Variation in human biology and child phonology: a response to Goad and Ingram

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Goad & Ingram (1987) use the mere existence of inter-child variability to argue in favour of a ‘cognitive’, and against a ‘biological’ model of phonological development (Locke 1983). In this response it is suggested that such an argument fails to recognize the uniqueness of each individual's neural and vocal structures, ignores documented variability in the phonetic patterns of prelexical (and arguably prephonological) infants, and assumes–inexplicably–that inter-child variability implies the operation of ‘cognitive’ factors.