Minimal Pair Approaches to Phonological Remediation

Jessica A. Barlow; Judith A. Gierut

doi:10.1055/s-2002-24969

Seminars in Speech and Language, Table of Contents

Semin Speech Lang 2002; 23(1): 057-068
DOI: 10.1055/s-2002-24969

Minimal Pair Approaches to Phonological Remediation

Jessica A. Barlow¹ , Judith A. Gierut²

¹Department of Communicative Disorders, San Diego State University, San Diego, California and
²Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana

Abstract

ABSTRACT

This article considers linguistic approaches to phonological remediation that emphasize the role of the phoneme in language. We discuss the structure and function of the phoneme by outlining procedures for determining contrastive properties of sound systems through evaluation of minimal word pairs. We then illustrate how these may be applied to a case study of a child with phonological delay. The relative effectiveness of treatment approaches that facilitate phonemic acquisition by contrasting pairs of sounds in minimal pairs is described. A hierarchy of minimal pair treatment efficacy emerges, as based on the number of new sounds, the number of featural differences, and the type of featural differences being introduced. These variables are further applied to the case study, yielding a range of possible treatment recommendations that are predicted to vary in their effectiveness.

KEYWORD

Phoneme - minimal pair - phonological remediation

Full Text

References

REFERENCES

1 Jakobson R. Child Language, Aphasia and Phonological Universals. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton; 1968
2 Trubetzkoy N S. Principles of Phonology. Los Angeles: University of California Press (original work published 1958) 1969
3 Chomsky N, Halle M. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row; 1968
4 Graham L W, House A S. Phonological oppositions in children: a perceptual study. J Acoust Soc Am . 1971; 49 559-566
5 Stevens K N, Keyser S J. Primary features and their enhancement in consonants. Language . 1989; 65 81-106
6 Dinnsen D A, Chin S B. Independent and relational accounts of phonological disorders. In: Yavas M, ed. First and Second Language Phonology San Diego, CA: Singular 1994: 135-148
7 Dinnsen D A. Methods and empirical issues in analyzing functional misarticulation. In: Elbert M, Dinnsen DA, Weismer G, eds. Phonological Theory and the Misarticulating Child (ASHA Monographs No 22) Rockville, MD: ASHA 1984: 5-17
8 Stoel-Gammon C, Dunn C. Normal and Disordered Phonology in Children. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed; 1985
9 Dinnsen D A, Chin S B, Elbert M, Powell T W. Some constraints on functionally disordered phonologies: phonetic inventories and phonotactics. J Speech Hear Res . 1990; 33 28-37
10 Dinnsen D A, Chin S B. Individual differences in phonological disorders and implications for a theory of acquisition. In: Eckman FR, ed. Confluence: Linguistics, L2 Acquisition and Speech Pathology Amsterdam: John Benjamins 1993: 139-154
11 Barlow J A. A Constraint-Based Account of Syllable Onsets: Evidence from Developing Systems. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University; 1997
12 Chin S B. The Organization and Specification of Features in Functionally Disordered Phonologies. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University; 1993
13 Stoel-Gammon C. Phonetic inventories, 15-24 months: a longitudinal study. J Speech Hear Res . 1985; 28 505-512
14 Blache S E, Parsons C L, Humphreys J M. A minimal-word-pair model for teaching the linguistic significance of distinctive feature properties. J Speech Hear Disord . 1981; 46 291-296
15 Blache S E. A distinctive-feature approach. In: Creaghead NA, Newman PA, Secord WA, eds. Assessment and Remediation of Articulatory and Phonological Disorders New York: Macmillan 1989: 361-382
16 Cooper R. The method of meaningful minimal contrasts in functional articulation problems. J Speech Hear Assoc Va . 1968; 10 17-22
17 Costello J, Onstine J. The modification of multiple articulation errors based on distinctive feature theory. J Speech Hear Disord . 1976; 41 199-215
18 Elbert M, Rockman B, Saltzman D. Contrasts: The Use of Minimal Pairs in Articulation Training. Austin, TX: Exceptional Resources; 1980
19 Ferrier E, Davis M. A lexical approach to the remediation of sound omissions. J Speech Hear Disord . 1973; 38 126-130
20 Gierut J A. The conditions and course of clinically-induced phonological change. J Speech Hear Res . 1992; 35 1049-1063
21 Haas W. Phonological analysis of a case of dyslalia. J Speech Hear Disord . 1963; 28 239-246
22 McReynolds L V, Bennett S. Distinctive feature generalization in articulation training. J Speech Hear Disord . 1972; 37 462-470
23 McReynolds L V, Huston K. A distinctive feature analysis of children's misarticulations. J Speech Hear Disord . 1971; 36 156-166
24 Weiner F F. Treatment of phonological disability using the method of meaningful minimal contrast: two case studies. J Speech Hear Disord . 1981; 46 97-103
25 Lado R. Linguistics across Cultures. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; 1957
26 Fey M E. Articulation and phonology: inextricable constructs in speech pathology. Lang Speech Hear Ser . 1992; 23 225-232
27 Williams A L. Multiple oppositions: theoretical foundations for an alternative contrastive intervention framework. Am J Speech Lang Pathol . 2000; 9 282-288
28 Williams A L. Multiple oppositions: case studies of variables in phonological intervention. Am J Speech Lang Pat . 2000; 9 289-299
29 McCabe R, Bradley D. Systematic multiple phonemic approach to articulation therapy. Acta Symb . 1975; 6 1-18
30 Dean E, Howell J, Hill A, Waters D. Metaphon Resource Pack. Windsor: NFER-Nelson; 1990
31 Dean E C, Howell J, Waters D, Reid J. Metaphon: a metalinguistic approach to the treatment of phonological disorder in children. Clin Linguist Phonet . 1995; 9 1-19
32 Howell J, Dean E. Treating Phonological Disorders in Children: Metaphon-Theory to Practice. London: Whurr; 1994
33 Saben C B, Ingham J C. The effects of minimal pairs treatment on the speech-sound production of two children with phonologic disorders. J Speech Hear Res . 1991; 34 1023-1040
34 Smit A B. Phonologic error distributions in the Iowa-Nebraska Articulation Norms Project: consonant singletons. J Speech Hear Res . 1993; 36 533-547
35 Smith M D, Brunette D. Early rampant homonymy: problem or strategy?. Pap Rep Child Lang Dev . 1981; 20 133-139
36 Gierut J A. Maximal opposition approach to phonological treatment. J Speech Hear Disord . 1989; 54 9-19
37 Gierut J A. Differential learning of phonological oppositions. J Speech Hear Res . 1990; 33 540-549
38 Gierut J A. Homonymy in phonological change. Clin Linguist Phonet . 1991; 5 119-137
39 Gierut J A, Neumann H J. Teaching and learning /θ/: a nonconfound. Clin Linguist Phonet . 1992; 6 191-200
40 Labov W. The overestimation of functionalism. In: Dirven R, Fried V, eds. Functionalism in Linguistics Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1987: 311-332
41 Ferguson C A, Menn L, Stoel-Gammon C. Phonological Development: Models, Research, Implications. Monkton, MD: York Press; 1992
42 Jamieson D G, Rvachew S. Remediating speech production errors with sound identification training. J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol . 1992; 16 201-210
43 Rvachew S. Speech perception training can facilitate sound production learning. J Speech Hear Res . 1994; 37 347-357
44 Barlow J A. The structure of /s/-sequences: evidence from a disordered system. J Child Lang . 2001; 28 291-324
45 Gierut J A. Syllable onsets: clusters and adjuncts in acquisition. J Speech Lang Hear Res . 1999; 42 708-726
46 Gierut J A, Champion A H. Learning and the representation of complex onsets. In: Greenhill A, Littlefield H, Tano C, eds. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press 1999: 196-203
47 Gerken L, McGregor K. An overview of prosody and its role in normal and disordered child language. Am J Speech Lang Pat . 1998; 7 38-48
48 Kehoe M M, Stoel Gammon C. Truncation patterns in English speaking children's word productions. J Speech Lang Hear Res . 1997; 40 526-541
49 Kehoe M. Prosodic patterns in children's multisyllabic word productions. Lang Speech Hear Ser . 2001; 32 284-294
50 Tyler A A. Examining phonological-morphological interactions with converging sources of evidence. Clin Linguist Phonet . 1999; 13 131-156
51 Tyler A A, Watterson K. Effects of phonological versus language intervention in preschoolers with both phonological and language impairment. Child Lang Teach Ther . 1991; 7 141-160
52 Fey M E, Cleave P L, Ravida A I, Long S H, Dejmal A E, Easton D L. Effects of grammar facilitation on the phonological performance of children with speech and language impairments. J Speech Hear Res. 1994; 37 579-607