McLeod & Baker Ch 13

Minimal Pair Approach

  • Definition: Minimal pairs are word pairs that differ or contrast by one phoneme. A change in one phoneme results in a change in word meaning.

    • For example:

    • key and t differ in place of articulation (k being velar and t being alveolar).

    • key and me have multiple feature differences (k is an obstruent, voiceless, velar, and plosive; m is a sonorant, voiced, bilabial, and nasal).

    • ski and key represent near minimal pairs due to presence and absence of phonemes, creating a consonant cluster.

  • Application: The minimal pair approach uses these pairs as homonyms a child produces, typically focusing on minimally opposing features or near minimal pairs.

  • Example:

    • If a child exhibits the phonological process of stopping (e.g., pronouncing shoe as tull), intervention can include pairs like:

    • shoe and to

    • shape and tape

    • shy and tie

    • shell and tell

    • ship and tip.

Historical Background

  • The minimal pair approach is one of the oldest, well-known contrastive approaches for phonological intervention (Baker, 2010).

    • This method has inspired several other contrastive approaches:

    • Maximal oppositions

    • Treatment of the empty set

    • Multiple oppositions

  • Additionally, minimal pair words are utilized in various other methods, such as:

    • Metaphon

    • Howell and Dean's Navigation 94

    • PACT (Parents and Children Together).

    • Note: Incorporation of minimal pairs in these approaches does not classify them as modified versions of the minimal pair approach but rather as phonological intervention techniques that leverage minimal pairs (Baker, 2010).

Theoretical Background

  • The minimal pair approach is based on:

    • Stampe's Theory of Natural Phonology: Guides selection of targets and monitoring throughout intervention.

    • Pragmatic Principle of Informativeness (Greenfield & Smith): Guides the modification of targets during intervention based on communication breakdowns.

  • Research Evidence: Wiener's classic study noted specific phonological processes (e.g., final consonant deletion, stopping of frictions, and fronting of velars) as intervention targets. Children faced a homonymy context during communication breakdowns, receiving instructions on how to correct these breakdowns.

Implementation Procedures

  • General Overview: Researchers have implemented the minimal pair approach in various ways, primarily categorized into:

    • Meaningful minimal pair intervention

    • Perception production minimal pair approach.

Meaningful Minimal Pair Intervention (Adapted from Baker, 2010)

  • Foundation: Early works by Blaschke, Parsons, Humphreys, and Weyner.

  • Method:

    • Step 1: Familiarization

    • Engage the child at a small table, showing pictures for each key word.

    • Example activity may include:

      • This is a cape. It starts with a k sound. Superheroes like to wear capes when they fly.

      • This is a picture of tape. You can use tape to stick paper. Tape starts with the t sound.

    • Step 2: Listen and Pick Up

    • Spread out pictures on the table and ask the child to pick up one at a time (e.g., "pick up cape").

    • Praise correct responses and provide instructional feedback.

    • Step 3: Production of Minimal Pair Words

    • The child takes a turn instructing the clinician on which word to pick up, possibly dealing with communication failure.

    • Provide praise for accurate responses and pragmatic cues if confusion arises.

    • Continue until performance criteria of phonological generalization have been met.

    • Typical number of word pairs: 3 to 5 pairs (6 to 10 pictures/objects).

Perception Production Minimal Pair Approach (Adapted from Baker, 2010)

  • Overview: Based on Crosboul et al., Elbert et al., and Tyler et al.

    • Step 1: Familiarization and Perception Training

    • Show minimal pair pictures and ask the child to identify each picture corresponding to the target word through both naming and sorting activities.

    • Step 2: Production Involving Word Imitation

    • Child imitates each target word given prompts as necessary; accuracy of 90% required to progress.

    • Step 3: Production Involving Independent Naming

    • Child names the pictures independently, requiring a minimum accuracy of 50% to pass.

    • Step 4: Production of Minimal Pair Words

    • Similar to the final step of the meaningful approach, offering opportunities to name target or cognate words with feedback.

Evidence and Efficacy of the Minimal Pair Approach

  • The minimal pair approach has a significant evidence base since the early 1980s.

    • Review by Baker and M. C. Liard reported:

    • 43 studies (including randomized controlled trials, single-case designs, case studies).

    • General outcome: effective intervention method; however, less efficient for severe phonological impairments.

Target Population for the Minimal Pair Approach

  • Initially developed for children with unintelligible speech, it now suits children with mild to severe phonological impairments.

    • Indicators include:

    • Consistent speech production errors (e.g., consistently pronouncing cape as tape).

    • Errors being phonological rather than articulatory.

Resources for Minimal Pair Intervention

  • There are various commercially available resources for implementing minimal pair interventions.

    • Importance of recognizing the country of origin of stimuli due to dialectal variations (e.g., word pairs in American English may differ from British English).

Multiple Oppositions Approach

  • Definition: Targets several error sounds involved in a phoneme collapse in a child's phonological system, differing from other contrastive approaches.

Historical Background

  • Developed by Lynn Williams during the 1990s in response to shortcomings observed in conventional minimal pair interventions.

    • Noticed a child with SSD using a singular rule collapsing multiple sounds into one.

Theoretical Background

  • Based on the systematic nature of phonology—how phonemes, singletons, and consonant clusters function in language.

Implementation Procedures of the Multiple Oppositions Approach

  • Phase 1: Familiarization and Production of Contrasts

    • Familiarize the child with targeted contrasts, involving imitation and semantic understanding.

  • Phase 2: Contrasts and Interactive Play

    • Includes imitation followed by spontaneous production within games or activities.

  • Phase 3: Spontaneous Use of Contrasts

    • Interaction involves incorporating learned contrasts into communicative contexts.

Evidence and Efficacy of the Multiple Oppositions Approach

  • Research spanning case studies and randomized controlled trials asserts its effectiveness, emphasizing intervention intensity and child engagement in sessions.

Core Vocabulary Intervention

  • Definition: Targeting lexical consistency for children with inconsistent speech disorder—children producing the same word differently across contexts.

Historical Background

  • Developed during the late 1980s and 1990s in response to a child struggling with producing consistent utterances of the same lexical item.

Theoretical Background

  • Based on the idea that inconsistent speech stems from difficulties in phoneme selection and sequencing to formulate phonological plans for utterances.

Procedure for Core Vocabulary Intervention

  • Selection of Core Vocabulary: Involves generating a list (50-70 words) relevant to the child's daily interactions with input from parents and teachers.

  • Execution of Intervention: Average 6-8 weeks of twice-weekly sessions focusing on establishing and practicing best production of selected words.

Stimulability Intervention

  • Definition: Enhances children's immediate ability to modify speech production errors with auditory/visual models.

Historical Background

  • Developed by Adelmichio and Mary Albert to improve children's stimulability with a production-based emphasis.

Theoretical Background

  • Centers around the significance of stimulability in speech learning and emphasizes multimodal teaching cues for sound learning.

Conclusion

  • The document outlines extensive intervention approaches aimed at enhancing speech production in children with varying levels of phonological impairment. This guide serves as a comprehensive resource for students and professionals in speech-language pathology.