In Support of Phonological Processes Fey (1985; reprinted 1992, this issue) argues for using rule (or invented rule, as in Kiparsky & Menn, 1977) rather than process as a general term for children’s consistent patterns of errors. He rejects the term process because of possible confusion with the construct of "natural phonological processes" and the ... Clinical Forum
EDITOR'S AWARD
Clinical Forum  |   July 01, 1992
In Support of Phonological Processes
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Mary Louise Edwards, PhD
    Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
  • Contact author: Mary Louise Edwards, PhD, Communication Sciences and Disorders, 805 South Crouse Avenue, Syracuse, NY 13244–2280.
    Contact author: Mary Louise Edwards, PhD, Communication Sciences and Disorders, 805 South Crouse Avenue, Syracuse, NY 13244–2280.×
Article Information
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Speech, Voice & Prosody / Clinical Forum: Phonological Assessment and Treatment
Clinical Forum   |   July 01, 1992
In Support of Phonological Processes
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, July 1992, Vol. 23, 233-240. doi:10.1044/0161-1461.2303.233
History: Received November 7, 1991 , Accepted March 30, 1992
 
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, July 1992, Vol. 23, 233-240. doi:10.1044/0161-1461.2303.233
History: Received November 7, 1991; Accepted March 30, 1992

Fey (1985; reprinted 1992, this issue) argues for using rule (or invented rule, as in Kiparsky & Menn, 1977) rather than process as a general term for children’s consistent patterns of errors. He rejects the term process because of possible confusion with the construct of "natural phonological processes" and the "theoretical baggage" carried with it. In contrast, this article presents arguments and examples in support of phonological processes, along with other constructs from Stampe’s (1969, 1973) theory of Natural Phonology, such as constituent processes and process ordering. Rather than considering them as theoretical baggage to be discarded, it is argued that these constructs have potential clinical usefulness that has not yet been fully explored, both in assessing and treating phonological disorders in children. There is a need for research directed toward investigating the clinical significance of these constructs, as well as research comparing various approaches to phonological remediation, such as cycles versus minimal pairs, and minimal versus maximal contrast treatment.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Preparation of this article was supported in part by an NIH/NIDCD research grant (DC00523-1A2) to Syracuse University.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access