Download PDF
Semin Speech Lang 2002; 23(1): 057-068
DOI: 10.1055/s-2002-24969
Copyright © 2002 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel.: +1(212) 584-4662

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
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
02 April 2002 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

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

REFERENCES

  • 1 Jakobson R. Child Language, Aphasia and Phonological Universals.  The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton; 1968
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Trubetzkoy N S. Principles of Phonology. Los Angeles: University of California Press (original work published 1958) 1969
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Chomsky N, Halle M. The Sound Pattern of English.  New York: Harper & Row; 1968
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Graham L W, House A S. Phonological oppositions in children: a perceptual study.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1971;  49 559-566
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Stevens K N, Keyser S J. Primary features and their enhancement in consonants.  Language . 1989;  65 81-106
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Stoel-Gammon C, Dunn C. Normal and Disordered Phonology in Children.  Austin, TX: Pro-Ed; 1985
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Barlow J A. A Constraint-Based Account of Syllable Onsets: Evidence from Developing Systems.  Bloomington, IN: Indiana University; 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Chin S B. The Organization and Specification of Features in Functionally Disordered Phonologies.  Bloomington, IN: Indiana University; 1993
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Stoel-Gammon C. Phonetic inventories, 15-24 months: a longitudinal study.  J Speech Hear Res . 1985;  28 505-512
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Cooper R. The method of meaningful minimal contrasts in functional articulation problems.  J Speech Hear Assoc Va . 1968;  10 17-22
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Costello J, Onstine J. The modification of multiple articulation errors based on distinctive feature theory.  J Speech Hear Disord . 1976;  41 199-215
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Elbert M, Rockman B, Saltzman D. Contrasts: The Use of Minimal Pairs in Articulation Training.  Austin, TX: Exceptional Resources; 1980
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Ferrier E, Davis M. A lexical approach to the remediation of sound omissions.  J Speech Hear Disord . 1973;  38 126-130
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Gierut J A. The conditions and course of clinically-induced phonological change.  J Speech Hear Res . 1992;  35 1049-1063
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Haas W. Phonological analysis of a case of dyslalia.  J Speech Hear Disord . 1963;  28 239-246
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 McReynolds L V, Bennett S. Distinctive feature generalization in articulation training.  J Speech Hear Disord . 1972;  37 462-470
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 McReynolds L V, Huston K. A distinctive feature analysis of children's misarticulations.  J Speech Hear Disord . 1971;  36 156-166
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Lado R. Linguistics across Cultures.  Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; 1957
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Fey M E. Articulation and phonology: inextricable constructs in speech pathology.  Lang Speech Hear Ser . 1992;  23 225-232
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Williams A L. Multiple oppositions: theoretical foundations for an alternative contrastive intervention framework.  Am J Speech Lang Pathol . 2000;  9 282-288
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Williams A L. Multiple oppositions: case studies of variables in phonological intervention.  Am J Speech Lang Pat . 2000;  9 289-299
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 McCabe R, Bradley D. Systematic multiple phonemic approach to articulation therapy.  Acta Symb . 1975;  6 1-18
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Dean E, Howell J, Hill A, Waters D. Metaphon Resource Pack.  Windsor: NFER-Nelson; 1990
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Howell J, Dean E. Treating Phonological Disorders in Children: Metaphon-Theory to Practice.  London: Whurr; 1994
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Smit A B. Phonologic error distributions in the Iowa-Nebraska Articulation Norms Project: consonant singletons.  J Speech Hear Res . 1993;  36 533-547
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Smith M D, Brunette D. Early rampant homonymy: problem or strategy?.  Pap Rep Child Lang Dev . 1981;  20 133-139
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Gierut J A. Maximal opposition approach to phonological treatment.  J Speech Hear Disord . 1989;  54 9-19
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Gierut J A. Differential learning of phonological oppositions.  J Speech Hear Res . 1990;  33 540-549
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Gierut J A. Homonymy in phonological change.  Clin Linguist Phonet . 1991;  5 119-137
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Gierut J A, Neumann H J. Teaching and learning /θ/: a nonconfound.  Clin Linguist Phonet . 1992;  6 191-200
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Labov W. The overestimation of functionalism. In: Dirven R, Fried V, eds. Functionalism in Linguistics Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1987: 311-332
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Ferguson C A, Menn L, Stoel-Gammon C. Phonological Development: Models, Research, Implications.  Monkton, MD: York Press; 1992
    Google Scholar
  • 42 Jamieson D G, Rvachew S. Remediating speech production errors with sound identification training.  J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol . 1992;  16 201-210
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Rvachew S. Speech perception training can facilitate sound production learning.  J Speech Hear Res . 1994;  37 347-357
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Barlow J A. The structure of /s/-sequences: evidence from a disordered system.  J Child Lang . 2001;  28 291-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Gierut J A. Syllable onsets: clusters and adjuncts in acquisition.  J Speech Lang Hear Res . 1999;  42 708-726
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Kehoe M. Prosodic patterns in children's multisyllabic word productions.  Lang Speech Hear Ser . 2001;  32 284-294
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Tyler A A. Examining phonological-morphological interactions with converging sources of evidence.  Clin Linguist Phonet . 1999;  13 131-156
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
      >