speech errors

• Constructed scripts
• Multilingual Pages

Speech Errors and What They Reveal About Language

“They misunderestimated me,” George W. Bush notoriously proclaimed in a 2000 speech about his surprise victory over rival John McCain. This represented just one of many speech errors that George W. Bush would make in his career as president, but it highlights an important point: nobody speaks perfectly, even high-profile politicians who are well-versed in public speaking and have presumably rehearsed their speeches extensively.

By far the most well-known speech errors are Freudian slips, in which the speaker unintentionally reveals his true feelings, breaking his facade of politeness and resulting in an all-around embarrassing situation. For example, a father, upon meeting his son-in-law, might accidentally utter “ Mad to meet you” instead of “Glad to meet you”. Indeed, Freudian slips are entertaining, but they represent only a small sliver of actual speech mistakes that people make.

At face value, real-life speech errors may be less entertaining than Freudian slips. However, the insights they give us regarding our mental lexicon and cognitive underpinnings of language are anything but commonplace. Let’s review some of the most common speech errors, and pick them apart to see what they reveal about how we understand and process language.

Phonological errors

Some speech errors are phonological , or relating to the sounds of a language. Though there are a myriad of ways in which people can pronounce words wrong, we will look at two very common phonological errors: anticipation and perseveration . Perseveration occurs when a sound from a previous word sneaks its way onto a later word. Here are some examples of perseveration:

• He was kicking around a tin tan (instead of tin can ).
• They found a hundred dollar dill (instead of dollar bill ).

Anticipation is the opposite of perseveration: it occurs when a speaker mistakenly uses a sound from a word that is coming later in the utterance. Some examples:

• She drank a cot cup of tea (instead of hot cup of tea).
• He was wearing a weather wristband (instead of leather wristband ).

It’s easy to intuit what is going on with perseveration errors: our tongues, faced with the daunting task of producing many different sounds in very little time, simply got confused, and produced the sound from a previous word. However, anticipation errors -- in which we incorrectly use the sound from a word that hasn’t yet been uttered -- suggest that there is something else going on.

Indeed, linguists have taken the existence of anticipation errors to suggest that our brains plan out all of our utterances, even when we are speaking spontaneously. That is, even before we start speaking, the entire sentence is available on some basic level in our brains. For that reason, words that have not yet been spoken can contaminate our speech and produce anticipation errors.

Substitution errors

Another common type of error occurs when speakers substitute an entire word for a different word that is distinct from the intended one. Here are some examples:

• My CV is too long (instead of short ).
• Look at that cute little dog (instead of cat ).

As the above examples suggest, the erroneously substituted word is not random. Instead, most substitution errors share a few common traits. First, the substituted word and the intended word are almost always of the same syntactic class -- “short” and “long” are both adjectives; “dog” and “cat” are both nouns. You would rarely hear someone say, “My CV is too job”, or “Look at that cute little furry”. Second, the substituted word and the intended word usually share common semantic ground. “Short” and “long” are both measures of length; “dog” and “cat” are both furry pets. It’d be unlikely for someone to accidentally say, “My CV is too green”, or “Look at that cute little boat”.

This suggests that words are structured in our brains with respect to both syntax -- what part of speech the word us -- and semantics -- what words mean. For this reason, substitution errors almost always occur among words that are syntactically and semantically similar.

Foreign-language errors

Most studies about speech errors are conducted with speakers using their native language. However, there has been some research regarding the different types of speech errors made by native speakers and those who learned a language later in life. Unsurprisingly, non-native speakers commit, on average, more errors than their native-speaking counterparts. However, when examining the types of mistakes that native and non-native speakers made, some interesting patterns emerged.

Non-native speakers occasionally substitute words from their first language into their second language. For example, a native English speaker who is learning Spanish might say, “That es importante”, using the English word “that” instead of the Spanish equivalent “eso”. However, these substitutions were not random . They occurred mostly in function words -- that is, words like articles (“the”, “a”) and prepositions (“with”, “to”), which are grammatically necessary but do not offer any meaning on their own.

Therefore, using the above example, the English speaker would be more likely to say “You quiero a hamburguesa”, given that “a” is a function word. These errors suggest that function words are more deeply hard-wired into our brains than other words. It could also explain why topics involving function words -- such as proper use of articles, conjunctions, and prepositions -- often present a special challenge to language learners.

Ultimately, there’s a lot more to speech errors than Freudian slips. Indeed, slips of the tongue may not be quite as revealing of our inner desires as Freud might have thought, but they remain interesting in their own right. They demonstrate to us that we construct plans for our utterances, even in spontaneous speech when we’re not conscious of it. They show us that our brains categorize words based on their syntactic and semantic attributes. And they demonstrate to us that certain classes of words are more ingrained in our brains than others, which offers insight into second language learning and processing.

About the writer

Paul writes on behalf of Language Trainers , a language tutoring service offering personalized course packages to individuals and groups. Check out their free foreign language listening tests and other resources on their website. Visit their Facebook page or contact [email protected] with any questions.

Writing systems | Language and languages | Language learning | Pronunciation | Learning vocabulary | Language acquisition | Motivation and reasons to learn languages | Arabic | Basque | Celtic languages | Chinese | English | Esperanto | French | German | Greek | Hebrew | Indonesian | Italian | Japanese | Korean | Latin | Portuguese | Russian | Sign Languages | Spanish | Swedish | Other languages | Minority and endangered languages | Constructed languages (conlangs) | Reviews of language courses and books | Language learning apps | Teaching languages | Languages and careers | Being and becoming bilingual | Language and culture | Language development and disorders | Translation and interpreting | Multilingual websites, databases and coding | History | Travel | Food | Other topics | Spoof articles | How to submit an article

728x90 (Best VPN)

Why not share this page:

If you like this site and find it useful, you can support it by making a donation via PayPal or Patreon , or by contributing in other ways . Omniglot is how I make my living.

Get a 30-day Free Trial of Amazon Prime (UK)

If you're looking for home or car insurance in the UK, why not try Policy Expert ?

• Learn languages quickly
• One-to-one Chinese lessons
• Learn languages with Varsity Tutors
• Green Web Hosting
• Daily bite-size stories in Mandarin
• EnglishScore Tutors
• English Like a Native
• Learn French Online
•   Learn languages with MosaLingua
• Learn languages with Ling
• Find Visa information for all countries
• Writing systems
• Con-scripts
• Useful phrases
• Language learning
• Multilingual pages
• Advertising

Psycholinguistics/Speech Errors

• 1.1 An Overview of Speech Errors
• 1.2 Phoneme Errors
• 1.3 Beyond vowels and consonants
• 1.4 Syllable Errors
• 1.5 Morpheme Errors
• 1.6 Affix Substitution
• 1.7 Syllable Stress
• 1.8 Freudian Slips
• 2.1 Phonotactic Regularity Effect
• 2.2 Consonant-Vowel Category Effect
• 2.3 Initialness Effect
• 2.4 Syllabic Constituent Effect
• 3 Footnotes
• 4 References
• 5.4.1 Part 1
• 5.4.2 Part 2

Errors in Speech Production [ edit | edit source ]

“A Tanadian from Toronto”. We are all guilty of producing such speech errors and other slips of the tongue in our day-to-day communications. Speech errors have long been a source of amusement for many, a source of frustration for some, and more recently a source of serious study in the field of psychology. Although these errors are good for a laugh now and then, they prove to be of much greater value to the field of linguistics. Speech errors are providing linguists with insight into the mechanisms behind speech production. There are limitations to how much is available for study; the process of speech production is largely inaccessible for observation. However, by analyzing errors individually and in the context of their surroundings, we may better learn the underlying mechanisms that occur to produce our speech, and investigate the reality of speech production units in word formation [1] . This chapter will introduce the different types of commonly documented speech errors, the rules that govern error-generation, and how these errors provide insight into some of the proposed speech production models. The nature of speech errors in this chapter will be based on speakers who have no pre-existing speech delays or disorders. These are errors made by speakers whose language and speech production systems are thought to be fully intact. First, let us start by introducing the smaller errors and then work our way up through a hierarchy based on size of units subject to the error.

An Overview of Speech Errors [ edit | edit source ]

Early estimates suggested upwards of 10 000 different speech errors are committed in the English language [2] . These errors have become the source of investigation and experimentation in search of explanation of the basic processes that conduct speech production; from the basic stages of planning to the finished motor plan that produces audible speech [3] . A preliminary finding from error observations is that errors occur mainly within the same level of speech production rather than between levels of production. For example, this means in the occurrence of units being exchanged that one phoneme will change with another phoneme, but will not change with a syllable as it is a speech unit existing on a separate level of production [4] . First, let us familiarize ourselves with nine commonly documented speech errors:

Addition: adding a unit

Anticipation: a later speech unit takes place of an earlier one

Blends: two speech units are combined

Deletion: a unit is deleted

Exchange: two units swap positions

Misdeviation: a wrong unit is attached to a word

Perseveration: speech unit is activated too late

Shift: affix changes location

Substitution: unit is changed into a different unit

All different types of speech units are victims of speech error. Above we see changes in features, syllables, morphemes, affixes, words, and syntax. It must be acknowledged that classification of errors is no easy task as some errors are co-occur between different units of speech. Classification can at times be ambiguous. For example, an error such as "hit the spot" (as opposed to the intended word pot ) could be considered a phoneme addition, or also a word substitution.

Phoneme Errors [ edit | edit source ]

Errors made at the level of the phoneme, whether it be substitution, addition, deletion, or any others for that matter, are by far the most common speech errors [1] . An error at this level can occur within a word but more frequently will occur between separate words. The majority of these phonemic errors are anticipations , in which a substitution occurs of a sound that is supposed to occur later in the sentence. In this case, the speaker produces the target phoneme earlier than intended and it interferes with the intended original phoneme; the interfering segment follows the error.

a) also share→ alsho share

b) sea shanty→ she shanty

Second in frequency to phonemic anticipation errors are perseverance errors (the interfering segment precedes the error), which are as follows:

a) walk the beach→walk the beak

b) Sally gave the boy→Sally gave the goy

The very nature of these errors, and the fact that they occur indicate that speech is well planned before it is articulated. As words get confused, like we saw above, we could speculate that all words of a sentence exist as part of a single representation in production and are therefore susceptible to being mixed at that stage in planning. Of course this is intuitive as a sentence could not be created if words were held as separate representations; at some point down then line the words must be integrated and related to create and complete the sentence. Dell et al., [5] noted a difference between perseverations and anticipations depending on the context of the sentence. If one is speaking a novel sentence, they are more prone to perseverations, where as anticipations are more common amongst practiced and recited phrases [6] .

Another possible phonemic error is the exchange of two segments, where the order of sound segments gets changed. Exchange errors have been interpreted as the possible combination of an anticipation and a perseverance [1] .

a) feed the dog→ deed the fog

b) left hemisphere→ heft lemisphere

These phonological errors always involve the exchange of like units; a vowel exchanges with a vowel and a consonant with another consonant. Never is there an exchange between a vowel and a consonant. This is known as the consonant-vowel category effect [6] .

Beyond vowels and consonants [ edit | edit source ]

All of the above examples involved the anticipation, perservation, or exchange of single segments. Errors consisted of small segments such as a vowel or a consonant. These individuals segments can further be combined. As individual segments, two consonants can be transposed. By addition of a consonant to a word, a cluster can be produced as opposed to an intended single segment, as follows:

Fish grotto→ Frish gotto

This is similar in all respects to the previously shown single segmented errors, the only difference now being that the affected segment has become a consonant cluster. A cluster however is not a single unit in speech production, but consists of a sequence of separable segments.

Syllable Errors [ edit | edit source ]

Although our focus on speech errors has thus far been on small-segment phonemic errors, this does not mean that errors amongst phonemes are the only source of speech error. Larger than phonemes are syllables that are also units of speech performance and susceptible to error. Nooteboom (1969) [7] was the first to suggest that syllables could be a unit of measure in speech programming. He found that speech errors generally occur within seven syllables distance between the origin and target. This corresponds and fits with our understanding of a short-term memory span that allows us to comfortably remember seven consecutive items [1] . Anything beyond this magic number of seven becomes challenging. Nooteboom supported the notion that segmental slips yield to a structural law of syllable placement. If we have two words, each with an equal amount of syllables, the corresponding syllables will be the ones to exchange in the event of an error. The first syllable of the origin word will replace the first syllable of the target word. Likewise, the final syllable of the origin word will exchange with the final syllable of the target word.

Moran and Fader→ Morer and Fadan

In further support of syllables being a unit of articulation, syllabic errors also occur as blends, substitutions, deletions, and additions.

Tremendously→tremenly (deletion of syllable)

Shout+yell= shell (blending of syllables)

Morpheme Errors [ edit | edit source ]

As we continue up our hierarchy of speech units, we now see that units of meaning are susceptible to speech errors. Such errors tend to happen subsequent to the syntactic planning of the sentence [1] . Even units as large as an entire word can be subject to an error such as exchange .

Bowl of soup→soup of bowl

Plant the seeds→plan the seats

Substitutions and exchanges of whole words occur but do so with like-constituents. A noun will take place of a noun, and the same goes for an adjective or verb. When there is a change in word placement but no change in morphemes, the error is said to consist of inflectional morphemes. However, when the root of the words remains and there is an error due to a morpheme addition or substitution, the error is known as a derivational morpheme error.

Bed time→time bed (inflectional)

Easily enough→easy enoughly (derivational)

Such derivational speech errors show that semantic intentions are intact, however, the choice of semantic features has been incorrect. Substitutions can also occur where the substituted word is structurally similar but semantically different from the intended word [1] .

Affix Substitution [ edit | edit source ]

He was very productive→ he was very productful

Documentation of errors involving word affixes provides us with insight as to how words are stored and later produced in speech. An error such as the one above leads one to believe that the word 'productive' may be stored in the mental lexicon as two separate constituents. It is possible that the correct version is stored as product + ive, which is suggestive of rules for word formation. From such errors we may infer that there exists separate vocabularies for stems and affixes. The improper pairing of an affix (product+ful) then leads to a word that is impermissible by the rules of our language. This evidence supports the hypothesis that affixes are a source of speech error and that they may exist as a separate component of one’s lexicon [8] .

Syllable Stress [ edit | edit source ]

In articulation of a sentence, there is a segment of primary stress at which one syllable will be stressed more than the others. Regardless of whether it is a vowel, a whole syllable, part of a syllable, or even a whole word being involved in substitution, the pattern of stress within the sentence does not change. Take for example the following error:

How great things were→ how things were great

In articulation of a sentence, there is a segment of primary stress at which one syllable will be stressed more than the others. Boomer and Laver suggest that despite an error of word exchange, the position of the primary stress in the sentence remains the same (in this case on the second word of the sentence) [1] .

Freudian Slips [ edit | edit source ]

Freud focused on the common errors we make in our day-to-day processes and made these errors a central point of his studies. Verbal errors (or more commonly: slips of the tongue) have since been titled Freudian slips. These are errors in speech (or memory and physical action) that are said to occur due to the interference of an unconscious wish, need, or thought. For example, a man calling his spouse by the name of his previous partner.

At first glance, Freudian slips seem like a gold mine for speech error research, however, they pose some difficulty in regards to research with the model of speech production. With our current linguistic tools, we are unable to tap into the unconscious processes of language production [6] . With no access; we do not know the intentions that lie behind these errors, unlike the other speech errors we previously examined. Therefore, we cannot make any inference about these errors. To use these slips would require a vast knowledge of the inner-self of the speaker, something that is currently largely inaccessible. Until we develop such methods to do so, this resource of unconscious errors will remain largely untapped.

Speech errors in support of Language Production Models [ edit | edit source ]

A general consensus exists amongst linguistic theorists that words and sentences exist as a combination of structure and content. A complete sentence requires words to create meaning, and that the syntax and relation amongst words be permissible within the language. Meaning and syntax reflect content and structure, respectively. The content of words contains a series of phonological features and the structure entails the combination of these features into larger units of speech organization. Modern psychological theories stress the importance of separation between structure and content. Chomsky (1957) [9] stated that creating a sentence requires different levels of representation. Agreeing with later theorists, it is suggested that a semantic representation is created first. Succeeding this representation are two linguistic representations, one with syntactic information and the other with phonological information. These representations are what eventually direct motor activity in the production of speech [10] . The following evidence from speech provide support for this theory of language production:

Phonotactic Regularity Effect [ edit | edit source ]

Errors at the level of the phoneme habitually end up being sound sequences that are possible within the rules of that given spoken language. This effect was established to be the “first law” of speech errors by Wells (1951) [10] and has been a central focus of speech error research since. There are,however, violations to this first law. There are 37 found examples of violations (Stemberger 1983) [10] , but this amounts to less than one percent of all noted phonological speech errors [10] . This proves the phonotactic regularity effect to be significant as its prevalence is seen in such a vast majority (99%) of errors.

a) A reading list→ a leading list (no violation of English rule)

b) dam→ dlam (a rare case of violation)

In consideration of speech production theories with the phonotactic regularity affect, frames are created with only letter combinations that are permissible within the language. Impossible sound sequences are prohibited in word construction. It is assumed that there is no available frame for an illegal sequence such as 'dlam' to be created [10] . This is understood as concrete evidence that phonological rules are actively considered in the process of speech production [1] .

Consonant-Vowel Category Effect [ edit | edit source ]

As mentioned earlier, like-units are prone to exchange, but not differing units. A noun slips with another noun, and a verb with another verb. In a similar fashion, vowels and consonants (basic phonological units) only slip with their similar partner; a vowel for a vowel, and a consonant for a consonant. The rate at which this occurs in speech errors is even greater than the phonotactic regularity effect, meaning there are even fewer exceptions to the consonant-vowel category effect (<1%) [10] . Instances of cross-category errors are extraordinarily rare, in fact, some say they do not occur at all [10] . The consonant-vowel category effect is considered to be evidence of labeled slots in the frame for production. Labels indicate whether a vowel or a consonant will be accepted into a particular slot, and will only accept the segments (consonant or vowel) that correspond with the correct category. This is a preventative measure that disallows the event of a cross-category error.

Initialness Effect [ edit | edit source ]

Initial consonants (onset consonants) are consonants that begin a syllable or word. There is a far greater inclination for word-initial consonants to slip than those from other regions of the word, with 80% of consonant slips coming from word-initial consonants [10] . In explanation of this effect, MacKay (1972) and Shattuck-Hufnagel (1987) hypothesize that initial consonants of syllables and words have a distinct representation in the phonological frame [10] . This idea suggests that initial consonants in syllables and words are more detachable from the remainder of the word and would therefore be more susceptible to error and exchange. For example, in the word 'fog', the f -sound is more easily extracted and isolated than the sound of the g . The ease with which the initial consonant f can detach is thought to be in correspondence with a principal division in the structure of the word frame. Segments following the division prove to be less accessible and more buried in the word.

Syllabic Constituent Effect [ edit | edit source ]

The syllabic constituent effect occurs when a neighboring vowel and consonant are exchanged as a VC or CV unit with another similar pair. The sequence of vowel-consonant proves to be more susceptible to error than the sequence of consonant-vowel [7] . Nootboome (1969) noted that of 24 collected phonological errors, 19 involved a VC sequence and only four involved a CV sequence. This effect provides support for a phonological frame that has structure within its syllables. A typical sequence of consonants and vowels follows the CVC pattern, where the first consonant is the onset consonant of the syllable, and the succeeding vowel and consonant combine to form a single unit; the rhyme constituent of the syllable. The fact that VC slips are far more common than CV slips provides further evidence that phonological structure plays a role in the production of the speech frame [10] .

Taken into consideration separately, each of these effects unveil the functioning of different phonological rules and structures that may be at work in language production. Evidence from the corpus of naturally occurring speech errors and the underlying effects within speech errors supports multiple levels of linguistic analyses in the process of speech production. This growing body of evidence from naturally occurring speech errors suggests that speech production begins begins with a semantic and structural plan. Following this foundation is the progression to accessing the proper words, and finally the application of proper phonological information. With a greater understanding of speech errors comes an understanding of the speech production process. This will ultimately lead to an increased understanding or our means of communication; language.

Footnotes [ edit | edit source ]

• ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Fromkin, V.A. (1973). Speech errors as linguistic evidence. The Hague: Mouton
• ↑ Meringer, R., & Mayer, K. (1895). Misspeaking and Misreading: A psycholinguistics study. Stuttgart, Germany: Goschense Verlagsbuchhanlung.
• ↑ Lashley, K.S. (1951). The problem of serial order in behavior. In L.A. Jeffress, Cerebral mechanisms in behavior (pp. 112-136). New York: Wiley.
• ↑ Dell, G.S., Reed, K.D., Adams, D.R., & Meyer, A. (2000). Speech errors, phonotactic constraints, and implicit learning: A study of the role of experience in language production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1355-1367.
• ↑ Dell, G.s., Burger L.K., & Svec, W.r. (1997). Language production in serial order: A functional analysis and a model. Psychological Review, 104, 123-147.
• ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Jay, T. (2003). The Psychology of Language. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education
• ↑ 7.0 7.1 Nooteboom, S.G. (1969). The tongue slips into patterns. Leyden studies in linguistics and phonetics. The Hague: Mouton
• ↑ MacKay, D.G. (1978). Derivational rules and the internal lexicon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 61-71.
• ↑ Chomsky, N. (1857). Syntactic structures. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.
• ↑ 10.00 10.01 10.02 10.03 10.04 10.05 10.06 10.07 10.08 10.09 Dell, G.S., Juliano, C., and Govindjee, A. (1993). Structure and content in language production: A theory of frame constraints in phonological speech errors. Cognitive Science, 17. 149-195.

References [ edit | edit source ]

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.

Dell, G.S., Juliano, C., and Govindjee, A. (1993). Structure and content in language production: A theory of frame constraints in phonological speech errors. Cognitive Science, 17. 149-195.

Dell, G.s., Burger L.K., & Svec, W.r. (1997). Language production in serial order: A functional analysis and a model. Psychological Review, 104, 123-147.

Dell, G.S., Reed, K.D., Adams, D.R., & Meyer, A. (2000). Speech errors, phonotactic constraints, and implicit learning: A study of the role of experience in language production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1355-1367.

Fromkin, V.A. (1973). Speech errors as linguistic evidence. The Hague: Mouton

Harley, T. A. (1984). A critique of top-down independent levels models of speech production: Evidence from non-plan-internal speech errors. Cognitive Science, 8, 191-219.

Harley, T. A. (1990). Environmental contamination of normal speech. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 45-72

Jay, T. (2003). The Psychology of Language. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education

Lashley, K.S. (1951). The problem of serial order in behavior. In L.A. Jeffress, Cerebral mechanisms in behavior (pp. 112-136). New York: Wiley.

MacKay, D.G. (1978). Derivational rules and the internal lexicon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 61-71.

Meringer, R., & Mayer, K. (1895). Misspeaking and Misreading: A psycholinguistics study. Stuttgart, Germany: Goschense Verlagsbuchhanlung.

Nooteboom, S.G. (1969). The tongue slips into patterns. Leyden studies in linguistics and phonetics. The Hague: Mouton

Learning Exercises [ edit | edit source ]

Part 1 [ edit | edit source ].

Identify the type of errors shown in the following sentences as one of the nine possible errors in speech production (ex substitution, preservation). It is possible for a sentence to contain more than just one type of error. If so, identify the multiple types of errors.

a. Walk the beach→ walk the beak

b. Hop on one foot→ Fop on one foot

c. Pat put the pot on the table

d. On the computer→ on the commuter

e. He had an upset tummy

f. The adds up to→ that add ups to

Part 2 [ edit | edit source ]

The following story was written by Tommy, a grade two student at Atlantic Memorial Elementary. It is a recount of his trip to the store on a beautiful weekend day. He plans to submit his story as part of his year end project. Tommy has called upon you to proof read his story!

Identify the types of errors made by Tommy (i.e. perseverance, shifts, deletions, additions etc.) and at which level of production these errors occur (i.e. phonemes, syllables, morphemes). Make the appropriate corrections so he can get the A+ he so greatly desires.

Tommy woke up to a bright sun-shining say. He bate his eggs-benny and got dressed as fast as possible, with an itch to break out the front door into the sunshine. He decide to gos for a walk to Mable’s Country Store. Off he went, with his walking stick in hand, along the trail to the tore. He had the lovely company of the morning birds springing their tune to him along the way, and the river at his side. Not too far along the trail, Tommy realized he had forgot aboutten his money. Being in such a rush, he realized he forgot to deed the fog too! He would need some money to buy a treat at Mables Mountry More, so he turned around and dashed back dome! He shelled at the top of his lungs when the neighborhood hound chased him down the road, but he made it back in the nick of nime. He gathered his money and decided he would bake his ticycle this time to make up for lost time. He made his was along the trail, through the trees birch and at last to the store. For sake of his Saturday morning tradion, he purchased two scoops of strawbry ice cream. Delicious!

Part 3 [ edit | edit source ]

In the week following the reading of this chapter, closely listen for and document any speech errors made by yourself and others. Return to this chapter to analyze and relate your documented errors to the content of this chapter. Which types of errors did you find to be most common from this time? Are there any types of errors you have heard frequently in past? Deletions, anticipations, exchanges, or others? Indicate how your documented errors agree, or disagree with such theories as the phonotactic regularity effect or the consonant-vowel category effect. Make note of whether the speaker makes an effort to correct their error, or if it goes unnoticed. Can any conclusions be drawn regarding the level of speech production at which an error has occurred?

Answers [ edit | edit source ]

a. Walk the beach→ walk the beak (Persevaration)

b. Hop on one foot→ Fop on one foot (Anticipation)

c. Pat put the pot on the pable (persevaration)

d. On the computer→ on the commuter (deletion)

e. He had an upset stummy (blend)

f. The adds up to→ that add ups to (shift)

Sun shining say→ sun shining day (Perseverance. Level: phoneme)

Bate eggs-benny→ ate eggs benny (anticipation: Phoneme. Addition: phoneme)

Decide to go→ decided to go (shift: affix)

Trail to the tore→ trail to the store (perseverance: phoneme)

Springing their tune→ signing their tune (Addition: phoneme. Subtitution: morpheme)

Forgot aboutten→ forgotten about (Shift: morpheme)

Deed the fog→ feed the dog (anticipation and perseverance: phoneme. Combination of anticipation and perseverance= exchange)

Mables Mountry More→ Mables Country Store (Perseverance: phoneme. Substitution: morpheme)

Shelled→ yelled (Blend: syllable)

Nick of nime→ nick of time (Perseveration: phoneme)

Bake his ticycle→ take his bicycle (exchange: phoneme. Substitution: morpheme)

Treed birch→ birch trees (exchange: morpheme)

Tradion→ tradition (Deletion: syllable and phoneme)

Strawbry→strawberry (Deletion: syllable)

• Psycholinguistics

Navigation menu

Articulation Disorders: Understanding and Treating Speech Sound Errors

It is common for children to make errors in their speech as they grow and develop their communication skills. There are several different types of speech sound errors, and most children will eliminate these errors as they progress in their abilities. Some children, however, will continue to make these speech sound errors beyond the age at which most children have stopped. This can be an indication of an articulation disorder that, if left untreated, can continue into adulthood. The best course of treatment for articulation disorders for children and adults is through an experienced speech and language pathologist.

If you are concerned about the development of your child’s communication skills or you, yourself, struggle with speech as a teen or adult, you may benefit from speech therapy. Great Speech tackles all types of speech difficulties; get started with one of our amazing SLPs today by scheduling your free introductory call.

What are Speech Sound Errors?

Speech sound errors are errors that are often made during speech. There are many different forms of speech sound errors, including:

Omitting Beginning Sounds of Words Adding Additional Sounds to Words Inability to Produce Specific Speech Sounds Swapping Sounds with Other Sounds

It is relatively common for children to exhibit speech sound errors at a young age, and most will grow out of them as they develop their speech and language skills. The majority of children have mastered the production of all speech sounds and no longer make errors by the age of 8. However, some children continue to have difficulty saying particular sounds and/or words beyond the expected age, which, if left untreated, may continue into their teenage years and even adulthood. In these cases, they may be diagnosed with a speech sound disorder.

Speech sound errors are categorized into these two types of disorders:

Articulation Disorder – An articulation disorder occurs when an individual has difficulties producing (or articulating) specific sounds. If the individual with an articulation disorder isn’t able to produce a particular sound, it is common for them to replace the sound with another; for example, they may say ‘wed’ instead of ‘red.’

Phonological Process Disorder – A phonological disorder occurs when an individual has difficulties relating to the organization of the sound patterns in the brain, which causes an inability to form the necessary sounds properly. An individual with a phonological process disorder may omit a sound in a word despite being able to produce the same sound in a different word. For instance, they might say ‘boo’ instead of ‘book’ but are able to correctly say words such as ‘key’ or ‘king.’

What Are Voicing Errors?

The majority of the sounds we produce come in a pair of voiced and voiceless sounds. Whether a specific sound is voiced or voiceless refers to whether the vocal cords vibrate or not when the sound is being produced. For instance, in the case of p and b sounds, b is voiced, and p is voiceless. This means that a voicing error occurs when a quiet sound is made noisily. For example, the word ‘pea’ is produced as ‘bee’ or ‘coat’ is produced as ‘goat.’ Voicing errors are less common than other speech sound errors.

What is a Phonemic Error?

A phonemic error occurs when an individual repeatedly produces a sound that is a properly formed phoneme (or speech sound) but is not the one that was intended by the speaker or expected by the listener. For example, they may say ‘smole’ instead of ‘smile.’

What Causes a Speech Sound Disorder?

The majority of speech sound disorders do not have a specific identifiable cause. However, there are some factors that can contribute to the development of a speech sound disorder, including:

Brain Injury Developmental Disability Hearing Impairment Physical Differences that Affect Speech

What are the Symptoms of a Speech Sound Disorder?

Speech sound disorders can have a wide range of different symptoms that depend on the specific speech sound disorder the individual has. However, there are some signs and symptoms that you should look out for, including:

Frequently producing the same speech sound errors involving the same sounds or words Not speaking as clearly or easily as others in the same age group Omitting certain sounds from words Adding certain sounds to words that don’t belong Stuttering Lisping Simplifying words. You or a loved one may be shy or quiet You or a loved one may avoid speaking in front of others

If you are worried that you or someone you know may have a speech sound disorder, it is a good idea to seek the help and support of a speech and language pathologist. Getting started is as easy as scheduling your free introductory call today!

How is a Speech Sound Disorder Diagnosed?

A speech sound disorder is typically diagnosed by a qualified speech pathologist through the use of standardized tests to evaluate the child’s speech and language development.

The speech therapist will also listen to the individual’s speech and will determine whether they have a speech sound disorder. In most cases, they are able to identify the disorder due to the level of speech and language development when compared to others of the same age group..

Once you or your child has been diagnosed, a speech pathologist will be able to design a treatment plan and offer specific help and advice.

How Do You Fix Speech Sound Disorder?

A knowledgeable speech and language pathologist will work closely with you or your child with the goal of correcting speech sound errors. The speech therapist will create a unique treatment plan that focuses on the individual’s specific needs, challenges, goals, and speech and language development in general.

Speech therapy appointments will likely focus on the following:

Recognizing speech errors and correcting them Learning how to properly articulate the specific sounds that are proving difficult Practicing saying particular sounds and words

The speech and language pathologist will achieve this by targeting certain sounds one at a time by using activities and exercises to help you practice the specific sounds that you are struggling with.

When it comes to helping children, teens and adults with speech sound disorders, early intervention offers the best outcome. The sooner an individual is started with speech therapy, the better. Get started today by scheduling your free introductory call now!

Speech Sound Errors

Speech Sound Errors: Speech production difficulties are the most common form of communication impairment school-based speech pathologists are likely to encounter when working in schools. This page will briefly focus on the two most commonly diagnosed and treated speech disorders: articulation disorders and phonological disorders.

Articulation Disorders

Children who present with articulation disorders generally mispronounce sounds, which effects their speech intelligibility. Articulation disorders have a motor production basis, which results in difficulty with particular phonemes, known as misarticulations. The most common sound misarticulations are omissions , distortions and substitutions . Omissions: Omissions of phonemes is when a child doesn't produce a sound in a word. An example of an omission would be a child who says 'ool' for 'pool.' Substitutions: A very common speech sound error is the substitution. An example is 'thun' for 'sun.' Distortions: Distortions are when a child uses a non-typical sound for a typically developing sound. One of the more common and difficult sound substitutions to treat is the lateral /s/, where the air escapes out of the side of the mouth during /s/ production, not over the center of the tongue. This results in a noisy or slushy quality to the /s/ sound.

Phonological Disorders

A phonological speech disorder is present in the absence of structural or neurological problems and generally causes speech to become largely unintelligible to unfamiliar listeners. For instance, if a child with a phonological disorder was to say, 'On the weekend, I went to the beach,' the sentence may sound like 'On a eet en, I ent oo a bee.' In the above example, close family members who are used to their child's speech sound errors can often understand the content of their child's message. However, people who are unfamiliar with a child's speech impairment will mostly have no clue as to what the child is talking about. When young children attempt to imitate and learn adult speech they will use certain processes to help simplify some speech sounds. Children do this because their speech patterns are not yet at a mature level, therefore they will often substitute easier sounds for more difficult sounds. These sound substitutions are known as phonological processes . Below are several of the more common processes that children will use when attempting to learn adult type speech. If you're a school teacher or pre-school teacher you may have met children who produce these processes. Cluster Reduction: This process occurs on words which feature consonant sounds that are grouped together. For instance, the words snake and snail both feature the consonant cluster sn . In a cluster reduction snake and snail are commonly misarticulated as nake and nail . The /s/ at the beginning of the word is deleted. Final Consonant Deletion: As the process title suggests, the final consonant sound in a word is deleted. For instance the words sheep , duck and carrot may be produced as shee ..., du ... and carro ... When a child has final consonant deletion he or she tends to delete just about all final consonants. So the sentence, 'The horse ate the carrot and the duck went for a swim,' may be presented by the child as 'The hor.. a... the carro... an... the du... wen... for a swi...' Velar Fronting: Very common processes and speech sound errors seen in young boys and girls. Velar fronting occurs on production of the /k/ and /g/ phonemes. The /k/ and /g/ phonemes are made at the back of the mouth, when the tongue contacts the velum, which results in a blockage of the air stream. Children with velar fronting difficulty don't do this. Their tongue tip touches the front of the mouth to produce a /t/ or /d/. For instance, c art becomes t art , and g oat becomes d oat . Stopping: Fricative sounds (stream of air) are replaced by sounds that don't have a stream of air. That is, long windy sounds such as /sh/ or long hissing sounds such as /s/ are replaced by short sounds such as /t/ or /p/. So for instance, the word ship may be pronounced as pip , or tip , or even dip . Liquid Glides: A very common process where the liquid sounds /l/ and /r/ are replaced by /w/ or /y/. For instance, leaf becomes weaf or yeaf , and red becomes wed or yed . Liquid glides are later developing sounds and so are not really considered speech sound errors in younger children, but more as a natural process. For more information about Speech Sound Intervention click to the Speech Sound Intervention page.

Eliciting  Speech Sounds

Please click on the links to access information on how to elicit speech sounds for common speech sound errors. Eliciting the /s/ Sound Eliciting the /sh/ Sound Eliciting the /k/ Sound Eliciting the /f/ Sound Eliciting the /l/ Sound

Other important speech sound intervention pages

Click to learn about Traditional Articulation Therapy

Click to learn about Minimal Pairs Intervention (linguistic method)

Click to learn about Multiple Oppositions Intervention (linguistic method)

Click to learn about Empty Set Intervention (linguistic method)

Click to download the instruction and components for the Turbo Card Board Game  (Handy game to be used either during speech intervention or as a reward activity)

Speech Intervention Sequence:  Comprehensive speech therapy sequence method using traditional articulation intervention techniques

References   Van Riper, C. & Erickson, R.L. (1996) Speech Correction: An Introduction to Speech Pathology and Audiology.  Allyn & Bacon   Williams, A.L. McLeod, S. & McCauley, R.J.(2010)Interventions for Speech Sound Disorders in Children.  Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.  

Content Last Updated 14/09/2020

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

• Click on the HTML link code below.
• Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.
• Language Blog

Science of Learning

• Why your child cannot read
• Science of learning and teaching
• What is the Science of Reading?
• Rosenshine Principles for Classroom Practice

Language Intervention

• Inference Activities 2nd Edition
• Sentence Grammar Program
• Free Board Games
• WM Challenges
• WM Activities
• Board Games
• Language Therapy
• Language eBook
• Language program
• Inferencing
• Language skills
• Shared Reading
• Sentence Structure
• Sentence Builder
• Sentence Creator
• Free Activities
• Oral Language Program
• Best Resources

Information about Language

• Active Listening
• What is language?
• Language Disorder
• Working Memory
• Tips for Parents
• Advanced Lang
• Speech Intervention
• The Lateral S
• Minimal Pairs Theory
• Multiple Op
• What is Speech?
• Speech Errors
• Speech Structures
• Simple View of Reading
• Synthetic Phonics Resources
• Sounds to Graph
• Phonol Intervention
• Inference Program
• Inference-Reading
• Vocab Activities
• Vocabulary Comp
• Comprehension
• Dyslexia Defined
• Phonological A

Social Language

• Asperger's Syn
• Pragmatic lang
• Figurative lang

Book Analysis

Best books information.

• Book Activities
• Benefits...
• 1st Grade Books
• 3rd Grade Books
• 6th Grade Books

Website Information

• Research Articles
• Privacy Policy

Information for Teachers and Speechies

• Teacher Tips
• Classroom lang
• Language Techniques
• Crafting Connections
• Parent Survey
• Teaching Literacy
• Secondary School
• Language literacy Inter
• Reading Difficulties
• Writing Tips

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Social, emotional, and academic impact of residual speech errors in school-age children: A survey study

Elaine r. hitchcock.

Montclair State University

Daphna Harel

New York University

Tara McAllister Byun

Children with residual speech errors face an increased risk of social, emotional and/or academic challenges relative to their peers with typical speech. Previous research has shown that the effects of speech sound disorder may persist into adulthood and span multiple domains of Activity Limitations and/or Participation Restrictions, as defined by the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) model. 1 However, the nature and extent of these influences varies widely across children. This study aimed to expand the evidence base on the social, emotional, and academic impact of residual speech errors by collecting survey data from parents of children receiving treatment for /r/ misarticulation. By examining both an overall measure of impact (weighted summed score) and responses to individual questions, the present study offers preliminary suggestions for factors that could be taken into consideration when making decisions pertaining to treatment allocation in this population.

In childhood speech sound disorder (SSD), deficits in spoken communication pose a barrier to academic and social participation whose impact may be lifelong. 2 SSD affects an estimated 10% of preschool and school-aged children 3 and makes up a substantial proportion of the typical caseload for speech-language pathologists (SLPs). Most children who present with speech errors early in life do go on to develop perceptually typical speech by 8 to 9 years of age. When speech sound errors extend past this age, they can be termed residual speech errors, or RSE. 4 These errors may continue even in children who have received months or years of intervention. 5 The focus in this study is on residual errors affecting the North American English rhotic /r/, which was the type of RSE most frequently reported by school-based SLPs in a 1995 survey. 5

The /r/ sound poses a notable challenge for many children acquiring English as their first language. In normative studies of typically-developing children, 6 /r/ has one of the latest ages of mastery, and it is almost invariably found among the error sounds of children with SSD. Speakers’ difficulties acquiring /r/ are thought to be explained at least in part by the articulatory complexity of the sound. 7 While most speech sounds are produced with only one major lingual constriction or narrowing of the vocal tract, articulatory descriptions of North American English /r/ identify both an anterior and posterior lingual constriction. Further, the critical lingual constrictions for /r/ are not externally visible, and they provide little in the way of tactile-kinesthetic feedback to the speaker. As a consequence, clinicians report that they find /r/ to be one of the most challenging sounds to treat in articulatory intervention. 8

Research to date has not yet converged on a best-practice intervention approach for RSE, although there is growing evidence that biofeedback methods can be effective in this population. 9 – 11 Lacking effective treatment options, SLPs often discharge these clients with their errors uncorrected. 5 The stated rationale for this decision may be that these errors have a relatively minor impact on intelligibility and often do not have a discernable impact on academic performance. 12 However, multiple studies have found that atypical speech can pose a barrier to participation in both academic and social settings, with effects lasting well into adulthood. 2 , 13 Furthermore, there is evidence that these impacts are not limited to children with a high level of severity or unintelligibility; studies have found that older children with as few as one or two speech sound errors are judged more negatively than their peers. 12 , 14 , 15 The existing literature on this subject is reviewed in more detail below.

Children as young as preschool age have been found to use communicative competence as a measure of peer popularity. Gertner, Rice, and Hadley 16 found that preschoolers were more likely to express positive judgments of children with typically developing speech and language compared to those with a speech and language impairment or English as a second language. In older children, a number of studies have reported evidence that even a mild speech disorder, consisting of as little as one error, can have negative consequences for the speaker in the domain of social interactions and peer perceptions. Using a semantic differential scale, Crowe Hall 14 evaluated the attitudes of fourth and sixth graders elicited by videos of peers with and without speech errors. Children with speech errors received more negative attitude judgments on their skills as “talkers,” their likability as peers, and their likelihood of success in the upcoming teenage years. Relevant sex differences were also observed. Male speakers with speech errors were judged more negatively in comparison to their typical peers than females with speech errors; male listeners also tended to be more negative in their survey responses than female listeners. In a similar study by Freeby and Madison, 17 the speech of children with /r/ errors was judged more negatively than that of their peers on scales reflecting intelligence and personality measures. Again, male speakers were judged more negatively than female speakers. Finally, Silverman and Paulus 12 evaluated the reactions of 26 high school sophomores in response to a scenario depicting a typical speaker and a speaker demonstrating a /w/ for /r/ substitution. Using a series of semantic differential scales, these authors reported that high school students who demonstrate this substitution were frequently judged as “speaking poorly” and their speech was described as “disfluent, unpleasant, soft, boring, and dull”. 12 (p220) A number of additional undesirable descriptors were assigned to these speakers, including “nervous,” “less confident,” and “isolated.” 12 (p220)

The psychological ramifications of a speech sound disorder in childhood may persist well beyond the actual presentation of the speech errors. In a 28-year follow-up of adults with histories of moderate phonological disorders, Felsenfeld et al 13 found that individuals with phonological errors had less favorable academic outcomes, as measured by lower high school grades, than a comparison group with no history of SSD. The individuals with histories of SSD were disproportionately more likely to work in jobs that required minimal academic rigor when compared to controls. These disparities were observed even though individuals with a history of SSD generally presented with intelligence in the normal range. The study by Felsenfeld et al 13 did not specifically address individuals who initially presented with only one or two sounds in error. However, it is known that many children with RSE originally presented with moderate to severe speech sound errors, with those errors resolving over time until only one or two speech sound distortions remain. 18 , 19

Using the ICF framework to evaluate the impact of speech disorders

Although numerous studies suggest that RSE can have a negative impact on children’s social and emotional well-being, the magnitude of this impact varies widely across individuals. It would be useful to document how the severity of socioemotional impact is influenced by different characteristics of the child or the child’s environment. However, it is difficult to measure socioemotional impact in a precise, quantifiable way. One relatively structured alternative is to draw on an accepted framework for evaluating an individual’s ability to execute and participate in life activities. McCormack et al 2 conducted a systematic review of relevant literature over a 10-year period to evaluate the impacts of speech impairment using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) 1 model released by the World Health Organization (WHO). This framework moves away from a narrow definition of health as the absence of disease; instead, it conceptualizes health in terms of the individual’s ability to function at his/her fullest potential in his/her living environment. Impacts on health are classified in terms of Activity Limitations and/or Participation Restrictions, with further subdivision into nine chapters. The chapters that were most commonly associated with SSD in the systematic review were Learning and applying knowledge, Interpersonal interactions and relationships, Communication , and Major life areas .

McCormack et al 2 reviewed numerous articles reporting evidence of an association between speech sound disorder and difficulty in the domain of Learning and applying knowledge . Of particular relevance to the present study, they noted that the risk of experiencing academic deficits in connection with speech impairment was greater in children whose speech errors persisted through school age. 20 – 22 In the Communication domain, there is an abundance of research documenting deficits in intelligibility and spoken communication associated with childhood speech sound disorder. McCormack et al 2 additionally reported evidence of a meaningful impact of speech impairment on several subdomains of Interpersonal interactions and relationships . Overall, studies have shown that speech impairments are associated with: a) lowered academic expectations and limitations on teacher-child relationships 23 , 24 ; b) difficulty with initiation and maintenance of peer relationships (see literature reviewed in previous section); c) increased parental anxiety and more difficulty forming a nurturing parent-child relationship 2 ; and d) negative impact on sibling relationships. Finally, in the Major life areas of school education and acquiring, keeping, and terminating a job, children with speech impairments were found to be at increased risk for reading difficulties 23 and workplace difficulties, including job termination, harassment, and discriminatory hiring practices. 24

Overall, the systematic review by McCormack et al 2 provides important evidence that speech impairment is associated with limitations on activities and participation across multiple domains. Because their review involved drawing comparisons across different studies with widely varying methodologies, McCormack et al 2 were not able to comment on the relative magnitude of the impact of speech impairment in different domains (e.g., academic versus social). However, some current policies for making decisions about treatment allocation include an implicit assumption about the relative importance of these domains. Specifically, some school districts allocate services preferentially to children whose speech disorder can be shown to affect academic performance (e.g., by appearing in spelling errors). 12 It is possible that children whose speech errors interact with academic performance are more severely impacted overall by their speech impairment than children who do not show corresponding academic effects. On the other hand, it is also plausible that a different factor might be more predictive of the overall degree of impact that RSE can be expected to have on life participation and satisfaction. Systematic evidence should be collected to address this question, which has potential implications for decisions about treatment allocation.

Survey study

The survey research described in this paper was carried out to collect new data addressing the question framed above. Because this survey collected information about three ICF domains within the same sample of participants, it is possible to compare the relative impact of deficits in these domains on children’s overall well-being. To analyze the survey data, we derived an overall measure of impact (a transformation of the weighted summed score) from the questionnaire. It was hypothesized that certain question(s) or domain(s) would be more sensitive predictors of overall impact. In addition, based on previous research, it was hypothesized that the overall impact would be greater for older versus younger and for male versus female children with /r/ misarticulation.

An 11-question survey was constructed that asked parents of children with speech sound errors affecting /r/ to estimate the impact of their child’s speech impairment on various areas of life participation and satisfaction. In keeping with the structured ICF framework used by McCormack et al, 2 each survey question was categorized according to the most relevant chapter of the Activities and Participation framework. The questions fell primarily into two domains: Interpersonal interactions and relationships and Major life areas , with two other questions that were most closely aligned with the Communication chapter. The questions and their associated ICF domains are represented in Table 1 . Each question was presented in connection with a 5-point Likert scale, where a response of 5 represented “strongly agree” and a response of 1 represented “strongly disagree.”

Survey questions, subdivided by the most closely affiliated ICF Chapter

Survey data for children with /r/ misarticulation

The majority of survey responses reported in this study were collected as part of the intake procedure when children were evaluated for inclusion in one of several research studies investigating the efficacy of biofeedback treatment for /r/ misarticulation. 9 , 10 , 25 Additional responses were solicited through a letter that described the survey and invited clinicians to share this information with the families of any children on their caseload who were receiving treatment for /r/ misarticulation; the letter was posted to mailing lists and social media channels targeted at SLPs. To complete the survey, respondents were required to self-report that they were over the age of 18, were the parent or guardian of a child who currently has difficulty producing the North American English /r/ sound, and were fully proficient speakers of English. (One parent who completed the survey as part of an initial evaluation for treatment was primarily Spanish-speaking; a bilingual SLP read through the survey with her, translating the questions and recording her responses.)

A total of 101 surveys were collected between the years 2010 and 2015. Ten surveys were discarded due to missing data. Of the remaining 91 surveys, 60 were collected in studies conducted at Montclair State University, 22 were collected in studies conducted at New York University, and 9 were collected online. Because the three groups did not differ significantly in their overall impact scores (described below), all results were pooled for the purpose of analysis and discussion.

Participant characteristics

The children described by these parent surveys were reported to range in age from a minimum of 5;6 to a maximum of 15;9 (see Figure 1 ), with a median age of roughly 9;6. (One online survey was excluded from calculations involving age due to an error in which the parent reported the current year instead of the child’s year of birth.) A total of 21 children were below the age of 8;0, meaning that their /r/ misarticulation could potentially be classified as developmental rather than residual; 69 children were 8;0 or older. A total of 66 participants were reported to be male, versus 24 female participants. This is in keeping with previous literature indicating a greater prevalence of RSE among male than female speakers. 26

Number of participants in each year of age, subdivided by gender

A total of 84 parents reported that English was the primary or only language in the home, and three parents indicated that English and another language were spoken; three parents did not answer this question. Parents reported that 43 participants were currently receiving treatment targeting /r/ in the school setting exclusively; 9 were receiving exclusively private therapy, and 6 were receiving both school and private therapy. For 31 participants, parent report indicated that no treatment targeting /r/ was currently being received, and one parent did not respond to this question. The duration of previous treatment targeting /r/ (based on parent report) ranged from 0 to 11 years, with a median of two years. Eleven participants were reported to have received no previous treatment.

Analysis of responses

Our first goal was to derive a measure that would estimate the overall degree of impact of /r/ misarticulation on a given child’s activities and participation. The simplest way to estimate overall impact would be to use a summed score, i.e., add together the values of all parent responses on one survey; a higher score would indicate a greater degree of overall impact. (For all questions but one, a higher-numbered score indicated a more negative impact on the child’s well-being. The one exception, “My child is happy with his speech,” was reverse-coded prior to analysis so that across all questions, a higher score was indicative of a more negative degree of impact.) For a more nuanced measure of impact, though, we opted to put more weight on questions that were most specific to the condition under investigation. For example, the question “My child is reluctant to participate in activities that call for public speaking” might not be a highly specific indicator of how /r/ misarticulation affects participation, because people can be reluctant to engage in public speaking for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily related to speech production difficulties. On the other hand, a parent’s response to a question like “My child feels that his/her speech sounds different from other children’s” provides information that is more specifically linked to the child’s misarticulation. It is not appropriate to assign these weights by hand, because individuals might have different opinions of how specifically a given question is related to /r/ misarticulation. Instead, these weights can be derived automatically using a statistical method called a Generalized Partial Credit Model (GPCM). 27 A GPCM weights scores observed on individual survey questions to form a total score, while characterizing questions as more versus less associated with the total score.

The GPCM analysis provides information about each child in the form of an overall impact score that is weighted to account for the specificity of each question. These impact scores are scaled to have a mean of zero and standard deviation equal to one, so that a child with a score of two shows an impact that is two standard deviations above the mean degree of impact in the sample. This information might be useful for treatment allocation, with the rationale that children who are most strongly impacted by /r/ misarticulation should have top priority for immediate intervention. It can also be used to address our two secondary questions pertaining to the relative impacts of /r/ misarticulation on different demographic groups. T-tests were used to assess whether the degree of overall impact differed between male and female children and between older and younger children. To evaluate the effect of age, we asked whether there was a difference between children less than eight years of age, where non-adult-like production of /r/ might still be considered within normal limits, and children eight years of age and older, who might be classified as presenting with RSE.

In addition to providing a composite measure of impact for each child, the GPCM provides a measure of specificity, called the “discrimination parameter,” for each individual question on the survey. This measure represents how strongly scores on a particular question are associated with the overall degree of affectedness. A question with a high level of discrimination is effective in classifying children into groups representing a high or low degree of overall impact. Questions with a low level of discrimination are less successful in classifying children as more versus less affected. This analysis can be used to address our question about which questions or domains, such as academic versus social, can be regarded as the most sensitive predictors of overall impact. Because some school systems currently use degree of academic impact as a criterion for deciding whether or not a child can receive intervention for speech errors, we specifically examined how strongly the survey question asking about the influence of misarticulation on the child’s academic performance was associated with the composite measure of overall impact.

Impact range using the GPCM

We began by ranking the 11 questions according to their discrimination parameters from the GPCM. Questions with the highest discrimination parameters were most strongly associated with overall degree of impact. The most discriminative question, by a substantial margin, asked whether the child’s speech difficulty had an impact on his/her social interactions. The next most discriminative question was “My child’s speech has an impact on his/her general life satisfaction,” followed by “My child has been teased or bullied because of the way his/her speech sounds.” Questions representing the Interpersonal interactions and relationships chapter of the ICF framework tended to be more strongly associated with overall impact than questions representing the Communication and Major life activities chapters. Specifically, four out of the five questions with the highest discrimination parameters belonged to the Interpersonal interactions and relationships chapter, whereas only one out of the five questions with the lowest discrimination parameters came from this category.

As noted above, the extent to which a child’s speech errors affect his/her academic performance is sometimes used as a criterion to determine whether or not the child should receive intervention. Thus, we were particularly interested in the discrimination parameter of the survey question specifically addressing this issue (“My child’s speech has an impact on his/her academic performance”). This question was ranked sixth out of the 11 survey questions, with a moderate discrimination parameter of 0.52. Compared to questions assessing the child’s participation in social activities and evaluating the child’s emotional well-being, the question about academics was a less useful indicator of overall degree of impact.

Figure 2 provides two histograms representing the impact scores for the 91 children included in the GPCM analysis. Children with impact scores greater than zero have higher than average socioemotional impact compared to the rest of the sample; children with negative impact scores are less impacted than average for this sample. In Figure 2A , the 91 children have been subdivided by gender. The t-test for gender was not statistically significant, indicating that on average, males and females in this sample did not differ in their socioemotional impact scores. Figure 2B again presents the histogram of impact scores for all 91 children, but in this case they are subdivided by age. The impact scores for children less than eight years of age tend to be lower than the impact scores for older children. Confirming this visual impression, the t-test comparing younger versus older children was statistically significant ( t = −2.8, df = 47, p < .01). This is consistent with the fact that misarticulation of /r/ can be considered within normal limits for children up to eight years, but in older children, it can be classified as atypical.

Number of participants in each interval of overall impact. Impact scores have been scaled to a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1.

It is a reality that many school SLPs face overwhelming caseloads, and that many children with communication needs are in competition for limited resources. Under these circumstances, it is understandable that some school districts adopt policies to prioritize the provision of speech-language services to children with the most pressing needs. However, decisions about which children receive top priority should be based on the best available evidence. In the course of our intervention research, we have heard numerous parents express frustration that their child’s speech deficits were deemed ineligible for treatment in the school setting due to a lack of impact on academic performance. In the subjective view of these parents, it seemed, a child could exhibit strong academic performance yet still be meaningfully impacted by speech errors.

The present study collected parent survey data with the goal of achieving a deeper understanding of how social, emotional, and academic factors relate to Activity Limitations and Participation Restrictions in children with RSE. The results of our analysis indicated that the question most strongly associated with overall impact asked whether a child’s speech errors affected his or her social interactions. Furthermore, four out of the five most strongly associated questions fell in the Interpersonal interactions and relationships chapter of the ICF framework. The question asking whether the child’s speech errors affected academic performance was moderately associated with overall impact, ranking sixth out of the 11 survey questions. Thus, the results of the present study suggest that academic impact is a worthwhile factor to take into consideration when making decisions about treatment allocation for children with speech sound errors, but they do not support the practice of using academic impact as the sole criterion to determine eligibility for intervention.

Readers who are interested in the legal issues pertaining to decisions about treatment allocation are referred to a 1980 correspondence between Stan Dublinske (Director of the School Services Program at ASHA) and Edwin Martin (Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education & Rehabilitative Services, Department of Health, Education and Welfare) 28 . Mr. Dublinske asked for clarification of how the term “adversely affects educational performance,” used in the Education for All Handicapped Children’s Act of 1975 (PL 94-142), should be interpreted for children with speech impairment. Mr. Martin’s response includes the following statement:

In the event that the speech-language pathologist establishes through appropriate appraisal procedures the existence of a speech/language impairment, the determination of the child’s status as a “handicapped child” cannot be conditioned on a requirement that there must be a concurrent deficiency in academic performance (3).

Additional findings of interest from the present study pertained to differences in overall impact between groups of children. It is noteworthy that the overall negative impact of /r/ misarticulation was reported to be more severe for children eight years of age and older than for younger children. Considering this finding in connection with evidence that spontaneous resolution of speech sound errors is unlikely after around eight years of age, 4 , 29 it seems particularly vital to provide speech intervention services to older children affected by RSE. Finally, because previous studies have reported that males with RSE may be judged more negatively than females, 14 , 17 it was hypothesized that male speakers would show a more negative overall impact of RSE than female speakers. However, the present study revealed no significant effect of gender on overall impact scores.

Limitations and future directions

Although the present results make a novel contribution to the literature on the social, emotional, and academic impact of speech errors with possible implications for treatment planning, it is important to recognize the limitations of this study. First, the parents who responded to this survey were actively exploring treatment or supplemental services for their child’s rhotic misarticulation. Thus, the sample in question cannot be treated as a neutral representation of the broader population of children with RSE; it is possible that they represent the extreme end of a continuum of severity of impairment or magnitude of impact. Alternatively, the parents who sought this treatment for their children may have been more concerned about the impact of /r/ misarticulation on their child’s well-being than the average parent of a child with RSE. However, this paper does not aim to quantify the absolute magnitude of the impact of /r/ misarticulation on well-being; rather, it aims to identify relationships within the survey (e.g., which questions are most successful in differentiating children who are highly impacted versus children who are less impacted overall).

Second, the small size of the sample (91 usable responses) limits the degree of confidence we can have in the conclusions of the statistical analysis reported here. Another limitation is that the three ICF chapters considered here were represented by different numbers of questions (five representing Interpersonal interactions and relationships , four representing Major life areas , and two representing the Communication chapter). Because the category of Interpersonal interactions and relationships contributed the largest number of questions to the survey, it is to be expected that these questions will be strongly associated with the overall impact scores. However, a separate statistical model (exploratory factor analysis) was used to evaluate the possibility that there might be multiple factors or domains contributing to the overall impact score. For the present data, this model did not indicate that the questions measuring the categories of Major life areas and Communication were behaving as separate factors that could not be analyzed alongside the questions assessing Interpersonal interactions and relationships . Still, we do anticipate that a larger sample size of survey responses could reveal independent influences of each of the three ICF domains on a child’s overall impact score.

Overall, there is a clear need to follow up on the present research using a refined questionnaire and a larger sample size. Nevertheless, the survey and results reported here can provide a useful starting point for an ongoing conversation about how children are affected by residual speech errors and how clinicians and schools might act to optimize their social, emotional, and academic outcomes.

Conclusions

The current study is in agreement with previous research in finding that children may experience social, emotional, and/or academic challenges in connection with speech sound disorder. The present results underline that these difficulties are not limited to severely unintelligible speakers; although the great majority of children represented in this study were highly intelligible and exhibited only 1–2 sounds in error, parents endorsed a high degree of impact on their children in various domains. The overall impact of speech errors was found to be greater in older than younger children. Furthermore, the survey questions representing the Interpersonal interactions and relationships chapter of the ICF framework were found to be most strongly associated with overall severity in the present sample. These results suggest that, to find the children who are experiencing the greatest Activity Limitations and Participation Restrictions in connection with speech sound disorder, clinicians and schools should consider the social and emotional dimensions of impact. This contrasts with the practice, not uncommon in US schools, of making decisions about treatment allocation on the basis of whether the child’s speech errors affect his or her academic performance. The survey used in this study could give clinicians a concrete way to assess and document the social and emotional difficulties faced by many children with RSE, and to advocate for services to reduce the impact of these challenges.

Survey questions, ranked by discrimination parameter. Discrimination parameters represent the strength of association between the score on each question and the level of overall impact. Higher discrimination parameters indicate that the question is a stronger indicator of overall impact.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by NIH R03DC 012883 and a Separately Budgeted Research Grant from Montclair State University.

Contributor Information

Elaine R. Hitchcock, Montclair State University.

Daphna Harel, New York University.

Tara McAllister Byun, New York University.

At LanguageHumanities, we're committed to delivering accurate, trustworthy information. Our expert-authored content is rigorously fact-checked and sourced from credible authorities. Discover how we uphold the highest standards in providing you with reliable knowledge.

Learn more...

What Is a Speech Error?

A speech error happens when someone says words or sounds that they do not intend to say. Slips of the tongue are common in everyday speech and often follow common patterns in how specific grammatical constructions are manipulated. Common types of slip-ups include malapropisms, a metathesis or an epenthesis . Usually, these are normal, but they can occur more frequently if conditions such as dyslexia or problems with eye movement or muscle control are present.

Human speech has been studied extensively in real-world settings as well as in laboratories. The different parts of speech are more apparent when a speech error occurs and is analyzed. With a malapropism , a word is spoken that is not intended to be said but is usually either similar in meaning to the one the person wanted to say or sounds a lot like it. It is also common for people to switch syllables in words, or to switch words within a specific sentence, which is called a metathesis. An epenthesis refers to when sounds are added to the middle or end of words.

Speech error occurrences can result from differences in the movement between parts of the tongue as well as the rate at which they move together or in relation to one another. Most of the time, vowels will be replaced only with vowels, and the same goes for consonants . Words are most often replaced with others that fit in a similar grammatical context. A strong pattern seen in language pathology is that words and sounds are moved in place of one another and not taken away from an overall phrase.

Muscle movements and reaction times as well as the rate of speaking have a significant influence on each speech error that occurs. Repetition of tongue and lip movements, and those of the jaw, interrelates with the phonological similarities of many sounds and words. Speech errors are not random and have been studied in speech pathology to create various language models.

When people have trouble controlling eye movements, this can affect how they read. Problems with head movement do as well, and these lead to a form of dyslexia that can affect speech. Conditions such as Parkinson’s disease can result in speech pathology issues as well. Learning disabilities and clinical problems with finding words, which can result from injuries, can increase speech error frequency. Slips of the tongue usually are not a sign of an aphasia-related speech disorder; they happen to everyone at some point.

AS FEATURED ON:

Related Articles

• What Is Catachresis?
• What Is Metathesis?
• What Are Eggcorns?
• What Is a Solecism?
• What is Communication Impairment?
• What is a Freudian Slip?
• What is a Disfluency?

Discussion Comments

Post your comments.

• By: ArenaCreative The human tongue plays a role in speech error occurrences.
• By: ambrozinio Slips of the tongue are common in everyday speech.
• By: Monkey Business Individuals who make consistent speech errors may seek the assistance of a speech pathologist.

Overton Speech

• Speech disorders
• Articulation disorders
• Fluency disorders
• Pragmatic language disorders
• Language disorders
• Voice disorders

Articulation Errors in Speech and Language: Understanding Articulation Disorders

Articulation errors in speech and language play a significant role in the communication development of individuals. These errors refer to difficulties or inaccuracies in pronouncing sounds, syllables, words, or phrases that affect intelligibility. For instance, consider the case of Sarah, a seven-year-old girl with an articulation disorder. Despite her age-appropriate vocabulary and comprehension skills, Sarah struggled to produce certain sounds correctly. Her pronunciation of “r” was often replaced by a “w” sound, leading to miscommunication and frustration for both Sarah and those attempting to understand her.

Understanding articulation disorders is crucial for parents, educators, and healthcare professionals involved in supporting children’s communication abilities. Such disorders can stem from various factors such as anatomical differences (e.g., cleft palate), developmental delays, or motor coordination difficulties affecting the movements required for accurate speech production. By exploring the causes and characteristics of articulation disorders, we can gain valuable insights into effective assessment methods and intervention strategies aimed at improving speech clarity and overall communication skills. This article aims to provide a comprehensive overview of articulation errors in speech and language while highlighting the importance of early identification and appropriate therapeutic interventions for individuals experiencing these challenges.

Types of Articulation Errors

One common type of articulation error is the substitution error, where a child replaces one sound with another. For example, instead of saying “cat,” they may say “tat.” This can lead to difficulties in understanding and communicating effectively. Another type is omission errors, where a child leaves out certain sounds or syllables in words. For instance, instead of saying “banana,” they might say “nana.” These errors can make speech unclear and hinder effective communication.

Additionally, distortion errors occur when a child produces a sound incorrectly without substituting it for another. For example, they may produce the /s/ sound with a lisp-like quality, making it difficult for others to understand their speech. Lastly, there are addition errors where an extra sound or syllable is added to a word. For instance, instead of saying “cup,” the child might say “cuh-up.”

Articulation disorders can have various emotional impacts on individuals affected by them. They may experience frustration due to difficulty being understood by others or struggle with low self-esteem as a result of feeling different from their peers. Additionally, these communication challenges could potentially cause social isolation or anxiety in both academic and personal contexts.

To better understand the types of articulation errors mentioned above, consider the following table:

As we delve into further sections about the causes behind articulation disorders, it becomes evident that identifying these specific types serves as an essential step toward effective treatment and intervention strategies. Understanding the variations in articulation errors will lay the foundation for comprehending the underlying causes, enabling us to provide targeted support and guidance in improving speech and language skills.

Causes of Articulation Disorders

Understanding the types of articulation errors is crucial in identifying and addressing articulation disorders. Now, let us delve into the causes that contribute to the development of articulation disorders.

To illustrate the impact of articulation disorders, consider a hypothetical case study: Emily, a six-year-old girl, struggles with producing certain sounds accurately. She frequently substitutes /r/ with /w/ and /th/ with /f/. As a result, her speech intelligibility is significantly affected, leading to misunderstandings in everyday communication. Understanding the underlying causes behind such errors can help professionals formulate appropriate intervention strategies for children like Emily.

Several factors may contribute to the development of articulation disorders:

• Structural abnormalities: Some individuals may have physical anomalies affecting their oral structures (e.g., cleft palate or lip), making it difficult to produce specific sounds correctly.
• Motor coordination difficulties: Articulating precise movements required for accurate speech production relies on intricate motor control. Certain individuals may struggle with coordinating these movements effectively.
• Hearing impairment: Adequate hearing is vital for developing age-appropriate speech production skills. Children who experience hearing loss during critical language acquisition stages may demonstrate delayed or impaired articulation skills.
• Language delay or disorder: Children with language delays or disorders often exhibit challenges in acquiring phonetic rules and sound patterns within their native language, resulting in persistent errors.
• Frustration: Individuals struggling with consistent misarticulations might feel frustrated when others have difficulty understanding them.
• Social isolation: Difficulties being understood by peers can lead to feelings of exclusion or isolation from social interactions.
• Low self-esteem: Persistent difficulties in verbal communication can negatively impact one’s self-confidence and overall sense of worth.
• Academic challenges: Articulation disorders can interfere with learning and academic performance, particularly in subjects that require verbal expression.

As we explore the causes of articulation disorders, it is essential to recognize the emotional impact these difficulties can have on affected individuals. To further illustrate this point, let’s consider a three-column table displaying potential emotions experienced by different age groups:

Understanding the underlying causes and emotional ramifications of articulation disorders helps professionals devise appropriate intervention plans tailored to individual needs. In our subsequent section, we will discuss common articulation disorders in children without delay or disorder labels. This knowledge will provide valuable insights into specific speech sound errors commonly observed among typically developing children.

Common Articulation Disorders in Children

Imagine a scenario where a young child named Emma struggles with pronouncing certain sounds correctly. For instance, instead of saying “cat,” she says “tat.” This articulation error may seem minor, but it can significantly impact her ability to communicate effectively. Understanding the implications of articulation disorders is crucial in helping individuals like Emma overcome these challenges.

Articulation disorders can have various effects on communication. Here are some key points to consider:

• Limited intelligibility: Individuals with articulation disorders often experience difficulties being understood by others due to their pronunciation errors. This limited intelligibility can lead to frustration and feelings of isolation.
• Social consequences: Children with severe articulation disorders may face social challenges, as their peers may struggle to understand them or make fun of their speech. These negative experiences can affect self-esteem and hinder social interactions.
• Academic performance: Clear communication skills are essential for academic success. Students with articulation disorders might find it difficult to participate in class discussions, present projects, or even follow instructions from teachers. Consequently, their educational development may be affected.
• Emotional well-being: Dealing with an articulation disorder can cause emotional distress for both children and adults alike. Feelings of embarrassment, shame, or anxiety about speaking in public settings are common among those struggling with speech clarity.

To further comprehend the impact of articulation disorders on communication, let’s explore the following table:

Understanding how articulation disorders influence communication is vital when seeking appropriate interventions and support.

Transitioning seamlessly into the subsequent section, we will now explore “Diagnosis and Assessment of Articulation Errors” to shed light on how professionals identify and evaluate these speech disorders.

Diagnosis and Assessment of Articulation Errors

Understanding Articulation Disorders: Diagnosis and Assessment

In the previous section, we explored common articulation disorders in children. Now, let us delve into the crucial process of diagnosing and assessing these speech errors to provide effective intervention strategies. To illustrate this process, consider a hypothetical case study involving a 7-year-old boy named Ethan.

Ethan presents with difficulties in producing /r/ sounds accurately, often substituting them with a /w/ sound. This error significantly impacts his intelligibility and communication skills. Understanding how to diagnose and assess articulation disorders is essential for developing targeted treatment plans tailored to individual needs.

When evaluating individuals like Ethan who exhibit articulation errors, several key assessment methods are employed:

• Speech Sound Inventory: A comprehensive examination of all consonants, vowels, and diphthongs helps identify which specific sounds are problematic for the individual.
• Stimulability Testing: This procedure determines if an individual can imitate correct production of misarticulated sounds when provided with appropriate cues or models.
• Contextual Analysis: Analyzing the occurrence of errors within various word positions (initial, medial, final) provides insights into patterns and consistency.
• Intelligibility Measures: Assessing how well others understand the individual’s speech aids in determining the impact of their articulation disorder on functional communication.

As professionals gather data through these assessments, they gain valuable information regarding an individual’s specific articulatory difficulties and associated factors such as oral motor abilities or phonological processes involved. Armed with this knowledge, clinicians can then develop personalized treatment plans to address articulation errors effectively.

In the subsequent section, we will explore various treatment options for individuals with articulation disorders. By implementing appropriate interventions, professionals can help individuals like Ethan overcome their speech challenges and enhance their overall communication skills.

Treatment Options for Articulation Disorders

Understanding the impact of articulation errors in speech and language is crucial for effective diagnosis and treatment. In this section, we will delve into the various treatment options available for individuals with articulation disorders. To illustrate the importance of these interventions, let us consider an example:

Imagine a six-year-old child named Alex who struggles with producing certain sounds accurately. Despite his best efforts, he consistently substitutes the “r” sound with a “w” sound when speaking. This misarticulation affects his ability to communicate clearly and may lead to frustration or even social difficulties.

When it comes to addressing articulation disorders like Alex’s, there are several treatment options that can be explored. Here are some commonly used strategies:

• Speech Therapy: A qualified speech-language pathologist (SLP) can work closely with individuals like Alex to improve their speech production skills through targeted exercises and techniques.
• Articulation Drills: These involve repetitive practice of specific sounds or words to help reinforce correct articulatory movements.
• Visual Cues: Using visual aids such as mirrors or diagrams can assist individuals in understanding proper tongue placement and lip movement during speech production.
• Auditory Discrimination Training: This technique helps individuals differentiate between correct and incorrect productions by listening carefully to spoken words.
• Improved self-confidence
• Enhanced communication abilities
• Increased participation in social interactions
• Reduced feelings of isolation

Additionally, here is a table showcasing four common treatment approaches along with their corresponding benefits:

In summary, by implementing appropriate interventions such as speech therapy, articulation drills, visual cues, and auditory discrimination training, individuals with articulation disorders can experience significant improvements in their speech production abilities. These treatments not only enhance communication skills but also contribute to increased self-confidence and better social interactions.

Transitioning smoothly into the subsequent section about “Tips for Parents to Help Children with Articulation Errors,” it is important for parents to be actively involved in supporting their child’s progress. By understanding effective strategies and implementing them consistently, parents can play a crucial role in facilitating their child’s journey towards improved articulation skills.

Tips for Parents to Help Children with Articulation Errors

In the previous section, we discussed various treatment options for individuals with articulation disorders. Now, let’s delve deeper into understanding the impact of these errors on communication. To illustrate this, consider a hypothetical case study of Sarah, a 6-year-old girl struggling with articulation errors.

Sarah’s speech difficulties primarily manifest in her inability to produce certain sounds accurately. For example, she often substitutes “th” with “f,” resulting in words like “thumb” sounding like “fum.” These errors can significantly impede her ability to communicate effectively and may lead to misunderstandings or frustration both for Sarah and those trying to understand her.

The impact of articulation errors on communication extends beyond mere pronunciation issues. It can affect several aspects of an individual’s life, including:

• Social interactions: Mispronunciations can make it challenging for individuals with articulation disorders to engage in conversations confidently. The fear of being misunderstood or judged by others might hinder their willingness to participate actively.
• Academic performance: Difficulty pronouncing certain sounds correctly can interfere with language acquisition and literacy skills development. This could potentially affect reading comprehension and overall academic progress.
• Self-esteem: Repeated experiences of not being understood or facing ridicule due to articulation errors may negatively impact an individual’s self-confidence and self-worth.
• Emotional well-being: A constant struggle to express oneself clearly can lead to feelings of frustration, isolation, or even anxiety in social situations.

Understanding the significant impact that articulation disorders have on communication is crucial when addressing them effectively. By recognizing and empathizing with individuals facing these challenges, we can provide the support and resources needed to enhance their communication skills.

In summary, articulation errors can have far-reaching consequences on an individual’s ability to communicate effectively. From difficulties in social interactions to potential academic setbacks, it is essential to acknowledge the emotional toll it takes on individuals with articulation disorders. By understanding the impact of these errors, we can work towards creating a more inclusive environment that fosters effective communication for all.

Related posts:

• Articulation Disorders: Understanding and Addressing Speech and Language Challenges
• Oral Motor Skills in Speech and Language: Insights into Articulation Disorders
• Phonological Processes in Speech and Language: Understanding Articulation Disorders
• Speech Sound Disorders: Understanding Articulation Disorders in Speech and Language

Understanding Stuttering: A Comprehensive Guide to Speech ...

Understanding vocal cord nodules: speech and language ....

• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy

FAQ: 10 common speech error patterns seen in children of 3-5 years of age – and when you should be concerned

Speech is a wonderfully complex skill, and children need lots of practice to learn how to do it. As with any motor skill, children make plenty of mistakes as they learn to speak clearly.

In English, we hear several common patterns of error in children’s speech as they grow up. Here are 10 common types of error pattern, and the approximate age by which we expect them to be ‘fixed’ (gone) in typically developing children:

1. Assimilation: 

Lala wants the lellow kuk.  (lara wants the yellow truck.).

It’s human nature to do as little work as possible, and our tongues, lips and other ‘articulators’ can be just as lazy as the rest of us! Often one sound in a word will affect one or more other sounds in the word. This is called assimilation (or consonant harmony) . Sometimes, the first sound in a word will change later sounds, e.g. if the child said ‘beb’ for ‘bed’. This is called progressive assimilation. Other times, later sounds in a word affect earlier sounds, e.g. if a child says ‘lellow’ for ‘yellow’. This is called regressive assimilation.

When to consider seeking help: if assimilation is still a feature of your child’s speech at the age of 2½-3 years of age.

2. Reduplication: 

The taitai needs wawa.  (the tiger needs water.).

When children repeat a syllable twice, rather than pronouncing both syllables of the word, they can sound a bit like babies babbling (e.g. mama, dada). When we hear it in 3-5 year olds, we call this error pattern reduplication . It almost always happens when the child repeats the stressed syllable twice, at the expense of the weak syllable, e.g. as in tiger and water above.

When to consider seeking help: if your child is 2½-3 years old or older and reduplicating syllables more than occasionally.

3.  Voicing: 

I fount a pek for the bram.  (i found a peg for the pram.).

The sentence above makes no sense whatsoever. But it allows me to illustrate voicing errors . In English, we produce some of our sounds with our vocal cords apart. These are called unvoiced sounds, which include sounds like p, t, k, s and sh. For other sounds, we bring our vocal cords together to ‘turn on’ our voices. These are called voiced sounds and include b, d, g, z and n. It takes a lot of control to turn your voice on and off during speech, and it’s not unusual for some children to make errors like not voicing sounds when they should (e.g. pek instead of peg) or voicing sounds when they shouldn’t (e.g. bram instead of pram).

Age at which you should you consider therapy: 3 years (or younger if your child is being teased for it).

4. Final consonant deletion: 

Gi me my du ma ba.  (give me my duck mat back.).

Young children often omit the final consonants in their words. This is called (appropriately enough) final consonant deletion . It can have a big impact on how easy your child is for others to understand – could you understand the example sentence above without the translation?

When to consider seeking help: if your child is regularly omitting final consonants in words at the age of 3 years, 3 months.

5. Fronting: 

Sorn tan’t find any eds to teep.   (sean can’t find any eggs to keep.).

This type of error is called  fronting . It occurs when sounds normally produced with the tongue positioned at the back of the mouth (e.g. k, g and sh) are instead produced with the tongue positioned towards the front of the mouth (e.g. like t, d, and s).

Age at which you should you consider therapy: 3½-4 years of age (or younger if your child is hard for others to understand or being teased for it).

6. Stopping: 

Da ban crac into dit debra.  (the van crashed into this zebra.).

This ghoulish sentence illustrates  stopping . In English, many speech sounds can be stretched out and held continuously until you run out of breath. Sounds like s, z, f, v and th, are good examples. Other speech sounds can’t be held continuously, e.g. p, b, t, d, k and g, which are all examples of ‘plosives’. It’s common for young children to substitute plosives for continuous sounds. We call this ‘stopping’ because the children are ‘stopping’ the sounds, e.g. turning the ‘this’ with its nice continuous ‘th’ and ‘s’ sound into ‘dit’.

Age at which you should you consider therapy:

• 3 years of age for ‘f’ or ‘s’ (or younger if your child is being teased for it);
• 3½ years of age for ‘v’ or ‘z’ (or younger if your child is being teased for it);
• 4½ years of age for ‘sh’, ‘j’ or ‘ch’ (or younger if your child is being teased for it); and
• 5-7 years of age for ‘th’ (as in ‘thin’) and ‘th’ (as in ‘the’) (or younger if your child is being teased for it).

7. Weak syllable deletion: 

The efant needs a brela.  (the elephant needs an umbrella.).

When we speak, we don’t emphasise each of our syllables equally. For example, in the word ‘telephone’, we usually place the stress on the ‘te’ and ‘phone’, leaving the ‘le’ syllable in the middle un-stressed and weak.  In ‘umbrella’, we stress the ‘bre’, leaving the ‘um’ unstressed and weak. I’ll spare you a lecture about Trochaic and Iambic stress patterns in English. Why I mention stress patterns is that it’s common for young children to omit weak syllables. We call this weak syllable deletion .

Age at which you should you consider therapy: 4 years (or younger if your child is being teased for it).

8. Cluster Reduction: 

There’s a ‘cary ‘pider in my room  (there’s a scary spider in my room).

Many words in English contain combinations or ‘clusters’ of consonants, e.g. squawk, crab or flower. It’s common for young children to omit one or more of the consonants in a cluster (so called cluster reduction ), and there are some clever rules of thumb speech pathologists use to help us predict which ones.

Age at which you should you consider therapy: 4-5 years (or younger if your child is hard for others to understand or is being teased for it).

9. Deaffrication: 

“zhack broke my wash”. (‘jack broke my watch.’).

This one has a fancy name – deaffrication – and needs some explanation. 

The word “affricate” comes to us via German from the same Latin root as friction, meaning ‘ rub together ’. In English, we have two affricate speech sounds – ‘ch’ (as in “chat”) and ‘j’ (as in “Jack”). Each is made by “rubbing together” two speech sounds:

• the “ch” sound in “check” – transcribed as /t ʃ/ in the International Phonetic Alphabet or IPA – is a combination of /t/ (as in “tell”) and “sh” (/ ʃ/), as in “shell”; and 
• the “j” sound – transcribed as /d ʒ/   in IPA – is a combination of /d/ (as in “dog”) and “zh” (/ ʒ/ in IPA), as in the middle of “vision”. 

Deaffrication occurs when an affricate is simplified by leaving out the first speech sound of the pair, e.g., when:

• “chain” (/t ʃein/) is pronounced as “Shane” (/ʃein/); 
• “watch” /wɒtʃ/ is pronounced as “wash” (/wɒʃ/);
• “Jack” (/d ʒaek/) is pronounced as “Zhack” (/ʒaek/); or
• “hedge (/hɛdʒ/) is pronounced as “hezh” (/hɛʒ/).

Age at which you should you consider therapy: 5 years of age (or younger if your child is being teased for it).

10. Gliding: 

The wabbit woves wed wibbons.  (the rabbit loves red ribbons.).

We call this error pattern  gliding . It’s most common with r and l. Two year olds who glide are often praised for their cuteness. Gliding is not so adorable when you’re seven.

Age at which you should you consider therapy: 5-6 years of age (or younger if your child is being teased for it).

Other considerations

In reality, young children – especially 2 and 3 year olds – often make many of these errors in the same sentence, e.g. ‘dec a tary fwigt’n pider in my woo’. This can make it very difficult for adults who don’t know a child well to understand what he or she is trying to communicate.

The above suggested ages for considering seeking help are, of course, only guides. You are the expert on your child and you should always feel free to discuss your child’s speech development with a speech pathologist.

As a general rule, if:

• your child’s speech is noticeably less developed or easy to understand than that of his or her peers;
• your child shows signs of anxiety or frustration about his or her speech;
• your child is self-conscious about his or her speech, or is being teased or bullied;
• your child’s childcare, pre-school or school teachers flag concerns about your child’s speech;
• you simply want to check that there’s nothing to worry about; or
• your child’s speech features any of these error patterns at 5 years of age,

we recommend you contact a speech pathologist to discuss your concerns.

Principal sources : Dodd, Hua, Crosbie, Holm & Ozanne (2002); Grunwell (1987); McLeod (1996); Bowen (1998).

Related articles :

• Lifting the lid on speech therapy: how we assess and treat children with unclear speech – and why
• My child’s speech is unclear to adults she doesn’t know. Is that normal for her age? (An important research update about child speech intelligibility norms)
• 12 speech-related warning signs that your child might have a hearing problem
• Important update: In what order and at what age should my child learn to say his/her consonants? FAQs
• Speech sound disorders in children
• How to treat speech sound disorders 1: the Cycles Approach
• How to treat speech sound disorders 2: the Complexity Approach
• How to treat speech sound disorders 3: Contrastive Approach – Minimal and Maximal Pairs
• How to identify and treat young children with both speech and language disorders
• ‘He was such a good baby. Never made a sound!’ Late babbling as a red flag for potential speech-language delays
• Why preschoolers with unclear speech are at risk of later reading problems: red flags to seek help

Image : http://tinyurl.com/neoc5by

Hi there, I’m David Kinnane.

Principal Speech Pathologist, Banter Speech & Language

Our talented team of certified practising speech pathologists provide unhurried, personalised and evidence-based speech pathology care to children and adults in the Inner West of Sydney and beyond, both in our clinic and via telehealth.

Share this:

David Kinnane

My child’s speech is hard to understand. Which therapy approach is appropriate?

Lifting the lid on speech therapy: How we assess and treat children with unclear speech – and why

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

© 2024 Banter Speech & Language ° Call us 0287573838

Copy Link to Clipboard

Joe Biden Now Leads Donald Trump in Ten Polls

W ith seven months to go until the presidential election, incumbent President Joe Biden is beating his Republican challenger Donald Trump in a series of recent polls.

The Democrat is leading Trump in ten separate polls conducted in the last month, although experts have cautioned that it is still too early to call the election and Trump is polling higher than Biden in other polls too.

Below, Newsweek has listed the polls in which Biden is leading Trump.

Newsweek contacted representatives for Trump and Biden by email to comment on this story.

1. Florida Atlantic University and Mainstreet

This poll found that 47 percent will vote for Biden come polling day while 45 percent expressed support for Trump. However, when all voters were included the two drew, both receiving 44 percent of the vote.

This poll was conducted between March 15 to March 17 with a sample of 1,053 adults. The margin of error is +/- 3.0 percent.

2. RMG Research

In a poll of 1679 voters conducted between April 1 and April 4, 44 percent of high propensity voters said they would vote for Biden if an election were held today, while 43 percent said they would vote for Trump.

The margin of error for the poll is 2.4 percent.

3. Data for Progress

A survey of 1,200 likely voters conducted between March 27 and March 29 found that 47 percent would vote for Biden while 46 percent would vote for Trump.

The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

An April Ipsos poll for Reuters found that 41 percent of registered voters would vote for Biden compared to 37 percent who would vote for Trump. The survey has a 4 percentage point margin of error and e. Ipsos polled 833 registered voters between April 5 and 9 in this survey.

5. Quinnipiac University

A March 27 poll of 1,407 registered voters found that 48 percent of voters support Biden and 45 percent support Trump. The margin of error is +/- 2.6 percentage points.

6. Marquette Law School

Conducted between March 18 and March 2028, this poll of likely voters found that 45 percent would vote for Biden and 44 percent would vote for Trump. However, the poll of registered voters found that 44 percent would vote for Trump and 42 percent for Biden.

7. Marist College

A Marist College poll of 1,305 people for NPR found that Biden has the support of 50 percent of registered voters and Trump has the support of 48 percent. The poll was conducted between March 25 and March 28 and involved 1,199 people.

There was a margin of error of +/- 3.7 percentage points.

8. I&I/TIPP

A poll of 1,265 registered voters revealed that 43 percent support Biden and 40 percent support Trump. The April 3 to April 5 poll has a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percentage points.

9. Noble Predictive

According to a poll of 2510 registered voters, 44 percent would vote for Biden while 43 percent would vote for Trump.

The poll was conducted from March 11 to March 15 and the margin of error is +/- 2 percent.

10. Progress Action Fund

A poll released by the Democratic super PAC Progress Action Fund and conducted by Public Policy Polling showed Biden leading Trump 46 percent to 45 percent. The poll, which was first shared with the Hill , has a margin of error of +/- 3.4 percentage points. It was conducted between March 12 and March 13 and surveyed 837 registered voters.

Heath Brown, an associate professor of public policy at City University of New York, told Newsweek on Thursday that the race was "very close."

"The polling over the last several months indicate this is a very close race. I wouldn't read too much into any one or two polls at this point. The trend seems to be that the campaign will be a very tight one and I suspect the polls will reflect that until November."

The election will take place on 5 November. Until then, polls and commentary will continue to drive speculation about the result of the election.

Related Articles

• Republicans Get Warning Sign in State Trump Won
• Joe Biden Gets Poll Boost in Key Swing State
• Is Joe Biden the Favorite Now?

Start your unlimited Newsweek trial

Updated 4m ago

What happened in the 2024 WNBA Draft: Caitlin Clark picked No. 1, Angel Reese picked by Chicago Sky, full analysis

Caitlin Clark goes No. 1 to Fever; full first-round results

BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Eight days after completing one of the greatest collegiate basketball careers ever recorded, Caitlin Clark was selected with the No. 1 in Monday’s WNBA Draft by the Indiana Fever .

Clark is poised to not only help the Fever return to the postseason for the first time since 2016, but also use her star power to jolt the WNBA at a critical juncture in its history. "I think more than anything I’m just really excited," Clark told NBC News this past weekend.

Clark achieved historic levels of success over her four seasons at Iowa. She scored 3,951 points — the most ever in NCAA men’s or women’s Division I history. She also broke the record for 3-pointers in a single season, made two national championship appearances and twice was named the National Player of the Year.

Those are just some of her accolades from a career that was so prolific that Iowa announced last week — not even a week after her college career ended — it will retire her No. 22 jersey.

Clark often performed in front of sellout crowds and her games shattered television viewing records. South Carolina ’s win over Iowa in the 2024 national championship was seen on ABC by 18.9 million viewers, with a peak audience of 24.1 million — a 90 percent increase from the 2023 title game and a 289 percent increase from 2022. The game broke viewership records that had been set only days before in Iowa’s Elite Eight matchup against LSU .

Even Monday’s draft at the Brooklyn Academy of Music was expected to break the event’s ratings record.

Follow along here for live updates and analysis from The Athletic 's staff.

First round results

• Indiana Fever: Caitlin Clark, G, Iowa
• Los Angeles Sparks : Cameron Brink, F, Stanford
• Chicago Sky (via Phoenix Mercury ): Kamilla Cardoso , C, South Carolina
• Los Angeles Sparks (via Seattle Storm ): Rickea Jackson , F, Tennessee
• Dallas Wings (via Chicago Sky): Jacy Sheldon , G, Ohio State
• Washington Mystics : Aaliyah Edwards , F, UConn
• Chicago Sky (via Minnesota Lynx ): Angel Reese , F, LSU
• Minnesota Lynx (via Atlanta Dream): Alissa Pili , F, Utah
• Dallas Wings: Carla Leite, G, Tarbes (France)
• Connecticut Sun : Leila Lacan, G, Angers (France)
• New York Liberty: Marquesha Davis , G, Ole Miss
• Atlanta Dream (via Las Vegas Aces ): Nyadiew Puoch, F, Southside Flyers (Australia)

Second round results

• Chicago Sky: Brynna Maxwell , G, Gonzaga
• Seattle Storm: Nika Mühl , G, UConn
• Indiana Fever: Celeste Taylor , G, Ohio State
• Las Vegas Aces: Dyaisha Fair , G, Syracuse
• New York Liberty: Esmery Martinez, F, Arizona
• Las Vegas Aces: Kate Martin , G, Iowa
• Connecticut Sun: Taiyanna Jackson, C, Kansas
• Atlanta Dream: Isobel Borlase, G, Adelaide Lightning (Australia)
• Washington Mystics: Kaylynne Truong , G, Gonzaga
• Connecticut Sun: Helena Pueyo , G, Arizona
• New York Liberty: Jessika Carter , G, Mississippi State
• Las Vegas Aces: Elizabeth Kitley , C, Virginia Tech

Third round results

• Phoenix Mercury: Charisma Osborne, G, UCLA
• Seattle Storm: Mackenzie Holmes, F, Indiana
• Indiana Fever: Leilani Correa , G, Florida
• Los Angeles Sparks: Mckenzie Forbes, F, USC
• Phoenix Mercury: Jaz Shelley , G, Nebraska
• Washington Mystics: Nastja Claessens, G, Belgium
• Minnesota Lynx: Kiki Jefferson , G, Louisville
• Atlanta Dream: Matilde Villa, G, Italy
• Dallas Wings: Ashley Owusu , G, Penn State
• Connecticut Sun: Abbey Hsu , G, Columbia
• New York Liberty: Kaitlyn Davis , F, USC
• Las Vegas Aces: Angel Jackson , C, Jackson State

Find the best deals on tickets to see your favorite teams.

WNBA Draft full grades

The most anticipated WNBA Draft in recent memory has come and gone. Once again, it was a franchise-changing day for the Indiana Fever, who drafted Caitlin Clark. Meanwhile, several teams made meaningful investments in their futures while others fine-tuned in their pursuit of a championship in the near term.

Let’s take a look at how well each team accomplished its goals in the 2024 WNBA Draft. The grades are a little bit higher across the board than last year, but this was a better pool of players. I’m allowing for some optimism.

Continue reading.

WNBA Draft grades: Fever earn A for picking Clark, Sky receive C+ even with Angel Reese

Advertisement

How will Angel Reese fit with the Chicago Sky?

(Photo: Sarah Stier / Getty Images)

Heading into the WNBA Draft, one general manager called Angel Reese “an enigma.” Regardless of her extensive college resume — national champion, three-time All-American, SEC player of the year — questions still existed about her fit in the WNBA.

The Chicago Sky had no such uncertainty. The Sky telegraphed their intentions to select the LSU star more than 24 hours before the draft with a massive trade that compromised their future but allowed them to select the player they wanted at No. 7. As Chicago fully commits to its post-2021 title rebuild, Reese will be at the center of that process.

“We are absolutely thrilled we were able to get Angel at seventh overall,” Sky general manager Jeff Pagliocca said in a press release. “That was our hope. We have another incredibly competitive player in Chicago who fits our identity and culture of the city. She is a relentless rebounder, she is a national champion and an SEC Player of the Year and we cannot wait to see her here in Chi Town.”

That synergy between Reese and Chicago, as well as Reese and the organization, is critical. Reese’s college career demonstrated how important it was for her to be on the same page as her head coach. Now, she’ll play for a coach in Teresa Weatherspoon who also suited up for Kim Mulkey, back when the current LSU coach was an assistant at Louisiana Tech.

Reese also will play for an organization that understands her proper position and is invested in her development. With the third pick, the Sky drafted South Carolina’s 6-foot-7 Kamilla Cardoso as the franchise center to pair with Reese, allowing her to play at power forward, which is her natural spot given her 6-3 stature. It harkens back to Reese’s junior season with the Tigers, when she most often shared the court with LaDazhia Williams or Sa’Myah Smith during their championship season. Most WNBA general managers agreed that Reese will need to play at the four, even though she competed at center during her senior season and has excelled near the basket.

That means Reese will have to expand her game beyond the rim, which will necessitate a proper player development plan. Chicago is also the ideal place for that. Pagliocca had a background in player development before assuming the general manager role. Prior to the draft, he made it clear that the Sky were looking for a player who would evolve as the franchise gets back into title contention.

Will Angel Reese fit with Chicago Sky? ‘She’s a winner’

Fever GM sees 'championship' potential in Caitlin Clark-Aliyah Boston pairing

(Sarah Stier / Getty Images)

Lin Dunn, now in her third season as the Indiana Fever GM, was the Seattle Storm head coach and GM when it drafted Lauren Jackson and Sue Bird with back-to-back No. 1 picks in 2001 and 2002, respectively. Although Dunn resigned from the Storm after the 2002 season, Jackson and Bird eventually led the franchise to two championships in 2004 and 2010.

Dunn believes Aliyah Boston and Caitlin Clark have similar potential as a duo in Indiana after Boston and Clark were selected with consecutive No. 1 picks in 2023 and 2024, respectively. Last season, Boston was the eighth rookie to be chosen as a WNBA All-Star Game starter. Clark, the NCAA's All-Time leading scorer, recently led Iowa to its second consecutive NCAA Championship appearance after the program had never reached the title game and hadn’t advanced to the Final Four since 1993.

“It doesn’t happen very often, and so when it does happen and you can look back historically, it usually means that it leads to championships,” Dunn said of Clark being paired with Boston. “I think this is the beginning of us getting back on track to win another championship here. When we were able to put Bird and Jackson together, a great point guard and a great post player, we were able to take off in Seattle and I think that can happen here when you put Clark with Boston.”

Charisma Osborne clears out the green room

The green room is officially empty, as Charisma Osborne gets selected at the top of the third round by Phoenix. Even though this is far lower than where Osborne was projected to be selected, the Mercury did roster a third-round pick last season and have a lot of roster flexibility.

Other than their six protected veterans (Rebecca Allen, Natasha Cloud, Kahleah Copper, Sophie Cunningham, Brittney Griner, and Diana Taurasi), everyone else on Phoenix is on a training camp deal, so there is an opportunity for the UCLA product to stick as a backup for Cloud and Taurasi. It would also behoove the Mercury to get a player on a rookie-scale contract to help their books moving forward.

What the Aces are getting in Elizabeth Kitley?

Elizabeth Kitley was taken with the 24th pick by the Aces. A three-time winner of the ACC Player of the Year award, her future became murkier when she was lost for the postseason after tearing her ACL. Kitley, a star at Virginia Tech, was on crutches at the draft.

From glue piece to WNBA draftee

When Kate Martin was a freshman at Iowa and tore her ACL, she watched center and 2019 Naismith winner Megan Gustafson work and learned quickly what it took to become a good college basketball player. Now, she rejoins Gustafson as a teammate with the Las Vegas Aces.

“When I got to Iowa and I saw somebody like Megan, who was the hardest worker I'd ever been ever known and ever seen, to see that in person, it was insane,” Martin said. “She instilled a little bit of what it takes to get to that level to be great like she was.

“I watched her workouts plenty of times and she never took a rep off at practice and I admired that about her. I was like, ‘Oh shit, I'm gonna have to bring my A game every single practice next year when I get the opportunity because if you have the best player, one of the best players in the country doing that every single day in practice, it's like OK, then even the bench players are gonna have to do that as well. She raised everybody up to her level.”

Martin took that to heart as Iowa’s glue piece in helping the Hawkeyes reach back-to-back NCAA title games.

Las Vegas Aces select Kate Martin at No .18

When Cathy Engelbert walked up to the podium to announce the 18th pick, the guess was that she would announce that the Aces would draft Elizabeth Kitley or Charisma Osborne, the two remaining invitees in the green room. Instead, the defending champions chose another player who has competed for a title in each of the last two seasons: Kate Martin. Martin, who was in the stands to support Clark, but also hoped to be selected, will have an uphill battle to make the final roster in Las Vegas, but it's hard to bet against Iowa's team captain and consummate glue player during their recent rise.

Las Vegas Aces select Dyaisha Fair at No. 16

The back-to-back WNBA Champions are adding a pure scorer who shot 37.7 percent from three.

Celeste Taylor heads to Indiana at No. 15

The Big Ten DPOY heads to Indiana.

Seattle Storm select storm Nika Mühl at No. 14

The two-time Big East DPOY and Huskies' all-time assist leader heads to Seattle.

Chicago Sky select Bryanna Maxwell

After the Chicago Sky went off the board to select Brynna Maxwell, who had some ridiculous shooting numbers at Gonzaga, we're back to green room selections. Seattle continued its quest to find the next Sue Bird by picking Nika Mühl, the player who broke Bird's assist record at UConn. At No. 15, Indiana found some defensive reinforcements for Caitlin Clark by selecting the 2024 Big Ten defensive player of the year, Celeste Taylor, who sounded appropriately enthusiastic about no longer having to guard her new teammate.

WNBA Draft Round 1 summary

Caitlin Clark headlined the first round of the 2024 WNBA Draft, but two other rebuilding teams found their frontcourts of the future. Chicago paired SEC rivals Kamilla Cardoso and Angel Reese while Los Angeles brought in defensive and offensive stalwarts Cameron Brink and Rickea Jackson. Watching those partnerships develop in real-time should be one of the treats of this WNBA season.

The back of the first round had more of an international flair, as Carla Leite, Leila Lacan, and Nyadiew Puoch -- all 19 years old! though Leite's birthday is on April 16 – were selected. But perhaps the most intriguing pick in this range is Marquesha Davis, a guard out of Ole Miss who wasn't projected to land in the first round until the last few days after she was one of 15 players to earn an invite to the draft green room. Davis can fill a real role in New York as a perimeter stopper if she makes the final roster.

Paige Bueckers and Uconn are having some fun tonight.

Atlanta Dream select Nyadiew Puoch

(Daniel Pockett / Getty Images)

One more international player to close out Round 1, as the Atlanta Dream add another athletic wing to their roster. Nyadiew Puoch played for one of the best teams in the WNBL and has gone up against WNBA talent, even at the age of 19, preparing her to compete at this level.

New York Liberty select Marquesha Davis at No. 11

Our first genuine surprise of Round 1, though maybe it should not have been once Marquesha Davis earned an invite to the green room. The New York Liberty needed perimeter defense, and Davis learned from one of the best defensive coaches in the country Yolett McPhee-McCuin at Ole Miss.

Connecticut Sun select Leila Lacan at No. 10

(Borja B. Hojas / Getty Images)

The French point guard run continues. Leila Lacan is a big, strong guard, and Andraya Carter has compared her to Tiffany Hayes, who just started for the Connecticut Sun last season before retiring from the WNBA. Lacan excelled in the FIBA U19 World Cup in 2023 and will have an opportunity to play in high-stakes games right away on a Sun team expecting to contend.

Carla Leite heads to the Dallas Wings at No. 9

(ATPImages / Getty Images)

Our first international in the 2024 draft goes to Dallas, where the Wings will likely not be able to roster two first-rounders because of their existing players under contract. Carla Leite is only 19 years old and could be Dallas' point guard of the future, with an emphasis on the future, since she isn't coming over in 2024.

Controversy just hit the WNBA Draft

BROOKLYN – Kamilla Cardoso was asked about going to Chicago and what she knows about the city. Cardoso has never been there but she said she did hear it has good pizza. That was met by loud groans in the room here in New York.

"No?" Cardoso responded.

Pizza, of course, is taken very seriously in New York and deep dish is looked at very skeptically here. Some might argue it's barely pizza at all. Surely, Cardoso will get media training as she carries on her career with the Sky and flacks will work with Cardoso to prevent her from courting trouble in road cities. But it was a great way to get some cheap heat with the new home fans and ingratiate yourself to Chicago.

Alissa Pili goes No. 8 overall to Minnesota

(Steph Chambers / Getty Images)

Alissa Pili is the most unique prospect in this draft, and thus one of the hardest to peg in the mock draft process because of how specific her skill set is. But the Lynx have always valued college production, regardless of how those players are theoretically supposed to fit at the next level – take the talent, and make it work. That's what should happen with Pili in Minnesota.