Vocal category development in human infancy: A commentary on giulivi et al.'s critique of the frames, then content model
Abstract
This is a commentary on the article (this issue) by Giulivi, Whalen, Goldstein, Nam, and Levitt (GW) and on the Frames, then Content (FC) theory that the article critiques. The commentary agrees with GW that the FC theory has not been adequately supported by data to show a developmental pattern of reduction in "frame dominance" across human infancy. The commentary elaborates on another apparent problem highlighted by GW, that is, while expected-to-observed ratios of syllable types appear to support FC theory, raw frequency data (at least the ones from GW) seem to contradict it. The commentary also argues that phonetic transcription, the primary method of the FC model and the critique by GW, has limited reliability and validity and should not be utilized in early vocal development research without additional methods for interpretive guidance. Another weakness of the FC theory, as formulated, is that it offers no useful way to portray precanonical vocal development, which appears to be critical to subsequent development relevant to speech. © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Publication Title
Language Learning and Development
Recommended Citation
Oller, D. (2011). Vocal category development in human infancy: A commentary on giulivi et al.'s critique of the frames, then content model. Language Learning and Development, 7 (3), 226-233. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2011.564570
