Minimalpaartherapie

Zusammenfassung

In dieser Arbeit wird ein linguistischer Ansatz zur Therapie phonetisch-phonologischer Störungen vorgestellt, der insbesondere die Rolle der Phoneme in gesprochener Sprache berücksichtigt. Zunächst werden Struktur und Funktion durch Erörterung der unterscheidenden Eigenschaften anhand der Minimalpaarbildung dargestellt. Es wird dann illustriert, wie Minimalpaare in der Therapie bei einem Kind mit einer phonologischen Verzögerung eingesetzt werden können. Die relative Wirksamkeit dieses Therapieansatzes, der die Phonemaneignung durch Kontrastpaarbildung erreichen soll, wird beschrieben. Aufgrund der unterschiedlichen Eigenschaften und unterschiedlicher Wirksamkeiten ergibt sich dann eine Effizienzhierarchie. Anhand eines Fallberichtes wird diese dargestellt.

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.

Schlüsselwörter

Phoneme - Minimalpaar - Therapie

Key words

Phoneme - minimal pair - phonological remediation

Literatur

• 1 Jakobsen 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 properites.  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. Honomymy in phonological change.  Clin Linguist Phonet. 1991;  5 119-137
• 39 Gierut J A, Neumann H J. Teaching and learning //: 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 structures 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 ist 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 source 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;  37 594-607