No AccessEditor's AwardLanguage, Speech, and Hearing Services in SchoolsClinical Forum1 Jul 1992

Articulation and Phonology

Inextricable Constructs in Speech Pathology

    For many speech-language pathologists, the application of the concepts of phonology to the assessment and treatment of phonologically disordered children has produced more confusion than clinical assistance. At least part of this confusion seems to be due to the expectation that, since new terms are being used, new clinical techniques should differ radically from the old ones. The basic intent of this paper is to show that adopting a phonological approach to dealing with speech sound disorders does not necessitate a rejection of the well-established principles underlying traditional approaches to articulation disorders. To the contrary, articulation must be recognized as a critical aspect of speech sound development under any theory. Consequently, phonological principles should be viewed as adding new dimensions and a new perspective to an old problem, not simply as refuting established principles. These new principles have resulted in the development of several procedures that differ in many respects from old procedures, yet are highly similar in others. Whether phonological approaches are better than existing procedures remains an important, but unanswered question.


    • Backus, O., & Beasley, J. (1951). Speech therapy with children. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
    • Braine, M. D. S. (1976). Review of N. V. Smith, The acquisition of phonology: a case study.Language, 52, 489–498.
    • Blache, S. (1982). Minimal word pairs and distinctive feature training.In M. Crary (Ed.), Phonological intervention: Concepts and procedures (pp. 61–96). San Diego, CA: College Hill Press.
    • Blache, S., Parsons, S., & Humphreys, J. (1981). A minimal-word-pair model for teaching the linguistic significance of distinctive feature properties.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 46, 291–296.
    • Brown, L., Sherbonou, R., & Dollar, S. (1983). Test of Nonverbal Intelligence. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
    • Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.
    • Costello, J., & Onstine, J. (1976). The modification of multiple articulation errors based on distinctive feature theory.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 41, 199–215.
    • Edwards, M. L., & Shriberg, L. (1983). Phonology: Applications in communicative disorders. San Diego, CA: College Hill Press.
    • Ferrier, E., & Davis, M. (1973). A lexical approach to the remediation of final sound omissions.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 38, 126–131.
    • Fey, M., & Gandour, J. (1982). Rule discovery in phonological acquisition.Journal of Child Language, 9, 71–81.
    • Fokes, J. (1982). Problems confronting the theorist and practitioner in child phonology.In M. Crary (Ed.), Phonological intervention: Concepts and procedures, (pp. 13–34). San Diego, CA: College Hill Press.
    • Hodson, B. (1980). The assessment of phonological processes. Danville, IL: The Interstate Printers & Publishers.
    • Hodson, B., & Paden, E. (1983). Targeting intelligible speech. San Diego, CA: College Hill Press.
    • Ingram, D. (1976). Phonological disability in children. New York: American Elsevier.
    • Ingram, D. (1981). Procedures for the phonological analysis of children’s language. Baltimore: University Park Press.
    • Jakobson, R., Fant, C., & Halle, M. (1969). Preliminaries to speech analysis: The distinctive features and their correlates. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Kent, R. (1983). The segmental organization of speech.In P. Macneilage (Ed.), The production of speech (pp. 57–89). New York: Springer-Verlag.
    • Khan, L., & Lewis, N. (1983). Periodic revision of treatment goals for unintelligible children. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Cincinnati, OH.
    • Kiparsky, P., & Menn, L. (1977). On the acquisition of phonology.In J. Macnamara (Ed.), Language learning and thought (pp. 47–78). New York: Academic Press.
    • Locke, J. (1980). The inference of speech perception in the phonologically disordered child. Part II: Some clinically novel procedures, their use, some findings.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 45, 445–468.
    • Locke, J. (1983). Clinical phonology: The explanation and treatment of speech sound disorders.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 48, 339–341.
    • Mccabe, R., & Bradley, D. (1975). Systematic multiple phonemic approach to articulation therapy.Acta Symbolica, 6, 1–18.
    • Mcdonald, E. (1964). Articulation testing and treatment: A sensory-motor approach. Pittsburgh, PA: Stanwix House.
    • Mcreynolds, L., & Bennett, S. (1972). Distinctive feature generalization in articulation training.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 37, 462–470.
    • Mcreynolds, L., & Elbert, M. (1981). Criteria for phonological process analysis.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 46, 197–204.
    • Mcreynolds, L., & Engmann, D. (1975). Distinctive feature analysis of misarticulations. Baltimore: University Park Press.
    • Mcreynolds, L., & Huston, K. (1971). A distinctive feature analysis of children’s misarticulations.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 36, 155–166.
    • Parker, F. (1976). Distinctive features in speech pathology: phonology or phonemics?.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 41, 23–39.
    • Pollack, E., & Rees, N. (1972). Disorders of articulation: Some clinical applications of distinctive feature theory.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 37, 451–461.
    • Scripture, M., & Jackson, R. (1927). A manual of exercises for the correction of speech disorders. Philadelphia, PA: F. A. Davis Company.
    • Shelton, R. (1982). Response to Weiner.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47, 336.
    • Shriberg, L., & Kwiatkowski, J. (1980). Natural process analysis (NPA): A procedure for phonological analysis of continuous speech samples. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
    • Singh, S. (1976). Distinctive features: Theory and validation. Baltimore: University Park Press.
    • Singh, S., & Polen, S. (1972). Use of a distinctive feature model in speech pathology.Acta Symbolica, 3, 17–25.
    • Smith, N. V. (1973). The acquisition of phonology: A case study. Cambridge University Press.
    • Stampe, D. (1973). A dissertation on natural phonology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
    • Stinchfield-Hawk, S., & Young, E. (1938). Children with delayed or defective speech. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    • Van Riper, C. (1963). Speech correction: Principles and methods (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    • Walsh, H. (1975). On certain practical inadequacies of distinctive feature systems.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 39, 32–43.
    • Weiner, F. (1979). Phonological process analysis. Baltimore: University Park Press.
    • Weiner, F. (1981). Treatment of phonological disability using the method of meaningful minimal contrast: Two case studies.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 46, 97–103.
    • Weiner, F., & Ostrowski, A. (1979). Effects of listener uncertainty on articulatory inconsistency.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 44, 487–493.
    • Weston, A., & Irwin, J. (1971). Use of paired stimuli in modification of articulation.Perceptual Motor Skills, 32, 947–957.

    Additional Resources