642 JSLHR

JSLHR,, Volume
Volume 41,
41, 642–653,
642–653, June
June 1998
1998

The Acquisition of Arabic

Consonants

Mousa M. Amayreh
University of Jordan
Amman
Alice T. Dyson
University of Florida
Gainesville
This normative study of the acquisition of consonants of Arabic as spoken in
Jordan answered 4 questions: (1) What percentage of children at each of 9 age
levels produced each consonant correctly? (2) What are the ages of customary
production, mastery, and acquisition for each phoneme? (3) Does accuracy of
consonants within sound classes vary by position in the word? (4) What are the
differences in ages of acquisition between Arabic and English? Samples were
collected from 180 normally developing children between the ages of 2:0 and
6:4. The percentages of accuracy of both standard and acceptable consonants
were plotted and showed clear developmental trends. Medial consonants were
significantly more accurate than initial and final consonants. The ages of custom-
ary production, acquisition, and mastery of Arabic consonants were similar to
those for English but with notable exceptions that have implications for description of
phonological acquisition. Support for previously proposed universal sound acquisi-
tion sequences was found, but some language-specific effects were also seen.
KEY WORDS: phonology, articulation, Arabic, cross linguistic

T
he professions devoted to assessment and treatment of communi-
cation disorders have their roots in the study of normal language
and its acquisition. Such studies have been undertaken to support
theories about the nature, structure, change, and acquisition of differ-
ent aspects of language. One aspect of languages that has received con-
siderable attention is the acquisition of phonology, the sound systems
and rules for their use. Of special interest to those concerned both with
communication disorders in children and phonological acquisition in gen-
eral are the ages and sequences of phoneme learning in different languages.
Recent interest in second-language learning and in the provision of speech-
language and audiology services to children from diverse language groups
has led to a demand for normative data for those languages.
A large number of researchers have documented the acquisition and
development of phonology in English (e.g., Arlt & Goodban, 1976; Dyson,
1988; Dyson & Paden, 1983; Fudala, 1963; Goldman & Fristoe, 1980;
Ingram, Christensen, Veach, & Webster, 1980; Irwin & Wong, 1983; Khan
& Lewis, 1986; Moskowitz, 1970, 1975; Olmsted, 1971; Prather, Hedrick,
& Kern, 1975; Preisser, Hodson, & Paden, 1988; Sander, 1972; Smit,
Hand, Freilinger, Bernthal, & Bird, 1990; Stoel-Gammon, 1985, 1987;
Templin, 1957; Vihman & Greenlee, 1987). Although there are definite
methodological differences among these studies, the results have shown
surprising agreement (Smit, 1986). However, it is not clear that the find-
ings from studies of English phonology are directly applicable to other
languages (Jimenez, 1987; Macken, 1980; Mowrer & Burger, 1991; Omar,
1973; Pye, Ingram, & List, 1987; Yavas & Lamprecht, 1988).

Journal of
642 Journal
Speech,
of Speech,
Language,
Language,
and Hearing
and Hearing
ResearchResearch 1092-4388/98/4103-0642 ©1998, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 82.137.236.227 on 02/26/2022, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Amayreh & Dyson: Acquisition of Arabic Consonants
“Despite numerous studies on languages other than
English, we know relatively little about phonological
development in other languages. Some recent research,
however, applying the phonetic inventories/phonologi-
cal contrasts method to other languages has indicated
support for cross-linguistic differences” (Ingram, 1989a,
p. 214). The language of interest here was Arabic, spe-
cifically the variants spoken in Jordan. Arabic is a
Semitic language spoken by more than 150 million
people (Kaye, 1990). Semitic languages fall within the
Afroasiatic language family. Because Arabic has a dif-
ferent origin than Indo-European languages such as
English, it may be acquired differently. The consonant
inventory of Arabic (Appendix A) only overlaps that of
English; that is, it includes several additional consonants
and excludes some others. The consonants absent from
English include the emphatic consonants (described
below), glottal stop ///, voiceless and voiced uvular
fricatives /X/ and /‰/, and voiceless and voiced pharyn-
geal fricatives /©/ and /?/. Classification of uvular and
pharyngeal fricatives varies. For example, McCarthy
(1994) discussed their possible classification as
approximants instead of fricatives. In addition, the place
of articulation of pharyngeals might, in fact, be epiglot-
tal in some speakers (Ghazeli, 1977; Ladefoged &
Maddieson, 1996; McCarthy, 1994). Some consonants
that exist in both languages differ in the specifics of their
production (Al-Ani, 1970; Ferguson, 1956; Mitchell,
1990). For example, alveolars are more dental than in
most dialects of English. In addition, the /r/ is not a liq-
uid approximant as in English but is trilled when
postvocalic or geminated, and tapped when prevocalic.
Mitchell (1990) mentioned that Arabic is unique in
having emphatic/nonemphatic cognates. Emphatic de-
scribes segments in which the root of the tongue is re-
tracted toward the back wall of the pharynx (El-Halees
& Mina, 1990; Ghazeli, 1977; Harrell, 1957; Shahin,
1996). The standard phonemic inventory includes five
emphatic consonants, /t/, /d/, /D/, /s/ (sometimes tran-
scribed with a dot under the primary symbol), and /q/.
Four are the emphatic counterparts of nonemphatic /t/,
/d/, /D/, and /s/. The only distinctive features between the
two groups are [±emphatic] and [±back]. The other em-
phatic phoneme, /q/, has no nonemphatic cognate. Two
other consonants, /r/ and /‰/, can be emphatic in certain
environments, but emphasis with these sounds is not
phonemic. Emphatic consonants influence the surround-
ing vowels, especially the following vowel, causing it to
be produced farther back in the mouth.
Another important way in which Arabic differs from
English is in the extent of free variation among certain
consonants. Jordan is a cosmopolitan country with resi-
dents from all parts of the Arab world, but with a concen-
tration of native Jordanians and Palestinians. As a result
of this population diversity, many different dialects of
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 82.137.236.227 on 02/26/2022, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions
643
Arabic are spoken. Consonant differences among the
different dialects of Arabic are well-documented (Harrell,
1957; Kaye, 1976; Omar, 1973; Shahin, 1996). Knowl-
edge of these variants is essential if speech-language
pathologists concerned with Arabic are to differentiate
between variants due to dialectal differences (see, for
example, Table 1) and those due to articulation or pho-
nological disorders.
Although the focus of this study is Arabic conso-
nants, the vowels should be mentioned briefly. Standard
Arabic includes six vowel phonemes (/a:/, /a/, /i:/, /i/, /u:/,
/u/), three long vowels and their three short counterparts.
Some dialects also include other vowels (Harrell, 1957;
Shahin, 1996).
Very little data are currently available about how
Arabic is acquired and about the acquisition of its pho-
nology (Omar, 1973). Most reported studies have focused
on the adult phonological system (e.g., Al Ani, 1970;
Kaye, 1990; Mitchell, 1990; Omar, 1973). Normative data
collected for English probably should not be applied di-
rectly to Arabic because of the differences between the
two languages. For example, Omar (1973) reported that
/l/ was acquired earlier in Cairene Arabic than in En-
glish, possibly because of its frequent occurrence in Ara-
bic. In addition, pictures used to elicit phonemes from
English-speaking children are not always appropriate
for different cultures (Iglesias & Anderson, 1993).
The need for tests of articulation and phonology to
assess children whose mother tongue is Arabic is clear.
Amayreh (1994) took a preliminary step toward filling
this gap by developing an Arabic articulation test. The
present work used this test to examine the normal ac-
quisition of Arabic consonants in further detail. The
specific purpose of this study was to analyze normative
data on the acquisition of consonants of Arabic as spo-
ken in Jordan. These data were used to answer the fol-
lowing specific questions.
1. What percentage of children at each of 9 age levels
produced each consonant correctly?
2. What are the ages of customary production, mas-
tery, and acquisition for each consonant? The ages
Table 1. Variants of standard consonants that were considered as
acceptable.
/d/: [d], [D]
/q/: [k], [g], [G], [/]
///: „ (when word-medial)
/D/: [d]
/s/: [z] (when word-final)
/T/: [t]
/D/: [d]
/dZ/: [Z]
/j/: [/] (when word-initial)
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
644
were defined in the following ways, adapted from
Sander (1972): (a) customary production—at least
50% of children in an age group produced the con-
sonant correctly in at least two positions; (b) acqui-
sition—at least 75% of children in an age group pro-
duced the consonant correctly in all positions tested;
(c) mastery—at least 90% of children in an age group
produced the consonant correctly in all positions
tested.
3. Does accuracy of consonants within sound classes
vary by position in the word?
4. What are the similarities and differences in ages of
acquisition for Arabic and English?
Method
Subjects
The 180 monolingual Arabic-speaking subjects
ranged in age from 2:0 to 6:4, with 10 boys and 10 girls
in each of 9 age groups. All children lived in or near
Amman, Jordan. They each passed a 25- or 30-dB pure
tone hearing screening test at 500, 1000, 2000, 4000 Hz
(ANSI, 1969). No child who had been reported to be de-
layed in language development by teachers, parents, or
caregivers was included. In addition, the examiner ob-
served the language ability and the oral-facial speech
mechanism of each child during the assessment and
excluded any potential subject who did not appear to be
within normal limits in these areas.
Stimuli
A 58-word picture-naming test (Appendix B) was
designed to elicit spontaneous single-word responses
representing all possible initial, medial, and final con-
sonants of Standard Spoken Arabic (Amayreh, 1994).
Although some phonemes of Arabic have several dialec-
tal variants, the standard form was targeted as a start-
ing point. In the analysis, acceptable variants were noted
and credited as explained below. Five final consonants
were not tested because they are deleted by adults in
casual speech or because they do not occur in picturable
words familiar to young children. Six medial consonants
were part of sequences because of the lack of familiar
pictures for these consonants as singletons. Such se-
quences are not clusters in Arabic; one consonant ter-
minates the syllable, and the second initiates the fol-
lowing syllable (e.g., /mak.ta.ba/ library). All medial
consonants targeted were syllable initial except two, /d/
in /mad.ra.sa/ school and /X/ in //aX.dar/ green. Thirty-seven
of the words targeted one consonant, whereas the re-
maining 21 targeted two consonants to keep the num-
ber of words as small as possible.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 82.137.236.227 on 02/26/2022, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions
JSLHR, Volume 41, 642–653, June 1998
Procedure
Each speech sample was recorded on a portable cas-
sette recorder with an external lapel microphone placed
approximately 6 to 8 inches from the child’s mouth.
Samples were collected by the first author and by two
speech-language pathology graduate students from the
University of Jordan. All examiners were native Arabic
speakers familiar with variants of standard consonants
used in Jordan.
Each child was tested individually in a 10- to 20-
min session. When necessary, other familiar people re-
mained in the room but were cautioned not to assist the
child in any way. If the child did not name the picture
spontaneously, additional cues were given. These in-
cluded questions, prompts, and delayed imitation. Di-
rectly imitated responses were noted and excluded from
all analyses. A few of the younger children refused to
say some words, and in a few cases the examiners
skipped a picture. However, because of the repeated at-
tempts to obtain each target word that was not produced
readily by the subjects, most of the responses were elic-
ited from all children. In the rare case of an incomplete
sample, the responses were treated as neither correct
nor incorrect, but were handled by reducing the num-
ber of possible occurrences.
Transcription
A narrow transcription of the audiotaped material
was completed by the two authors using the consensus
procedure outlined by Shriberg, Kwiatkowski, and
Hoffman (1984). To examine the reliability of transcrip-
tion, 10% of the samples were transcribed independently
by the two authors and analyzed using the reliability
program of the Logical International Phonetics Pro-
grams (LIPP; Oller & Delgado, 1990) with modifications
to account for the phonemes of Arabic. These modifica-
tions included the addition of phonetic symbols for the
emphatic consonants and the addition of diacritics that
were lacking in the original program and were observed
among these children. Minor disagreements in which
both versions resulted in an acceptable variant of a con-
sonant were disregarded as recommended by Shriberg
et al. (1984). The mean of the percentages of consonant
agreement for these transcriptions was .916.
Transcribed samples were entered and analyzed
using the LIPP. In addition, the data were analyzed
manually with the aim of eliminating errors of computer
entry. To determine the percentage of children who pro-
duced each consonant phoneme correctly (standard &
acceptable), the data were tabulated by age level and by
sex, with an entry for each phoneme. These percentage
tables were used to determine the ages of customary
production, mastery, and acquisition.
Amayreh & Dyson: Acquisition of Arabic Consonants 645

produced more accurately than those in either the ini-

Results tial (M = 38.79, SD = 33.538) or final (M = 43.84, SD =
Correctness was considered in two ways: standard 31.148) position. An ANOVA and Newman-Keuls Mul-
forms and acceptable forms. Segments with acceptable tiple Comparison indicated that this difference was sig-
variants were counted twice: once to consider the per- nificant at the .001 level for both standard and accept-
centage of children who produced the standard sound able productions. However, no significant difference was
and once to consider the percentage who produced any found between the initial and final positions. Further
acceptable variant (including the standard sound). Table analysis was carried out to determine if the medial po-
1 illustrates these sounds and the variants used. sition advantage applied to classes of consonants—stops,
Three aspects of accuracy at each age were consid- fricatives, and sonorants. These results for standard
ered: (a) the overall percentage of accuracy for the age sounds can be seen in Figures 4, 5, and 6. Six of the nine
group in all positions combined, (b) the difference in groups showed slightly better production accuracy on
accuracy by position and in individual sound classes, medial stops than on initial or final. In eight groups
and (c) the difference in accuracy between girls and boys. medial fricatives were produced more accurately than
Figure 1 illustrates the overall percentage of consonants those in other positions; however, in four of these groups
produced correctly by each group, ranging from 43% to this difference was small. All nine groups (most mark-
82% for standard productions and from 52% to 90% for edly the youngest groups) produced sonorants most cor-
acceptable productions. Clearly the standard and ac- rectly in the medial position.
ceptable productions followed the same developmental To compare the performance of girls and boys at each
trend. age level, the percentages of correct production were
Comparison of positions (Figures 2 and 3) indicated treated as scores, and a t test was used to determine the
that medial consonants (M = 44.75, SD = 32.224) were significance of any difference. No significant difference
was found between the scores at any age level. In fact,
Figure 1. Overall percentage of standard and acceptable it was not even possible to say that either girls or boys
consonants produced correctly by each age group. were slightly better than the other.
The percentages of accuracy for all groups in all
100
positions were examined to determine the ages of cus-
90
80
tomary production (at least 50% correct in at least two
positions), mastery (at least 90% correct in all positions
Percentage Correct

70
60 tested), and the acquisition age (at least 75% correct in
50 all positions tested) for each consonant. The age levels
40
both for standard and acceptable consonants can be seen
30
20
in Figure 7. Each phoneme is represented by two bars
10 when both standard (left bar) and acceptable (right bar)
0
2:0-2:4 2:6-2:10 3:0-3:4 3:6-3:10 4:0-4:4 4:6-4:10 5:0-5:4 5:6-5:10 6:0-6:4
variants occurred. Those segments with no acceptable
Groups variants have only the standard bar. Two phonemes, /d/
Standard Acceptable

Figure 3. Percentage of acceptable consonants produced correctly

by each age group in each position tested.
Figure 2. Percentage of standard consonants produced correctly
by each age group in each position tested. 100

90
100
80
90
Percentage Correct

70
80
60
Percentage Correct

70
60 50

50 40

40 30
30 20
20
10
10
0
0 2:0-2:4 2:6-2:10 3:0-3:4 3:6-3:10 4:0-4:4 4:6-4:10 5:0-5:4 5:6-5:10 6:0-6:4
2:0-2:4 2:6-2:10 3:0-3:4 3:6-3:10 4:0-4:4 4:6-4:10 5:0-5:4 5:6-5:10 6:0-6:4
Groups
Groups
Initial Medial Final Initial Medial Final

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 82.137.236.227 on 02/26/2022, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

646 JSLHR, Volume 41, 642–653, June 1998

Figure 4. Percentage of standard stops produced correctly by each Figure 6. Percentage of standard sonorants produced correctly by
age group in each position tested. each age group in each position tested.

100 100

90 90
80 80
Percentage Correct

70

Percentage Correct
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
20 30

10 20

0 10
2:0-2:4 2:6-2:10 3:0-3:4 3:6-3:10 4:0-4:4 4:6-4:10 5:0-5:4 5:6-5:10 6:0-6:4
0
Groups 2:0-2:4 2:6-2:10 3:0-3:4 3:6-3:10 4:0-4:4 4:6-4:10 5:0-5:4 5:6-5:10 6:0-6:4
Groups
Initial Medial Final
Initial Medial Final

Figure 5. Percentage of standard fricatives produced correctly by

consonants could be divided into three groups, or devel-
each age group in each position tested.
opmental stages, based on the acquisition age (75% cor-
100 rect in all positions tested). Early consonants included
90
those acquired before the age of 4:0. No acquisition mark-
ers fell exactly at this level. Intermediate consonants in-
80
Percentage Correct

cluded those acquired between 4:0 and 6:4. Late conso-

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2:0-2:4 2:6-2:10 3:0-3:4 3:6-3:10 4:0-4:4 4:6-4:10 5:0-5:4 5:6-5:10 6:0-6:4
Groups
Initial Medial
and ///, have only one bar for the acceptable form be-
cause none of the three ages of interest occurred for the
standard form even in the oldest group. Customary age
is indicated by the square marker at the lower end of
the bar. When the customary age criterion was already
reached by the youngest group, the bar begins at the
bottom of the figure (age 2:0). The age of mastery is in-
dicated by the triangle at the upper end of the bar, and
the age of acquisition is indicated by a grey circle. A bar
with no acquisition marker (e.g., the standard /dZ/) indi-
cates that the acquisition age was never reached. A bar
that extends to the top of the graph with no marker (e.g.,
/h/) indicates that the mastery age criterion was never
reached. When two age criteria were reached at the same
age, two markers may appear in the same place, as with
/m/ and /n/.
Examination of Figure 7 indicated that the standard
nants included those acquired after the age of the oldest
children studied (6:0–6:4). Table 2 lists the consonants in
each of these categories. Among the early standard con-
sonants were four nonemphatic stops, two nonemphatic
fricatives, both nasals, the lateral liquid, and the bilabial
glide. Five of the six standard intermediate consonants
were nonemphatic fricatives, including the two back
fricatives, /X/ and /‰/. The /r/ (tapped and trilled) was also
in this intermediate stage. Interestingly, all of the em-
phatic consonants, the interdental fricatives, two voiced
Final fricatives /z/ and /?/, and the affricate were among the late
consonants. The glottal stop was expected to be an early
or, at least, an intermediate phoneme. The absence of this
phoneme from the early standard list is probably due to
the word in which the medial /// was tested. The standard
word /ru./u:s/ heads was typically replaced by the accept-
able variant [ru:s], especially by older children who named
the picture spontaneously. Production of this acceptable
variant obviously affected the age of acquisition of the
standard ///.
Specific differences between the standard set and
the acceptable set of sounds acquired in the early, inter-
mediate, and late periods can be seen in Table 2 as well
as in Figure 7. The /q/ and /// were added to the list of
early stops, not because they were produced in their stan-
dard forms, but because acceptable variants were pro-
duced. No change occurred in the list of early fricatives.
Only /j/ was added to the list of early sonorants. As for
intermediate sounds, four consonants, /T/, /D/, /s/, and
/dZ/, were added to this group. Even with acceptance of

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 82.137.236.227 on 02/26/2022, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Amayreh & Dyson: Acquisition of Arabic Consonants 647

Figure 7. Ages of customary production (lower end of bar), mastery (upper end of bar), and acquisition
(gray circle) for each standard (left bar) and acceptable consonant (right bar). Only 1 bar appears when
the consonant has no acceptable variants.

their variant forms, the three voiced fricatives, /D/, /z/,
and /?/, were still not acquired by age 6:4.
The similarities and differences in ages of acquisi-
tion between Arabic and three studies of English are
presented in Table 3. Each consonant phoneme that oc-
curs in both languages was included. Ages of acquisi-
tion reported by Prather et al. (1975) were generally
earlier than those found in Arabic and in the other two
studies of English. This difference can be explained par-
tially by the formulas used to determine the age of ac-
quisition. Prather et al. used the average percentage of
correct productions in the two positions tested to deter-
mine when a phoneme was acquired. Smit et al. (1990)
computed the percentage of all correct productions of
each phoneme by an age group without regard to posi-
tion. (Multiple examples of some consonants were pos-
sible.) In the present study and in Templin’s (1957) study,
the criterion of 75% correct within a group was required
in each of the positions tested. In general, the ages of
acquisition found for Arabic agreed most with those re-
ported by Smit et al. (1990). The following nine conso-
nants in this study were acquired within 6 months of
the ages listed by Smit et al.: /b/, /t/, /d/, /k/, /f/, /m/, /n/,
/r/, /w/; the /l/ was acquired earlier in Arabic. Six conso-
nants of Arabic (/b/, /t/, /d/, /k/, /f/, and /l/) were acquired
earlier than the same consonants in English, as reported

Table 2. Comparison between the standard and acceptable sounds acquired (75% correct in all positions tested) in each period: early,
intermediate, and late.

Early Intermediate Late

Sounds (2:0–3:10) (4:0–6:4) (After 6:4)

Stops
Standard /b/, /t/, /d/, /k/ /t/, /d/, /q/, ///
Acceptable /b/, /t/, /d/, /k/, /q/, /// /t/, /d/
Fricatives & Affricates
Standard /f/, /©/ /s/, /S/, /X/, /‰/, /h/ /T/, /D/, /D/, /z/, /s/, /dZ/, /?/
Acceptable /f/, /©/ /T/, /s/, /s/, /S/, /X/, /‰/, /h/, /D/, /dZ/ /D/, /z/, /?/
Sonorants
Standard /m/, /n/, /l/, /w/ /r/
Acceptable /m/, /n/, /l/, /w/, /j/ /r/, /j/

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 82.137.236.227 on 02/26/2022, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

648 JSLHR, Volume 41, 642–653, June 1998

Table 3. Comparison between acquisition ages of consonants in Arabic (acquisition = 75% correct in all
positions tested) and in three studies of English.

English
Arabic
Smit et Prather et Templin,
Sound Standard Acceptable al., 19901 al., 19752 1957

/b/ 3:0–3:4 3:0–3:4 ≤3:0, ≤3:0 2:8 4:0

/t/ 2:6–2:10 2:6–2:10 ≤3:0, ≤3:0 2:8 6:0
/d/ 3:0–3:4 3:0–3:4 ≤3:0, ≤3:0 2:4 4:0
/k/ 2:6–2:10 2:6–2:10 ≤3:0, ≤3:0 2:4 4:0
/f/ 2:6–2:10 2:6–2:10 ≤3:0, 3:6 2:4 4:0
/T/ >6:0–6:4 5:0–5:4 5:6, 6:0 >4:0 6:0
/D/ >6:0–6:4 >6:0–6:4 4:0, 5:6 4:0 6:0
/s/ 5:0–5:4 5:0–5:4 3:0, 5:0 3:0 4:6
/z/ >6:0–6:4 >6:0–6:4 5:0, 6:0 >4:0 7:0
/S/ 5:0–5:4 5:0–5:4 4:0, 5:0 3:8 4:6
/dZ/ >6:0–6:4 4:0–4:4 4:6, 4:0 >4:0 7:0
/h/ 5:0–5:4 5:0–5:4 ≤3:0, ≤3:0 2:0 ≤3:0
/m/ ≤2:0–2:4 ≤2:0–2:4 ≤3:0, ≤3:0 2:0 ≤3:0
/n/ 2:6–2:10 2:6–2:10 ≤3:0, ≤3:0 2:0 ≤3:0
/l/ 3:6–3:10 3:6–3:10 4:6, 6:0 3:4 6:0
/r/ 5:6–5:10 5:6–5:10 6:0, 5:6 3:4 4:0
/w/ 2:6–2:10 2:6–2:10 ≤3:0, ≤3:0 2:8 ≤3:0
/j/ 6:0–6:4 2:6–2:10 3:6, 3:6 2:4 3:6

1
Ages of girls, then boys
2
Sounds tested in only two positions with percentages for two positions averaged

in Templin’s study, whereas five consonants (/T/, /D/, /h/,

/r/, and /j/) were acquired later. The remaining seven con-
sonants (/s/, /z/, /S/, /dZ/, /m/, /n/, and /w/) were acquired
within 6 months of the ages reported by Templin.
Direct comparisons were made with the study by
Sander (1972) in the ages of customary usage and ages of
mastery of 18 consonants that exist in both languages. In
Figure 8 each phoneme is represented by two bars. The
right bar of each pair indicates the customary and mas-
tery ages reported by Sander, whereas the left bar repre-
sents these ages in the present study. It is important to
note that when a bar starts at the <2 point (bottom of
figure), it indicates that the phoneme was customary ear-
lier than the youngest age tested in either study. On the
other hand, when the top end of the left bar reaches the
age of 6:6, it indicates that the phoneme was not acquired
by the oldest age group in the present study (6:0–6:4).
Examination of Figure 8 showed that the custom-
ary and the mastery ages for 7 of the 18 consonants (/m/,
/n/, /w/, /r/, /b/, /k/, /T/) were reached within 6 months of
the same age in both studies. Both the customary and
the mastery ages of /t/, /f/, and /l/ were reached earlier in
Arabic than in English. The customary and the mas-
tery ages for /h/ were earlier in English than in Arabic;
whereas for /dZ/ and /D/ only the customary age was ear-
lier. The /d/ phoneme was mastered 2 years earlier in
English than in Arabic.
Discussion
The present study attempted to establish prelimi-
nary norms for the acquisition of Arabic consonants.
Such information is essential for those who study the
language itself and for those who evaluate and plan
remediation for children with disorders. Although the
acquisition of consonants of Arabic showed general simi-
larity to English, some of the differences between the
two languages indicate that each language has its own
specific developmental pattern.
The ages of acquisition of Arabic consonants fell into
three development periods: early, intermediate, and late.
These periods are similar to stages discussed by Ingram
(1989b). The early period (2:0 to 3:10) closely matches
Ingram’s single morpheme stage (1:6 to 4:0). The child
begins to acquire the phonology of single words with an
expansion of the inventory of speech sounds. During the
early period in this study, the children acquired at least
10 standard consonants or half of the 28 consonants of
Arabic when the acceptable forms were counted.
The intermediate period (4:0 to 6:4) roughly matches
the stage in which the child completes the phonetic in-
ventory (4:0 to 7:0), including difficult consonants
(Ingram, 1989b). In the present study most of the
fricatives, the affricate, and the liquid /r/ were acquired
during this period. The late period proposed for these

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 82.137.236.227 on 02/26/2022, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Amayreh & Dyson: Acquisition of Arabic Consonants
Figure 8. Comparison of ages of customary production and mastery of standard consonants in Arabic (left
bar) with those reported by Sander (right bar).
children might be compared to Ingram’s stages of
morphophonemic development and spelling. Those con-
sonants not acquired by the oldest children in the study
would be expected to be acquired after age 6:4. It is as-
sumed that the emphatics and some of the infrequently
used standard consonants would be acquired during this
late period.
Examination of the three periods indicates that stops
were generally acquired before fricatives and front con-
sonants generally before back ones. These results sup-
port Jakobson’s (1968) universal theory that the acqui-
sition of phonemes in all languages follows similar
patterns. The performance seen in these children on the
emphatic consonants also seems to lend support to
Jakobson’s theory. Although emphatic consonants share
all the features of their nonemphatic counterparts ex-
cept backness, they all lagged behind the nonemphatic
cognates. It fact, in Jakobson’s terms, emphatic conso-
nants appear to presuppose nonemphatic consonants.
Where voiced-voiceless cognates exist in the language,
their acquisition also generally supported Jakobson in
that the voiceless cognate tended to precede the voiced
cognate.
Not all of the findings of this study supported
Jakobson, however. Among the early consonants were
the /k/ and /©/. Both of these consonants are back sounds,
and one is a fricative, leading one to predict that they
would be at least intermediate if not late. In addition,
the /X/ phoneme was acquired relatively early (4:6–4:10)
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 82.137.236.227 on 02/26/2022, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions
649
even though it is a back fricative. These discrepancies
might be interpreted in light of the explanations given
by Ingram (1989b) and Pye et al. (1987) for differences
found between Quiché and English. In Quiché the back
fricative /x/ was one of the first developed. Ingram and
Pye et al. suggested two possible explanations for its
unpredicted early occurrence. Articulatory learning
theory suggests that the sounds heard most often are
those first acquired (Ingram, 1989b). According to this
theory, the early acquisition of /k/ and ©/ could be attrib-
uted to the fact that they are among the most frequently
occurring back consonants in Arabic. They also occur
quite frequently in a small set of very commonly used
words said to young children (Table 4). Further support
of this theory can be seen in the early acquisition of /l/.
The /l/ in these Arabic-speaking children and in the Ara-
bic sample reported by Omar (1973) was acquired at least
1 year earlier than in English. Omar attributed this dif-
ference to the fact that /l/ appears to be more frequent
in Arabic than in English, although it is a frequent sound
in both languages.
The relatively early acquisition of the back fricative
/X/ might also be seen in the light of the second explana-
tion of the differences between Quiché and English. In
his functional load explanation, Ingram (1989a) indi-
cated that the importance of a phoneme to the phono-
logical system is determined by the number of contras-
tive oppositions in which it occurs. The /X/ contrasts with
many different consonants in Arabic (i.e., fricatives,
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
650
stops, and sonorants) in all positions (a few examples
can be seen in Table 4). In addition, the /X/ is used in
many different lexical items, including many proper
names. Another explanation for the early acquisition of
this consonant might be its auditory saliency (i.e., the
ease by which the sound can be perceived). It appears to
be an easy phoneme to recognize, even in combination
with other consonants. This was one of the consonants
on which the two transcribers had the most agreement,
even though it was not originally in the perceptual cat-
egory system of the second listener. Ladefoged and
Maddieson (1996) pointed out the significantly greater
amount of low frequency energy in the spectrum of uvu-
lar fricatives when compared with alveolar and palatal
fricatives. This low frequency concentration may con-
tribute to the auditory saliency observed by the research-
ers in this study.
Because there are so few studies of Arabic phono-
logical acquisition, it is not possible to determine
whether the findings of this study are consistent with
those reported by others. However, it is interesting that
10 young children learning Cairene Arabic (Omar, 1973)
produced all nonemphatic stops, all bilabials, all glides,
and the fricatives /s/, /z/, /f/, and /X/ before the age of
2:6. By 5:0 they were producing at least some examples
of all consonants except /q/. It is important to note that
Omar did not report percentages of accurate produc-
tion but only whether a consonant was present in the
sample.
Table 4. Examples of some common words containing the sounds /k/, /©/, and /X/, and some minimal
pair oppositions for the sound /X/.
/k/ /©/
Common Words Common Words
/ka.sar/ broke /©i.sa:n/ horse
/kab/ spilt /©u.luw/ candy, sweet
/kalb/ dog /©a:.mi/ hot
//i.lak/ yours /©ra:m/ blanket
//a.Xu:k/ your brother /©ma:r/ donkey
//uX.tik/ your sister /ba.©ib.bak/ I love you
/--k/ your (posses.) /ro.©i/, /©a.ja:.ti/,
/©a.bi:.bi/ pet names
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 82.137.236.227 on 02/26/2022, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions
JSLHR, Volume 41, 642–653, June 1998
The finding that medial consonant productions were
more accurate than productions of initial and final conso-
nants has two important implications for the acquisition
of Arabic. First, the medial position (disregarded by sev-
eral researchers who developed English articulation
tests) seems to be important and should always be in-
cluded in such tests of Arabic. Second, the performance
of a disordered child on consonants in the medial posi-
tion may be an important indication of the severity or
the persistence of an articulation problem. For example,
correct production of medial consonants accompanied
by errors on initial and final consonants might indicate
a delayed but normal developmental sequence. Such
information could have significant implications for both
diagnosis and treatment.
The accuracy of consonants by word position might
be considered further in the light of word structure and
stress within the word. More than half of the consonants
in each position were targeted in disyllabic words.
Trisyllabic words occurred for 5 initial consonants, 2 fi-
nal consonants, and 12 medial consonants. If produc-
tion of consonants in trisyllabic words can be assumed
to be more difficult than in shorter words, the medial
position should have been the least instead of the most
accurate. It does not appear that word structure was as
important as the position within the word. This sup-
ports earlier reported findings for English (Ingram et
al., 1980; Templin, 1947).
The relationship between position of the targeted
/X/
Common Words
/Xubz/ bread
/bat.ti:X/ watermelon
/Xa.ru:f/ sheep
/Xa:l/ uncle, /taXt/ bed
/ma.Xad.di/ pillow, /Xa.za:.na/ cupboard
/Xa.las/ finished, all gone, enough
/Xal.li:/ leave it
/Xa.li:l/, /Xa:.lid/, /Xaw.la/ proper names
Oppositions
/Xa.ri:f/ Fall - /?a.ri:f/ student monitor
/Xa:l/ uncle - /ma:l/ money - /ka:l/ weighed - /za:l/
disappeared - /sa:l/ leaked - /Sa:l/ shawl - /qa:l/ said
/taXt/ bed - /ta©t/ under
/Xad/ cheek - /dZad/ grandfather - /had/ demolished -
/©ad/ border -/sad/ dam
/faX/ trap - /fak/ jaw - /fal/ escaped
Amayreh & Dyson: Acquisition of Arabic Consonants
phoneme, the stress of the syllable within which it oc-
curred, and its accuracy was also examined. Although
the medial position was significantly more accurate
when all consonants were considered, it is possible that
stress might have influenced these results. This possi-
bility appears to have been eliminated by further sta-
tistical analysis of position by stress using ANOVA.
There was no significant interaction between the two
factors (p = .4085) and no significant differences between
the accuracy for either position (p = .2445) or stress (p =
.2962) when the other was taken into consideration.
Research on all aspects of the Arabic language is
still needed. This study points out the urgent need for
further research in some specific areas. Further analy-
sis (in progress) of the data from this study to describe
errors made by these normally developing children will
provide a baseline against which to compare the perfor-
mance of children with suspected articulation or phono-
logical disorders. On this note, it is essential to admin-
ister a test, such as the one used in this study, to children
with articulation disorders. Only such a study will show
the test’s validity and the accuracy with which it sepa-
rates those with disorders from those who are develop-
ing normally. Further examination of this articulation
test might include evaluation of target word recognition
by young children. Although no common problems of rec-
ognition were noted, such study adds to the value of any
picture-naming test. In addition, follow-up study of the
children with disorders would determine the predictive
value of the test in pinpointing children whose errors will
persist with or without intervention. Such studies would
lead to the establishment of a well-documented assess-
ment tool needed for clinical use with Arabic speaking
children.
Conclusions
Several major findings about the acquisition of con-
sonants in Arabic as spoken in Jordan emerged from
this study. Development of standard consonants of Ara-
bic increased gradually, falling into three periods de-
scribed as early, intermediate, and late. The consonants
/b/, /t/, /d/, /k/, /f/, /©/, /m/, /n/, /l/, and /w/ were early (<2:0
to 3:10). The consonants /s/, /S/, /X/, /‰/, /h/, /j/, and /r/ were
intermediate (4:0 to 6:4). The consonants /t/, /d/, /q/, ///,
/T/, /D/, /D/, /z/, /s/, /?/, and /dZ/ were late (>6:4). Acceptable
versions of consonants (i.e., those with acceptable vari-
ants) also developed gradually but were generally ac-
quired before standard versions of the same consonants.
In general, medial consonants were more accurate than
either initial or final consonants, but no difference was
found between the initial and final positions. No differ-
ence was found between the performance of girls and
boys at any age. Many consonants in English and Arabic
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 82.137.236.227 on 02/26/2022, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions
651
were acquired at about the same ages. The /f/, /t/, and /l/
were acquired earlier in Arabic than in English. The /h/,
/dZ/, /D/, and /j/ were acquired later in Arabic than in En-
glish. The emphatic consonants, which are unique to Ara-
bic, were acquired later than their nonemphatic cognates.
Acknowledgments
This research is based on re-analysis of data collected
for the first author’s doctoral dissertation conducted at the
University of Florida under the direction of Alice Dyson. The
work was supported in part by a grant made by the Govern-
ment of Switzerland to the University of Jordan Center for
Phonetics Research.
References
Al-Ani, S. (1970). Arabic phonology. The Hague: Mouton.
Amayreh, M. (1994). A normative study of the acquisition of
consonant sounds in Arabic (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Florida, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 56-11, 6065.
ANSI: American National Standards Institute. (1969).
American National Standard specifications for audiom-
eters (ANSI 53.6-1969). New York: Author.
Arlt, P. B., & Goodban, M. J. (1976). A comparative study
of articulation acquisition as based on a study of 240
normals, aged three to six. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 7, 173–180.
Dyson, A. T. (1988). Phonetic inventories of 2- and 3-year-
old children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 53,
89–93.
Dyson, A. T., & Paden, E. P. (1983). Some phonological
acquisition strategies used by two-year-olds. Journal of
Childhood Communication Disorders, 7, 6–18.
El-Halees, Y., & Mina, E. (1990, May). A xeroradiographic
study of emphasis in Arabic. Paper presented at the First
Annual Jordanian Symposium on Communication
Disorders, Amman, Jordan.
Ferguson, C. A. (1956). The emphatic l in Arabic. Lan-
guage, 32, 446–452.
Fudala, J. (1963). Arizona articulation proficiency scale:
Revised (AAPS). Beverly Hills, CA: Western Psychological
Services.
Ghazeli, S. (1977). Back consonants and backing coarticula-
tion in Arabic. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms Int.
Goldman, R., & Fristoe, M. (1980). Goldman-Fristoe Test
of Articulation. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance
Service.
Harrell, R. S. (1957). The phonology of colloquial Egyptian
Arabic. New York: American Council of Learned Societies.
Iglesias, A., & Anderson, N. (1993). Dialectal variations. In
J. Bernthal & N. Bankson (Eds.), Articulation and
phonological disorders (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Ingram, D. (1989a). First language acquisition: Method,
description, and explanation. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
652
Ingram, D. (1989b). Phonological disability in children (2nd
ed.). London: Cole & Whurr.
Ingram, D., Christensen, L., Veach, S., & Webster, B.
(1980). The acquisition of fricatives and affricates in
normal and linguistically deviant children. In G. H. Yeni-
Komshian, J. F. Kavanagh, & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Child
phonology: Vol.1 Production (pp. 169–192). New York:
Academic Press.
Irwin, J., & Wong, S. (1983). Phonological development in
children: 18 to 72 months. Carbondale, IL: Southern
Illinois University Press.
Jakobson, R. (1968). Child language, aphasia and phono-
logical universals (A. Keiler, Trans.). The Hague: Mouton.
(Original work published 1941)
Jimenez, B. C. (1987). Acquisition of Spanish consonants in
children aged 3–5 years, 7 months. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 18, 357–363.
Kaye, A. S. (1976). Chadian and Sudanese Arabic in the light
of comparative Arabic dialectology. The Hague: Mouton.
Kaye, A. S. (1990). Arabic. In B. Comrie (Ed.), The world’s
major languages (pp. 664–685). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Khan, L., & Lewis, N. P. (1986). Khan-Lewis phonological
analysis. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Ladefoged, P., & Maddieson, I. (1996). The sounds of the
world’s languages. Oxford: Blackwell.
Macken, M. A. (1980). Aspects of the acquisition of stop
systems: A cross-linguistic perspective. In G. H. Yeni-
Komshian, J. F. Kavanagh, & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Child
phonology: Vol.1 Production (pp. 143–168). New York:
Academic Press.
McCarthy, J. J. (1994). The phonetics and phonology of
Semitic pharyngeals. In P. A. Keating (Ed.), Phonological
structure and phonetic form: Papers in laboratory phonol-
ogy 3 (pp. 191–233). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Mitchell, T. F. (1990). Pronouncing Arabic. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Moskowitz, B. (1970). The two-year-old stage in the
acquisition of phonology. Language, 46, 426–441.
Moskowitz, B. (1975). The acquisition of fricatives: A
study in phonetics and phonology. Journal of Phonetics,
3, 141–150.
Mowrer, D., & Burger, S. (1991). A comparative analysis
of phonological acquisition of consonants in the speech of
2 1/2–6-year Xhosa- and English-speaking children.
Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 5, 139–164.
Oller, D. K., & Delgado, R. (1990). Logical International
Phonetics Programs (LIPP). Miami, FL: Intelligent
Hearing Systems.
Olmsted, D. (1971). Out of the mouths of babes. The Hague:
Mouton.
Omar, M. K. (1973). The acquisition of Egyptian Arabic as a
native language. Janua linguarum. Series practica, 160,
199–205.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 82.137.236.227 on 02/26/2022, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions
JSLHR, Volume 41, 642–653, June 1998
Prather, E. M., Hedrick, D. L., & Kern, C. A. (1975).
Articulation development in children aged two to four
years. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 40,
179–191.
Preisser, D. A., Hodson, B. W., & Paden, E. P. (1988).
Developmental phonology: 18 to 29 months. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Disorders, 53, 125–130.
Pye, C., Ingram, D., & List, H. (1987). A comparison of
initial consonant acquisition in English and Quiché. In
K. E. Nelson & A. van Kleeck (Eds.), Children’s language,
Vol. 6 (pp. 175–190). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sander, E. K. (1972). When are speech sounds learned?
Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 37, 55–63.
Shahin, K. N. (1996). Accessing pharyngeal place in
Palestinian Arabic. In M. Eid & D. Parkinson (Eds.),
Perspectives on Arabic linguistics IX: Current issues in
linguistic theory, 141 (pp. 131–149). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Shriberg, L. D., Kwiatkowski, J., & Hoffman, K. (1984).
A procedure for phonetic transcription by consensus.
Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 27, 456–465.
Smit, A. B. (1986). Ages of speech sound acquisition:
Comparisons and critiques of several normative studies.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 17,
175–186.
Smit, A. B., Hand, L., Freilinger, J. J., Bernthal, J. E., &
Bird, A. (1990). The Iowa articulation norms project and
its Nebraska replication. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Disorders, 55, 779–798.
Stoel-Gammon, C. (1985). Phonetic inventories, 15 to 24
months: A longitudinal study. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Research, 28, 505–512.
Stoel-Gammon, C. (1987). The phonological skills of two-
year-olds. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 18, 323–329.
Templin, M. C. (1947). Spontaneous versus imitated
verbalization in testing articulation in preschool children.
Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 12, 293–300.
Templin, M. C. (1957). Certain language skills in children:
Their development and interrelationships. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Vihman, M., & Greenlee, M. (1987). Individual differences
in phonological development: Ages one and three years.
Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 503–521.
Yavas, M., & Lamprecht, R. (1988). Processes and intelligi-
bility in disordered phonology. Clinical Linguistics and
Phonetics, 2, 329–345.
Received January 27, 1997
Accepted October 6, 1997
Contact author: Alice T. Dyson, PhD, University of Florida,
335 Dauer Hall, P. O. Box 117420, Gainesville, FL 32611-
7420. Email: adyson@csd.ufl.edu
Amayreh & Dyson: Acquisition of Arabic Consonants 653

Appendix A. Standard Arabic consonants.

Place of Articulation
Bilabial Labiodental Dental Alveo-Dental Palatal Velar Uvular Pharyngeal Glottal
Manner of
Articulation V VL V VL V VL V VL V VL V VL V VL V VL V VL

Stop b d t k q /
d t
Fricative f D T z s S ‰ X ? © h
D s
Affricate dZ

Nasal m n
Liquid
Lateral l
Tap/Trill r
Glide w j

Appendix B. Test words.

Word Initial Word Medial Word Final

/b/ /ba.'na:t/ girls /©i.'ba:l/ ropes /dub/ bear

/t/ /ta.la.'fo:n/ telephone /mif.'ta:©/ key {/ba.'na:t/}1
/t/ /ta:.'ja:.ra/ or /'ta:./i.ra/ airplane /'ma.tar/ rain /bat/ ducks
/d/ {/dub/} /'mad.ra.sa/ school /'wa.lad/ boy
/d/ /'dif.da?/ frog /'baj.da/ egg /'/ab.jad/ white
/k/ /'kur.si(j)/ chair /'sa.ma.ka/ fish /Sub.'ba:k/ window
/q/ /'qa.lam/ pencil /'ba.qa.ra/ cow /'wa.raq/ paper
/// /'/a.sad/ lion /ru.'/u:s/ heads —
/m/ /mawz/ banana {/'sa.ma.ka/} {/'qa.lam/}
/n/ /na:r/ fire /'?i.nab/ grapes {/ta.la.'fo:n/}
/f/ /fi:l/ elephant /sa.'fi:.na/ ship /Xa.'ru:f/ sheep
/T/ /Tal.'la:.dZa/ refrigerator /mu.'Tal.laT/ triangle {/mu.'Tal.laT/}
/D/ /'Da.nab/ tail /dZu.'Du:r/ roots —
/D/ /Dahr/ back /naD.'Da:.ra/ glasses /'©a:.fiD/ “boy’s name”
/s/ /'sa:.?a/ watch {/'/a.sad/} /'dZa.ras/ bell
/s/ /'su:.ra/ picture /©i.'sa:n/ or //i©.'sa:n/ horse /ba:s/ bus
/z/ /za.'ra:.fa/ giraffe /‰a.'za:l/ deer /‰a:z/ oven or stove
/S/ {/Sub.'ba:k/} /fa.'ra:Sa/ butterfly /?uS/ nest
/X/ {/Xa.'ru:f/} /'/aX.dar/ green /bat.'ti:X/ watermelon
/‰/ {/‰a.'za:l/} /ju.'‰as.sil/ or /'ja‰.sil/ wash —
/©/ {/©i.'sa:n/} /tuf.'fa:.©a/ apple {/mif.'ta:©/}
/?/ {/'?i.nab/} {/'sa:.?a/} /'/is.ba?/ finger
/h/ /ha.'dij.ja/ gift /zu.'hu:r/ flowers /wu.'dzu:h/ faces
/dZ/ /'dZa.mal/ camel /da.'dZa:dZ/ chicken {/da.'dZa:dZ/}
/l/ /la.'mu:.na/ or /laj.'mu:n/ lemon /'ta:.wi.la/ table {/fi:l/}
/r/ {/ru.'/u:s/} {/'ba.qa.ra/} {/na:r/}
/w/ {/'wa.lad/} /'mar.wa.©a/ fan —
/j/ /jad/ hand {/'/ab.jad/} —
1
Words in which more than one sound is tested are repeated here under both target sounds, with the second occurrence in { }. In
fact, the child said them just once.

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org 82.137.236.227 on 02/26/2022, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions