Nonword Repetition and Levels of Abstraction in Phonological Knowledge

Susan Gathercole's Keynote Article (2006) is an impressive summary of the literature on nonword repetition and its relationship to word learning and vocabulary size. When considering research by Mary Beckman, Jan Edwards, and myself, Gathercole speculates that our finding of a stronger relationship between vocabulary measures and repetition accuracy for low-frequency sequences than for high-frequency sequences is due to differences in the range of the two measures. In our work on diphone repetition (e.g., Edwards, Beckman, & Munson, 2004; Munson, Edwards, & Beckman, 2005) we tried to increase the range in our dependent measures by coding errors on a finer grained scale than simple correct/incorrect scoring would allow. Moreover, restriction of range does not appear to be the driving factor in the relationship between vocabulary size and the difference between high- and low-frequency sequence repetition accuracy (what we call the "frequency effect") in at least one of our studies (Munson et al., 2005). When the children with the 50 lowest mean accuracy scores for high-frequency sequences were examined, vocabulary size accounted for 10.5% of the variance in the frequency effect beyond what was accounted for by chronological age. When the 50 children with the highest mean accuracy scores for high-frequency sequences were examined (a group in which the range of high-frequency accuracy scores was more compressed, arguably reflecting ceiling effects), an estimate of vocabulary size accounted for only 6.9% of the frequency effect beyond chronological age. The associated beta coefficient was significant only at the alpha less than 0.08 level. This is the opposite pattern than Gathercole's argument would predict.