Plenary Speakers

Prof. Dr. Martin J. BALL

Martin J. Ball is Hawthorne Endowed Professor, and Head of the Department of Communicative Disorders, at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. He co-edits the journal Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics. His main research interests include clinical phonetics and phonology, sociolinguistics, and Welsh linguistics, having authored or edited nearly 20 books, 30 contributions to collections, and over 50 refereed papers. He was awarded an honorary Fellowship of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists of London, and an Honorary Professorship of the University of Wales. He is immediate Past President of ICPLA

On the nature of phonology, and on the nature of Clinical Phonology Theoretical phonology has been one of the most productive areas of linguistics over the past half century in terms of both the development of the standard SPE model, and in a proliferation of alternative approaches. Advances from the classic SPE model include developments with features (feature geometry, underspecification) and developments with derivation (cyclical rules and lexical phonology). A major shift in thinking brought about the idea of non-linear phonology, with work in autosegmental and metrical approaches. Later, some phonologists moved away from traditional binary (or mixed binary and unary) features systems, developing theories such as dependency phonology, government phonology, and radical cv phonology. Despite all this work, however, it is often unclear whether these developments in theory are attempts to produce a more elegant way to describe sound patterns, or whether they are intended to model the neurolinguistic and/or psycholinguistic aspects of speech production. This dichotomy we term the difference between a descriptively adequate and psycholinguistically adequate phonology. Other phonological approaches have more clearly identified themselves as models of speech production (some psycholinguistic, others motor-based, or socio-functional). These include natural phonology, articulatory or gestural phonology, and neo-firthian prosodic phonology (that has also been adapted into systemic functional phonology). The current dominant model of phonology – Optimality Theory (or constraint-based phonology) – is an example, in my opinion, of a theory that claims psycholinguistic validity, but still seems in search of the economy and elegance that is the metric of descriptive adequacy. For example, in the application of this model to disordered speech we learn that the subject has re-arranged the ranking of a set of constraints (presumably in their mental phonology). Yet, at the same time, the theory relies on an infinite number of possible pronunciations to be scanned by the evaluation module – which as a model of speech production would surely result in no speech ever being produced! Clinical Phonology has consistently adopted models devised by theoretical phonologists to apply to disordered speech (usually several years after these models have been described). The result is a replication of the dichotomy we have just discussed. The account may well be an elegant and economical description of the data (although fine phonetic detail may often be lost in more abstract models of phonology), but may not tell us anything about the underlying disruption to the speech production process, and thus may not provide direct input to the intervention process. So an account of disordered speech that derives an inaccurate realization from a target form through a series of intermediate abstract (i.e. non-pronounced) steps using a set of non-pronounceable binary features will often tell us little about how this realization came about in terms of psycholinguistics. Even those more psycholinguistically-centered models of phonology are open to such a disconnect. A classic example in the clinical application of natural phonology might be the claim that certain realizations of fricatives in disordered speech can be accounted for through a “natural process” of stridency deletion. This “process” does not appear to be natural in terms of the theory, uses a phonetically non-supported feature description (stridency), and covers so many possible realizations as to be less than useful either in terms of description or explanation. In this plenary, I will illustrate some of the problems inherent in this division between description and explanation in clinical phonology, including the distinction between phonological and articulatory disorders. We will conclude by looking at some recent approaches (such as Bybee’s cognitive phonology) that eschew the emphasis on theoretical economy and move towards a more realistic account of the speech production process and the operation of the phonological and related components of language.
Prof. Dr. Gina CONTI-RAMSDEN
	Gina Conti-Ramsden is currently Professor of Child Language and Learning. She did her first degree in Psychology followed by a Masters in Linguistics; a master of science in speech and language therapy and her Ph.D. in Communication Disorders. She has been a visiting scholar internationally including Harvard University and La Universidad de Chile. She is the director of a national longitudinal study on specific language impairment (SLI) from 7 years of age to adult life. She has published widely on language disorders and SLI. She was the past editor of International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders. Dr. Conti-Ramsden is the present president of IASCL.

Understanding the nature of specific language impairment (SLI) There are many reasons why a child may not produce their first words as expected. What is of particular interest is that there are children who have difficulties with language whilst “everything else” appears to be normal. That “everything else” includes, by definition, adequate input from the senses: normal hearing and normal/corrected vision. It also includes an adequate biological basis to develop language (they have no obvious signs of brain damage) and an adequate basis for learning, i.e., their nonverbal abilities as measured by IQ are similar to those of their peers of the same age. A desire to engage socially is also important: such children seek to interact socially with adults and peers and as such are not like children with autism who are not as socially engaged. These children are usually referred to as children with specific language impairment (SLI). In this plenary talk I will first discuss the nature of SLI: its prevalence, familial heritability patterns and their psycholinguistic characteristics. Secondly, I will draw from our longitudinal cohort study (The Manchester Language Study) to examine outcomes in adolescence for these young people in order to illustrate the dynamic, developmental nature of the disorder. In particular, I will focus on key associated areas such as reading (dyxlexia) and social functioning (Autism Spectrum Disorders).
Prof. Dr. Kenneth St. LOUIS
	Ken St. Louis is a Professor of speech-language pathology at West Virginia University, US. He has coordinated an initiative to develop an instrument to measure public attitudes toward stuttering internationally since 1998. This research has resulted in collaborations with colleagues in numerous countries. St. Louis is a member of ASHA, SID-4, IFA, NSA, and other professional organizations related to fluency disorders. He has published and presented widely on numerous aspects of stuttering and cluttering for more than 30 years.

Public opinion toward stuttering: Similarities and differences around the worldstrong Numerous investigations have documented that stutterers are stigmatized by negative public attitudes about stuttering. It is generally assumed that the public is not well informed about stuttering, and if they were better informed, beliefs and attitudes about stuttering would be improved and life opportunities would be better for those who stutter. Accordingly, agencies have inaugurated public awareness campaigns to combat negative attitudes. Unfortunately, there are no standard instruments to measure public opinion toward stuttering, so it is difficult to know how effective these campaigns have been or are likely to be. The purpose of the International Project on Attitudes Toward Human Attributes (IPATHA) is to develop a reliable, valid, and practical instrument that can be used internationally to measure attitudes toward stuttering. A pilot instrument was developed that could be translated to other languages and administered to literate populations. Since 1998, about 2000 people in 35 different samples have responded to written questionnaires (experimental versions of the Public Opinion Survey of Human Attributes [POSHA-E]) in 8 different languages from 12 countries. In addition to pilot studies on test-retest reliability and probability vs. convenience sampling strategies, versions of the POSHA-E have been administered to fluency specialists and certified speech language pathologists. The POSHA-E has also been used in three studies attempting to change attitudes and one study of parents’ views of stuttering. Efforts are underway to carry out testing of a prototype final POSHA. This presentation will discuss issues and data related to instrument development. It will also discuss similarities and differences in reported beliefs, behaviors, reactions, and feelings on the POSHA-E across the different samples analyzed to date. Whereas important differences have been observed from sample-to-sample, surprising similarities in public opinions have emerged.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Lindsey NİCKELS
	Lyndsey Nickels, is an associate professor of speech-language pathology, who for more than 15 years has been undertaking aphasia research within the cognitive neuropsychological framework. She is currently Senior Research Fellow at Macquarie Centre for Cognitive Science, Macquarie University.. She has published widely on theoretical issues in language processing and aphasia and on rehabilitation of aphasia. Much of her research has focused on spoken word production and its treatment, but has also covered impairments and treatment of sentence processing, auditory comprehension, and reading and spelling.

The assessment and treatment of word retrieval impairments - insights from Cognitive Neuropsychology. Impairments of word-retrieval and production are a common and distressing feature of language disorders, both developmental (e.g. specific language impairment) and acquired (e.g. acquired aphasia), and much clinical time is devoted to attempts at their remediation. The Cognitive Neuropsychological approach to language argues that treatment will be maximally effective only when the direction of treatment is determined by precise knowledge of the individual’s processing strengths and weaknesses: Analysis limited to surface symptoms will not enable one to construct effective treatments because such symptoms can arise in various ways. Within this approach, hypothesis-driven assessment aims to systematically test the components of a language processing model in order to determine which components are impaired and which are operating with (at least partial) efficiency. Following assessment, the components of the system which are not functioning normally have been identified, and the clinician knows what abilities should be targeted by the treatment program. I will first discuss the levels of processing in word production, symptoms of impairment at each level and how to distinguish between each level of impairment. I will then go on to discuss the treatment of word production impairments, giving examples from research with both adults with aphasia and children with specific language impairment. There are now many research papers devoted to case studies examining treatments for word retrieval impairments using a wide range of tasks with individuals with varying levels of impairment. I will discuss several main themes from the literature, including semantic and phonological tasks in therapy, and the relationship between impairment, therapy task and outcome. I will conclude that there can be no doubt that therapy for word retrieval impairments can be highly successful, resulting in long term improvements which can be of great communicative significance for the individual with word production impairments. However, predicting with certainty the precise result of a specific treatment task with a specific individual is still difficult. For clinicians the recommendation is to use analyses of functional impairments to guide the choice of task, but to ensure that efficacy is tested and not assumed. Furthermore, structured multi-modal and multicomponent tasks (e.g ‘semantic’ or ‘phonological’ cueing hierachies) may hold the most promise for many individuals. For researchers, there remains a need to further dissect tasks, impairments and their interactions across series of single cases.
Dr. Peter INDEFREY
	Peter Indefrey is principal investigator at the F.C. Donders Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging and head of the research group The Dynamics of Multilingual Processing at the Max Planck Institute in Nijmegen (Netherlands). He received his M.D. and Ph.D. from Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf (Germany). A major focus of his work is on the neural correlates of first and second language lexical access and syntactic processing.

Do first and second languages differ in the brain? Well, it depends.
A meta-analysis of neurocognition studies on second language (L2) processing in word level and sentence level tasks shows that L2 processing activates the same brain regions as L1 processing. Within these regions, the left posterior inferior frontal lobe (Broca’s area) can be found to be more strongly activated in L2 speakers with late L2 onset. This area is involved in postlexical phonological processing (syllabification) in word production and in syntactic processing in both comprehension and production. Because stronger activation is observed in word production as well as sentence processing, I will argue that the neural structure in Broca’s area is optimized for L1-specific combinatorial processes, such that it works less efficiently for late-acquired second languages.
Independent evidence for less efficient postlexical processing in a second language comes from a recent ERP experiment. We investigated the time course of lexical phonological retrieval in L2 picture naming.
Although voice onset times in L2 picture naming were about 100 msecs longer than in L1 picture naming, we found no delay of lexical word form access, suggesting that the extra time needed to initiate a naming response in a second language arises postlexically.

PRE-CONFERENCE WORKSHOP

Assit. Prof. Dr. Nancye Roussel
	Dr. Nancye Roussel is an Assistant Professor in the Dept. of Communicative Disorders at the University of Louisiana, Lafayette. She is a certified speech- language pathologist and has practiced in both hospital and school settings prior to her employment at the University. She teaches graduate courses focusing on the use of instrumentation by SLPs, motor speech disorders, voice disorders, and dysphagia. Current research involves acoustic descriptions of disordered voice and speech.
The Relevance of Instrumental Assessment and Analysis to the Speech-Language Pathologist Instrumental analysis of the speech signal has played a significant role in the areas of basic and applied research in the fields of linguistics, phonetics, speech science and speech-language pathology. With the introduction within the last few years of relatively low cost software and hardware options for speech analysis, the techniques of research are now available to clinicians working in a variety of settings. In addition to understanding how to use the instruments, clinicians must be aware of when instrumental assessment is indicated and how to interpret the measures that they obtain. This workshop will explore the clinical use of instrumental analysis (primarily acoustic analysis) in the assessment and treatment of a variety of speech disorders including voice, resonance, fluency and motor speech disturbances. Demonstrations using the MultiSpeech Program by KayPentax will focus on the types of measurements that can be made and techniques to assure accurate measurement. In addition, information on interpretation of the results obtained including normative data will be provided. Areas in which normative data are lacking will also be highlighted. The workshop will conclude with a presentation of ways to use instruments as biofeedback devices during treatment. Again, MulitSpeech will be used for demonstration purposes but other instrumental methods such as nasometry, palatography and electroglottography will also be discussed.