VERIFICACIÓN DE LA HIPÓTESIS ESPECÍFICA 3

Phonetic transcription entails using special symbols to create a precise written record of an individual’s speech.

The symbols that are most commonly used are those of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), first developed in the 1880s by European phoneticians. Their goal was to provide a di¤erent symbol for each unique sound, that is, to achieve a one-to-one correspondence between sound and symbol. For example, because [s]

and [S ] are phonemically distinct in some languages, such as English, they are represented di¤erently in the phonetic alphabet. Thus, the elongated s is used for the voiceless palatoalveolar fricative, as in [Su]), to dif-ferentiate it from the voiceless alveolar fricative, as in [su].

The IPA has undergone several revisions since its in-ception but remains essentially unchanged. In the famil-iar consonant chart, symbols for pulmonic consonants are organized according to place of articulation, manner of articulation, and voicing. Nonpulmonic consonants, such as clicks and ejectives, are listed separately, as are vowels, which are shown in a typical vowel quadrangle.

Symbols for suprasegmentals, such as length and tone, are also provided, as are numerous diacritics, such as [s"]

for a dentalized [s].

The most recent version of the complete IPA chart can be found in the Handbook of the International Phonetic Association (IPA, 1999) as well as in a num-ber of phonetics books (e.g., Ladefoged, 2001; Small, 1999). Illustrations of the sounds of the IPA are avail-able through various sources, such as Ladefoged (2001) and Wells and House (1995). In addition, training materials and phonetic fonts can be downloaded from the Internet. Some new computers now come equipped with ‘‘Unicode’’ phonetic symbols.

Although extensive, the IPA does not capture all of the variations that have been observed in children’s speech. For this reason, some child/clinical phonologists have proposed additional symbols and diacritics (e.g., Bush et al., 1973; Edwards, 1986; Shriberg and Kent, 2003). The extended IPA (extIPA) was adopted by the International Clinical Phonetics and Linguistics Associ-ation (ICPLA) Executive Committee in 1994 to assist in and standardize the transcription of atypical speech (e.g., Duckworth et al., 1990). The extIPA includes symbols for sounds that do not occur in ‘‘natural’’ languages, such as labiodental and interdental plosives, as well as many diacritics, such as for denasalized and unaspirated sounds. It also includes symbols for transcribing con-nected speech (e.g., sequences of quiet speech, fast or slow speech), as well as ways to mark features such as silent articulation. Descriptions and examples can be found in Ball, Rahilly, and Tench (1996) and Powell (2001).

When transcribing child or disordered speech, it is sometimes impossible to identify the exact nature of a segment. In such cases, ‘‘cover symbols’’ may be used.

These symbols consist of capital letters to represent ma-jor sound classes, modified with appropriate diacritics.

Thus, an unidentifiable voiceless fricative can be tran-scribed with a capital F and a small under-ring for voicelessness (e.g., Stoel-Gammon, 2001).

Relatively little attention has been paid to the tran-scription of vowels in children’s speech (see, however, Pollock and Berni, 2001). Even less attention has been paid to the transcription of suprasegmentals or prosodic features. Examples of relevant IPA and extIPA symbols appear in Powell (2001), and Snow (2001) illustrates special symbols for intonation.

Broad or ‘‘phonemic’’ transcriptions, which capture only the basic segments, are customarily written in slashes (virgules), as in /paI/ or /tElPfon/. ‘‘Narrow’’ or

‘‘close’’ transcriptions, which often include diacritics, are written in square brackets. A narrow transcription more accurately represents actual pronunciation, whether cor-rect or incorcor-rect, as in [p^haI ] for pie, with aspiration on the initial voiceless stop, or a young child’s rendition of star as [t¼aU ] or fish as [FIs].

How narrow a transcription needs to be in any given situation depends on factors such as the purpose of the transcription, the skill of the transcriber, and the amount of time available. As Powell (2001) points out, basic IPA symbols are su‰cient for some clinical purposes, for ex-ample, if a client’s consonant repertoire is a subset of the standard inventory. A broad transcription is generally adequate to capture error patterns that involve deletion, such as final consonant deletion or cluster reduction, as well as those that involve substitutions of one sound class for another, such as gliding of liquids or stopping of fricatives.

If no detail is included in a transcription, however, the analyst may miss potentially important aspects of the production. For instance, if a child fails to aspirate ini-tial voiceless stops, the unaspirated stops should be transcribed with the appropriate (extIPA) diacritic (e.g., [p¼], [t¼], as in [p¼i] for pea). Such stops can easily be mistaken for the corresponding voiced stops and erro-neously transcribed as [b], [d], and so on. The clinician might then decide to work on initial voicing, using min-imal pairs such as pea and bee. This could be frustrating for a child who is already making a subtle (but incorrect) contrast, for example, between [p¼] and [b].

To give another example, a child who is deleting final consonants may retain some features of the deleted con-sonants as ‘‘marking’’ on the preceding vowel, for in-stance, vowel lengthening (if voiced obstruents are deleted) or nasalization (if nasal consonants are deleted).

Unless the vowels are transcribed narrowly, the analyst may miss important distinctions, such as between [bi]

(beet), [bi:] (bead ), and [bi~] (bean).

Stoel-Gammon (2001) suggests using diacritics only when they provide additional information, not when they represent adultlike use of sounds. For example, if a vowel is nasalized preceding a nasal consonant, the na-salization would not need to be transcribed. However, if a vowel is nasalized in the absence of a nasal consonant, as in the preceding example, or if inappropriate nasal-ization is observed, a narrow transcription is crucial.

Phonetic transcription became increasingly important for speech-language pathologists with the widespread acceptance of phonological assessment procedures in the 1980s and 1990s. Traditional articulation tests (e.g., Goldman and Fristoe, 1969) did not require much tran-scription. Errors were classified as substitutions, omis-sions, or distortions, and only the substitutions were transcribed. Therefore, no narrow transcription was involved.

In order to describe patterns in children’s speech, it is necessary to transcribe their errors. Moreover, most

phonological assessment procedures require whole word transcription (e.g., Hodson, 1980; Khan and Lewis, 1986), so that phonological processes involving more than one segment, such as assimilation (as in [gvk] for truck), can be more easily discerned. (In fact, Shriberg and Kwiatkowski, 1980, use continuous speech samples, necessitating transcription of entire utterances.)

To facilitate whole word transcription, some clinical phonologists, such as Hodson (1980) and Louko and Edwards (2001), recommend writing out broad tran-scriptions of target words (e.g., /trvk/) ahead of time and modifying them ‘‘on line’’ for a tentative live transcrip-tion that can be verified or refined by reviewing a tape of the session. Although this makes the transcription pro-cess more e‰cient, it can also lead the transcriber to mishear sounds or to ‘‘hear’’ sounds that are not there (Oller and Eilers, 1975). Louko and Edwards (2001) provide suggestions for counteracting the negative e¤ects of such expectation.

If a speech-language pathologist is going to expend the time and energy necessary to complete a phonologi-cal analysis that is maximally useful, the transcription on which it is based must be as accurate and reliable as possible. Ideally, the testing session should be audio- or video-recorded on high-quality tapes and using the best equipment available, and it should take place in a quiet environment, free of distractions (see Stoel-Gammon, 2001). Because some sounds are di‰cult to transcribe accurately from an audiotape (e.g., unreleased final stops), it is advisable to do some transcribing on-line.

One way to enhance the accuracy of a transcription is to transcribe with a partner or to find a colleague who is willing to provide input on di‰cult items. ‘‘Transcrip-tion by consensus’’ (Shriberg, Kwiatkowski, and Ho¤-man, 1984), although impractical in some settings, is an excellent way to derive a transcription and to sharpen one’s skills. This involves two or more people transcrib-ing a sample at the same time, worktranscrib-ing independently, then listening together to resolve disagreements.

Sometimes it is desirable to assess the reliability of a transcription. For intrajudge reliability, the tran-scriber relistens to a portion of the sample at some later time and compares the two transcriptions on a sound-by-sound basis, determining a percent of ‘‘point-to-point’’ agreement. The same procedure may be used for determining interjudge reliability, except that a second listener’s judgments are compared with those of the first transcriber. Reliability rates for children’s speech vary greatly, depending on factors such as the type of sample (connected speech or single words) and how narrow the transcription is, with reliability rates being higher for broad transcription (see Cucchiarini, 1996; Shriberg and Lof, 1991). Alternative methods of assessing tran-scription agreement may sometimes be appropriate. For instance, in assessing the phonetic inventories of young children, Stoel-Gammon (2001) suggests measuring agreement of features (place or manner) rather than identity of segments.

People who spend long hours transcribing children’s speech often look forward to the day when accurate Phonetic Transcription of Children’s Speech 151

computer transcription will become a reality. Although computer programs may be developed to make tran-scription more objective and time-e‰cient, speech-language pathologists will continue to engage in the transcription process because of what can be learned through carefully listening to and trying to capture the subtleties of a person’s speech. Therefore, phonetic transcription is likely to remain an essential skill for anyone engaged in assessing and remediating speech sound disorders.

—Mary Louise Edwards

References

Ball, M. J., Rahilly, J., and Tench, P. (1996). The phonetic transcription of disordered speech. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group.

Bush, C. N., Edwards, M. L., Luckau, J. M., Stoel, C. M., Macken, M. A., and Peterson, J. D. (1973). On specifying a system for transcribing consonants in child language.

Unpublished manuscript, Committee on Linguistics, Stan-ford University, StanStan-ford, CA.

Cucchiarini, C. (1996). Assessing transcription agreement:

Methodological aspects. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 10, 131–155.

Duckworth, M., Allen, G., Hardcastle, W. J., and Ball, M. J.

(1990). Extensions to the International Phonetic Alphabet for the transcription of atypical speech. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 4, 273–280.

Edwards, M. L. (1986). Introduction to applied phonetics: Lab-oratory workbook. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Goldman, R., and Fristoe, M. (1969). Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Hodson, B. W. (1980). The Assessment of Phonological Pro-cesses. Danville, IL: Interstate Printers and Publishers.

International Clinical Phonetics and Linguistics Association Executive Committee. (1994). The extIPA chart. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 24, 95–98.

International Phonetic Association. (1999). Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A guide to the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Cambridge, UK: Cam-bridge University Press.

Khan, L. M. L., and Lewis, N. (1986). Khan-Lewis pho-nological analysis. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Ladefoged, P. (2001). A course in phonetics (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers.

Ladefoged, P. (2001). Vowels and consonants: An introduction to the sounds of languages. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Louko, L. J., and Edwards, M. L. (2001). Issues in collecting and transcribing speech samples. Topics in Language Dis-orders, 21, 1–11.

Oller, D. K., and Eilers, R. E. (1975). Phonetic expectation and transcription validity. Phonetica, 31, 288–304.

Pollock, K. E., and Berni, M. C. (2001). Transcription of vowels. Topics in Language Disorders, 21, 22–41.

Powell, T. (2001). Phonetic transcription of disordered speech.

Topics in Language Disorders, 21, 53–73.

Shriberg, L. D., and Kent, R. D. (2003). Clinical phonetics (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Shriberg, L. D., and Kwiatkowski, J. (1980). Natural process analysis. New York: Wiley.

Shriberg, L. D., Kwiatkowski, J., and Ho¤man, K. (1984). A procedure for phonetic transcription by consensus. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 27, 456–465.

Shriberg, L. D., and Lof, G. L. (1991). Reliability studies in broad and narrow phonetic transcription. Clinical Linguis-tics and PhoneLinguis-tics, 5, 225–279.

Small, L. H. (1999). Phonetics: A practical guide for students.

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Snow, D. (2001). Transcription of suprasegmentals. Topics in Language Disorders, 21(4), 42–52.

Stoel-Gammon, C. (2001). Transcribing the speech of young children. Topics in Language Disorders, 21(4), 12–21.

Wells, J., and House, J. (1995). The sounds of the International Phonetic Alphabet. London: Department of Phonetics and Linguistics, University College London.

Further Readings

Amorosa, H., von Benda, U., and Keck, A. (1985). Tran-scribing phonetic detail in the speech of unintelligible chil-dren: A comparison of procedures. British Journal of Disorders of Communication, 20, 281–287.

Ball, M. J. (1991). Recent developments in the transcription of non-normal speech. Journal of Communication Disorders, 24, 59–78.

Ball, M. J. (1993). Phonetics for speech pathology (2nd ed.).

London: Whurr.

Ball, M. J., Code, C., Rahilly, J., and Hazelett, D. (1994).

Non-segmental aspects of disordered speech: Develop-ments in transcription. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 8, 67–83.

Bernhardt, B., and Ball, M. J. (1993). Characteristics of atypi-cal speech currently not included in the Extension to the IPA. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 23, 35–38.

Bronstein, A. J. (Ed.). (1988). Conference papers on American English and the International Phonetic Alphabet. Tusca-loosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

Compton, A. J., and Hutton, S. (1980). Phonetics for children’s misarticulations. San Francisco: Carousel House.

Edwards, H. T. (1997). Applied Phonetics: The Sounds of American English (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Singular Pub-lishing Group.

Grunwell, P., and Harding, A. (1996). A note on describing types of nasality. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 10, 157–161.

Johnson, K. (1997). Acoustic and auditory phonetics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Ladefoged, P., and Maddieson, I. (1996). The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Laver, J. (1994). Principles of phonetics. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Lehiste, I. (1970). Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Louko, L. J., and Edwards, M. L. (Eds.). (2001). Collecting and transcribing speech samples: Enhancing phonological analysis. Topics in Language Disorders, 21(4).

Maassen, B., O¤erninga, S., Vieregge, W., and Thoonen, G.

(1996). Transcription of pathological speech in children by means of extIPA: Agreement and relevance. In T. Powell (Ed.), Pathologies of speech and language: Contributions of clinical phonetics and linguistics (pp. 37–43). New Orleans, LA: ICPLA.

Mackay, I. (1987). Phonetics: The science of speech production (2nd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown.

Paden, E. P. (1989). Excercises in phonetic transcription: A programmed workbook (2nd ed.). Woburn, MA: Butter-worth-Heinemann.

PRDS. (1983). The Phonetic Representation of Disordered Speech: Final report. London: King’s Fund.

Pullum, G. K., and Ladusaw, W. A. (1996). Phonetic symbol guide (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Shriberg, L., Hinke, R., and Trost-Ste¤en, C. (1987). A proce-dure to select and train persons for narrow phonetic tran-scription by consensus. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 1, 171–189.

Vieregge, W. H., and Maassen, B. (1999). ExtIPA transcrip-tions of consonants and vowels spoken by dyspractic children: Agreement and validity. In B. Maassen and P.

Groenen (Eds.), Pathologies of speech and language:

Advances in clinical phonetics and linguistics (pp. 275–284).

London: Whurr.