ASHAWire
Advanced search
Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
No AccessEditor's AwardLanguage, Speech, and Hearing Services in SchoolsClinical Forum1 Jul 1992

Articulation and Phonology

Inextricable Constructs in Speech Pathology
    https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461.2303.225

    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.

    REFERENCES

    • Backus, O., & Beasley, J. (1951). Speech therapy with children. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
      Google Scholar
    • Braine, M. D. S. (1976). Review of N. V. Smith, The acquisition of phonology: a case study.Language, 52, 489–498.
      Google Scholar
    • 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.
      Google Scholar
    • 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.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Brown, L., Sherbonou, R., & Dollar, S. (1983). Test of Nonverbal Intelligence. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
      Google Scholar
    • Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.
      Google Scholar
    • 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.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Edwards, M. L., & Shriberg, L. (1983). Phonology: Applications in communicative disorders. San Diego, CA: College Hill Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Ferrier, E., & Davis, M. (1973). A lexical approach to the remediation of final sound omissions.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 38, 126–131.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Fey, M., & Gandour, J. (1982). Rule discovery in phonological acquisition.Journal of Child Language, 9, 71–81.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 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.
      Google Scholar
    • Hodson, B. (1980). The assessment of phonological processes. Danville, IL: The Interstate Printers & Publishers.
      Google Scholar
    • Hodson, B., & Paden, E. (1983). Targeting intelligible speech. San Diego, CA: College Hill Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Ingram, D. (1976). Phonological disability in children. New York: American Elsevier.
      Google Scholar
    • Ingram, D. (1981). Procedures for the phonological analysis of children’s language. Baltimore: University Park Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Jakobson, R., Fant, C., & Halle, M. (1969). Preliminaries to speech analysis: The distinctive features and their correlates. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Kent, R. (1983). The segmental organization of speech.In P. Macneilage (Ed.), The production of speech (pp. 57–89). New York: Springer-Verlag.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • 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.
      Google Scholar
    • 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.
      Google Scholar
    • 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.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Locke, J. (1983). Clinical phonology: The explanation and treatment of speech sound disorders.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 48, 339–341.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Mccabe, R., & Bradley, D. (1975). Systematic multiple phonemic approach to articulation therapy.Acta Symbolica, 6, 1–18.
      Google Scholar
    • Mcdonald, E. (1964). Articulation testing and treatment: A sensory-motor approach. Pittsburgh, PA: Stanwix House.
      Google Scholar
    • Mcreynolds, L., & Bennett, S. (1972). Distinctive feature generalization in articulation training.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 37, 462–470.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Mcreynolds, L., & Elbert, M. (1981). Criteria for phonological process analysis.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 46, 197–204.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Mcreynolds, L., & Engmann, D. (1975). Distinctive feature analysis of misarticulations. Baltimore: University Park Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Mcreynolds, L., & Huston, K. (1971). A distinctive feature analysis of children’s misarticulations.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 36, 155–166.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Parker, F. (1976). Distinctive features in speech pathology: phonology or phonemics?.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 41, 23–39.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Pollack, E., & Rees, N. (1972). Disorders of articulation: Some clinical applications of distinctive feature theory.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 37, 451–461.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Scripture, M., & Jackson, R. (1927). A manual of exercises for the correction of speech disorders. Philadelphia, PA: F. A. Davis Company.
      Google Scholar
    • Shelton, R. (1982). Response to Weiner.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47, 336.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Shriberg, L., & Kwiatkowski, J. (1980). Natural process analysis (NPA): A procedure for phonological analysis of continuous speech samples. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
      Google Scholar
    • Singh, S. (1976). Distinctive features: Theory and validation. Baltimore: University Park Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Singh, S., & Polen, S. (1972). Use of a distinctive feature model in speech pathology.Acta Symbolica, 3, 17–25.
      Google Scholar
    • Smith, N. V. (1973). The acquisition of phonology: A case study. Cambridge University Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Stampe, D. (1973). A dissertation on natural phonology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
      Google Scholar
    • Stinchfield-Hawk, S., & Young, E. (1938). Children with delayed or defective speech. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Van Riper, C. (1963). Speech correction: Principles and methods (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
      Google Scholar
    • Walsh, H. (1975). On certain practical inadequacies of distinctive feature systems.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 39, 32–43.
      Google Scholar
    • Weiner, F. (1979). Phonological process analysis. Baltimore: University Park Press.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • 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.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Weiner, F., & Ostrowski, A. (1979). Effects of listener uncertainty on articulatory inconsistency.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 44, 487–493.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Weston, A., & Irwin, J. (1971). Use of paired stimuli in modification of articulation.Perceptual Motor Skills, 32, 947–957.
      Google Scholar

    Additional Resources