syllablc~

Psychotinguistic

language

spollen

Il devdop'm~nt;J.1

Research,

1975,

New

intl1

!>tudy.

'""onls,
o{

,JOI""lClt

4, 4, 331-342.

aud i t i vo-rhont
iqll(,
n';cc ssai n
lire
: la fLJsion sylJ.abi 'lllr..
NO\l\'elle
entre 5 et 8 ans. cnfarwe,
1975,,2,
1('5-lnl1.

LEROY- lIOUSSION J
fi.
pour appremtrc

tude

IInaIyzin!;\

phoTlcmcs:

reading.

Unehabilet

gntique

LIBERHi\N,

A.H.,
COOPER,!'.::;.,
fI. Perception
of the
74, 431-461.

SHI\NKWEILER, 0.1'.,
&. STU[)D!';HT-KENNI~[)\',
code. PSllcllO~ogi"aLRe!Jiew,
11)67,

speech

LIBERHAN,
LY.,
& SHANKWEILER,
D. P.
Speec:h,
ttle
al rlJab t
ilnd
teachlng
ta
~cad.
l~
L.
Rcsnick
and
l'.' \l'caver
(f:d~.),
Theory and Practice
of r;al'~y Reading.
Hillsdalc,
N. J.:
Law'-

rente

Assac., 1976.

Erlbaum

LIDEHHAN,

l.Y.,
Sfii\NKWEILF;R,
Reading
and the <lwarcncss
G.,

HINf.Cl,

f,.,

IL.!.

III W(H'lls.
fin, 74R-753.

l'hOlrCIIIC.~

1977,
MOHAIS, L,

CARY,L.,

of

~peech

fISIll,

LW.,

as

of

pl'cschoClI

Tr'aillin~
JOlIr'/ln ,.

ALE.CIUA,
.sequence

J.,

&

of

chi.lttrell

F;d!wot

o}'

Eaucationa~

J'.,

ROSIIl,

SIMON,

&

report.

SAVIN,

H.B.
ta

JO/,na

Wbat

hilrn ta

Language
319-.326.

Reuiew,

iOllaL

reacl.

child
ln

t 971,

'knaws
J,

by e(Il" a'ld by eye.

!'C'coI;Tlize

l'lrw~11O 10011,

UClnELSON,
P. Does aWal'ell-(,SS
ar:ise spontuneously
?

41,'

English

of

ahout

test:
.111 irlltial
197 J, '1" 3R4-39.2 ..
whcn 'hc
stnrts
~lattinl;ly
(Elis.),
M. 1. T. l're SS, 1972,

speech

Ka\'flnngh'and
Cumbridge

~lo~ology.

1-34.

D.P.
The auditory
nnn)ysis
af [,ear>ling [)isabitittes,

the

to

D.
of

phones

Cognition, 1979, 7,123-3.11.


READ, .~. Prc-ichool,
childrcn's
knowlcd~e
Hill"vard

CAHTER"
JournaL

'"

linguistic
segmcnts.
ChiLd Psyahotogy,
1974, ]8, 201-212.

Experimenta!
Hi\!~SIl,

D.P.,

L
:

SKJELf'JORD,
V. Teaching
cbildren
to segment
spoken
aid .in Tearning
ta nad.
JOli.rna~ of Learning
1976, ?, 297-306.

words as
DisabUitiBs,

an

SLOllIN,

D.l.
il case
study
of early
language
'\h'ilrene~s.
ln A.
Sinclair,
R.J. JilrYeJla
&, W.J.N.
Levdt
(Eds.),
J'lu] chiId's
concE!ption
of Za'lguage. Oerlin
: Springer-Ver1ag,
1978,45-'i4.
The
de~elopmCrJt
of analysis
of
WDI-ds
into
thci r
bypreschool
children.
ln C.A.
Fcrguson
ilnd D;1.
S.Lobin
(Eds. )', Studies
of
chi Zd
language
deve ~opment.
New York:
lIolt,
[U,nchart
and Winston
Ille.,
1973.

ZIIUROVA,

L. '(.

scunds

!1Jtide

reu Le 15 fvrier

1982