Minimal Pair Approaches to Phonological Remediation Jessica A. Barlow, Ph.D.,1 and Judith A. Gierut, Ph.D.2 ABSTRACT This article considers linguistic approaches to phonological reme- diation that emphasize the role of the phoneme in language. We discuss the structure and function of the phoneme by outlining procedures for de- termining 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 treat- ment approaches that facilitate phonemic acquisition by contrasting pairs of sounds in minimal pairs is described. A hierarchy of minimal pair treat- ment efficacy emerges, as based on the number of new sounds, the number of featural differences, and the type of featural differences being intro- duced. These variables are further applied to the case study, yielding a range of possible treatment recommendations that are predicted to vary in their effectiveness. KEYWORDS: Phoneme, minimal pair, phonological remediation Learning Outcomes: As a result of this activity, the reader will be able to (1) analyze and recognize the con- trastive function of phonemes in a phonological system, (2) develop minimal pair treatment programs that aim to introduce phonemic contrasts in a child’s phonological system, and (3) discriminate between different types of minimal pair treatment programs and their relative effectiveness. Models of clinical treatment for children cognition given our need to understand how with functional phonological delays have been learning takes place in the course of interven- based on three general theoretical frameworks. tion. Still other approaches are grounded in Some models are founded on development linguistics because the problem at hand in- given that the population of concern involves volves the phonological system. In this article, children. Other models have their basis in we explore the linguistic bases of phonological Updates in Phonological Intervention; Editors in Chief, Nancy Helm-Estabrooks, Sc.D., and Nan Bernstein Ratner, Ed.D.; Guest Editor, Shelley Velleman, Ph.D. Seminars in Speech and Language, volume 23, number 1, 2002. Address for correspondence and reprint requests: Jessica A. Barlow, Ph.D., Department of Communicative Disorders, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182. E-mail: [email protected]. 1Department of Communicative Disorders, San Diego State University, San Diego, California and 2Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. Copyright © 2002 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel: +1(212) 584-4662. 0734–0478,p;2002,23;01,057,068,ftx,en;ssl00104x. 57 58 SEMINARS IN SPEECH AND LANGUAGE/VOLUME 23, NUMBER 1 2002 intervention with a specific focus on the phonetic variants then are allophones of the phoneme. We ask three questions: What are phoneme /t/. the structure and function of phonemes in lan- By definition, phonemes are abstract, men- guage generally? How are phonemes assessed tal concepts of sounds that reflect a speaker’s in children’s sound systems? And, how might internal or mental knowledge about the lan- treatment be designed to best facilitate phone- guage he or she speaks, and they function to mic acquisition? mark distinctions in meaning. Phonemic dis- tinctions are made most apparent in minimal pairs. A minimal pair is a set of words that dif- fer by a single phoneme, whereby that differ- WHAT IS A PHONEME? ence is enough to signal a change in meaning. For instance, the words “map” [mp] and “mat” For the linguist interested in the study of [mt] form a minimal pair in English. These phonology, a primary aim is to establish the two words are identical in terms of the first inventory of sounds and how these function in consonant and the vowel. They differ only by a given language. For the speech-language the last consonant—[p] versus [t]—and this pathologist, a key to establishing treatment difference signals a change in meaning (“map” goals is to assess the sounds of a child’s phono- versus “mat”). English speakers would agree logical system. As with the linguist studying a that “map” and “mat” are two very different newly discovered language or reanalyzing a words with two very different meanings. The well-known one, our clinical aim in analyzing “map”–“mat” example illustrates how minimal a developing phonological system is to deter- pairs reveal phonemic contrasts in final posi- mine which sounds are used as phonemes by a tion, but contrasts also occur in other contexts, child and which are used as allophones. To including word-initial position, such as “map” evaluate this requires a firm understanding of [mp]-“cap” [kp], as well as word-medial just what a phoneme is. A phoneme reflects a positions, such as “fashion” [fʃən]-“fasten” certain “ideal” concept of a sound, according to [fsən]. Cluster contexts, both initial and the perceptions of the speaker, even though final, can also be revealing of contrasts, as with that phoneme might actually be produced “spy” [spɑ]-“sky” [skɑ] or “cats” [kts]– phonetically in a variety of ways. Take the “caps” [kps]. Vowels too contrast within min- phoneme /t/, for example. As speakers of the imal pairs, as with “map” [mp]–“mop” [mɑp] English language, we all share a similar con- and “cap” [kp]—“keep” [kip]. Finally, near cept of /t/. This is reflected in our spelling as minimal pairs are found via cluster-singleton well as our perceptions about the sounds in our comparisons, such as “play” [ple]–“pay” [pe], language and in other languages. When we or vowel- versus consonant-final comparisons, hear words such as “tie,”“star,”“butter,” and such as “boat” [boυt]–“bow” [boυ]. “button,” we, as English speakers, recognize In comparison with these examples of that all of these words have the sound /t/ in phonemes revealed by minimal pairs, we con- common. This is the case despite the fact that sider another possible pair in English, [mæp] the relevant sounds in these words are actually and [mp]. These two forms are identical with quite different from one another in produc- respect to the first consonant and the vowel as tion. Whereas “tie” is pronounced with an as- with the “map”–“mat” example. Similarly, they pirated [th] as [thɑ], “star” is pronounced with also differ only by the final sound: released [p] an unaspirated [t] as [stɑr]. “Butter” is pro- versus unreleased [p ]. However, most impor- nounced with a flap in American English as tant, this phonetic difference does not signal a [bɾ], and “button” is produced with a glottal change in meaning because the two words mean stop as [bʔn ]. Nevertheless, speakers of the exactly the same thing, “map.” With no differ- English language assume that all four of ence in meaning, [mp] and [mp] do not these phones [t t ɾ ʔ] belong to one and the form a minimal pair. Consequently, [p] and [p ] same category—the phoneme /t/. These four are not contrastive, nor do they function as MINIMAL PAIR APPROACHES/BARLOW, GIERUT 59 phonemes in English; instead, they are allo- /f v/, /s z/, and /tʃ d/. Together, the features phones (phonetic variants) of the phoneme /p/. associated with place, manner, and voice are Phonemes are typically viewed as phonetic called nonmajor class distinctions. These are reflexes of a complex of smaller sized units differentiated from other major class properties. known as distinctive features. Consequently, it is The major class features serve to differ- not the phonemes per se that are the contrastive entiate among the main groupings of sounds in elements of a language; rather, it is their featural language, namely consonants versus vowels, makeup. The features that contrast serve to cre- glides versus consonants, and obstruents (stops, ate an “opposition” between phonemes of a par- fricatives, and affricates) versus sonorants ticular language.1,2 Phonemes may contrast with (nasals, liquids, glides, vowels). The featural one another along one or more of a number of distinctions that mark these respective con- specific feature dimensions. In formalized lin- trasts are [syllabic], [consonantal], and [sono- guistic frameworks, these featural contrasts are rant]. For example, the contrast between /b/ described in terms of distinctive features as de- and /m/ in the pair “by”–“my” illustrates that a scribed in, for example, The Sound Pattern of major class distinction between obstruents and English.3 These can be interpreted in perhaps sonorants ([sonorant]) occurs in English. Simi- more familiar terminology associated with larly, the contrast between /m/ and /w/ in place, manner, and voice for the present pur- “my”–“why” shows that a major class distinc- pose, as illustrated for English phonemes in tion between consonants and glides ([conso- Table 1. nantal]) also occurs in English. Place of articulation features differentiate Based on their featural characteristics, then, labial, coronal, and dorsal contrasts, which are phonemes may contrast with one another either relevant to the phonemic distinctions among minimally or maximally. A minimal contrast is /p t k/ and /b d / in, for example, “pea,”“tea,” defined by a single or just a few feature differ- and “key” or “by,”“dye,” and “guy,” respectively. ences among phonemes. The difference between Manner of articulation features differentiate “pie”–“by” involves a minimal contrast in voice, [continuant] contrasts, which are relevant to whereas the differences between “tea”–“key” or distinctions between stops, fricatives, and af- “toe”–“so” involve minimal contrasts in place and fricates. This feature would distinguish, for ex- manner, respectively. By comparison, a maximal ample, /p/ from /f/ in “pea”–“fee,” or /ʃ/ from contrast means that a phonemic difference cuts /tʃ/ in “shoe”–“chew.” Manner features also across many featural dimensions of place, man- differentiate [nasal] and [lateral] contrasts, ner, and voice.