Developing linguistic awareness: A theoretically based approach to phonological disorders

Dean, Elizabeth; Howell, Janet

doi:10.3109/13682828609012279

Cited by 35 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Traditionally, clinicians have compared minimally paired words (or near-minimally paired words) that differ in one place, manner or voicing feature (e.g., car -tar, sea -tea, pin -bin) to address systemic simplification errors such as ''fronting'', ''stopping'' and ''voicing'' as well as homonymy (Grunwell, 1982). Minimal pairs are also commonly used to target structural simplifications such as ''cluster reduction'' and ''final consonant deletion'' (Dean & Howell, 1986;Lancaster & Pope, 1989).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of selecting different contrasts in phonological therapy

Dodd

Crosbie

McIntosh

et al. 2008

International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research indicates that the extent of progress made by children with phonological disorders depends upon the nature of the word pairs contrasted in therapy. For example, phonemes that differ maximally in terms of place, manner, voicing and sound class (e.g., fan -man) in comparison to therapy where the word pairs presented differ minimally (e.g., fan -van). To investigate the implications of target selection within a typical clinical context (as opposed to a rigorous research setting) eight speech-language pathologists implemented intervention with appropriate children from their caseloads. Nineteen children each received 6 hours of therapy over one school term. They were randomly allocated to two groups. One group (of nine children) received intervention based on a traditional minimal pair approach, targeting homonymy as well as distinctive feature contrast. The other group (ten children) received intervention targeting contrasts differing across a range of distinctive features. Children made considerable progress in therapy in terms of speech accuracy and number of error patterns suppressed. However, there was no difference between the progress of the two groups. Followup assessment of 14 of the 19 children indicated maintenance of progress by both groups. Reasons for the lack of difference between the groups in the current study are considered and clinical implications are drawn.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of selecting different contrasts in phonological therapy

Dodd

Crosbie

McIntosh

et al. 2008

International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Os modelos devem ser utilizados de acordo com o tipo de sistema fonológico apresentado pela criança 12 . Existem diversos modelos para o tratamento dos desvios (Metaphon 13 , Ciclos Modificado 14 , Modelo "ABAB -Retirada e Provas Múltiplas" 15 ) e alguns utilizam a abordagem contrastiva de traços distintivos para a escolha dos sons-alvo, dentre estes se destacam o Modelo de Pares Mínimos 16 Este estudo teve por objetivo apresentar uma revisão de literatura sobre os modelos de oposições contrastivas (Modelo de Pares Mínimos/Oposições Máximas e Oposições Múltiplas).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Abordagem contrastiva na terapia dos desvios fonológicos: considerações teóricas

Pagliarin

Keske‐Soares

2007

Rev. CEFAC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(2) RESUMO Objetivo: realizar uma revisão de literatura sobre os modelos terapêuticos utilizados na terapia fonoaudiológica, dando-se ênfase aos modelos com abordagem contrastiva, sendo estes o de Pares Mínimos/Oposições Máximas e o de Oposições Múltiplas. Métodos: foram realizadas buscas a partir de pesquisa de publicações nas bases de dados Medline, Scielo, Bireme e Pubmed, sendo também utilizados livros, teses, dissertações, monografias e artigos de periódicos. Resultados: os modelos de Pares Mínimos/Oposições Máximas envolvem a seleção de pares de palavras que se diferenciam por um único fonema, podendo contrastar poucos traços distintivos (pares mínimos) ou muitos traços (oposições máximas). Esses modelos são preferencialmente indicados para crianças com desvio médio a médio-moderado. No modelo de Oposições Múltiplas, são selecionadas palavras que também diferem em apenas um fonema, porém estes contrastam diversos traços devido à seleção de vários fonemas. Esse modelo é recomendado para desvio severo, pois, em geral, as crianças substituem muitos fonemas do sistema adulto por um único som. Conclusão: para a escolha do modelo adequado, devem-se levar em consideração a presença e a ausência dos fonemas no sistema fonológico da criança, o tipo e a gravidade do desvio fonológico. Além disso, a seleção do modelo terapêutico adequado pode auxiliar nas generalizações a serem obtidas. 6,[18][19][20] (1) DESCRITORES:

show abstract

“…This may also explain why the SLP makes an unmitigated correction (619), as it is the frog and not the child who is corrected. A similar practice has previously been described in the use of the different 'Misters' in Metaphon (Dean and Howell 1986;Hulterstam and Nettelbladt 2002). The 'Misters' in Metaphon serve the defusing purpose of placing the productive effort on them rather than on the child, as well as serving as reminders of articulation places and manners.…”

Section: Examplementioning

confidence: 99%

Defusing practices as mitigation in speech and language intervention

Samuelsson

Plejert

Anward

2014

CAM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Short title of article:Defusing practices in intervention AbstractIn the present paper, speech and language intervention was investigated in order to explore the use and function of defusing practices. Defusing practices may be viewed as a special form of mitigation. In previous research, including studies on clinical interaction, mitigation has been described mainly as devices used in order to reduce unwelcome effects of an utterance, or reduce the discomfort of bad news. Defusing practices, however, appear to serve somewhat different functions, which are explored here. Data comprises video and audio recordings of eight intervention sessions with children with language impairment (LI), and six intervention sessions with adults with aphasia, The analysis revealed the following kinds of defusing practices:circumscriptions/figurative language, diminutive words, words like 'try' or 'test', placing the problem outside of the patient, collective pronouns, diminishing the speech and language pathologist's (SLP's) own competence, encouragement, and references to well-known phenomena. If SLPs are made aware of the practice and function of defusing, they may make conscious use of these practices in order to reduce face-threatening situations in intervention.

show abstract

Developing linguistic awareness: A theoretically based approach to phonological disorders

Cited by 35 publications

References 20 publications

The impact of selecting different contrasts in phonological therapy

The impact of selecting different contrasts in phonological therapy

Abordagem contrastiva na terapia dos desvios fonológicos: considerações teóricas

Defusing practices as mitigation in speech and language intervention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About