In Support of Phonological Processes

Abstract

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.