Nelson Ryan, Ball Martin J
University of Louisiana at Lafayette, LA 70504-3170, USA.
Clin Linguist Phon. 2003 Jun-Aug;17(4-5):403-9. doi: 10.1080/0269920031000079930.
We discuss developments in theoretical phonology and, in particular, at the divide between theories aiming to be adequate accounts of the data, as opposed to those claiming psycholinguistic validity. It would seem that the latter might have greater utility for thye speech-language pathologist. However, we need to know the dominant models of clinical phonology, in both clinical education and practise, before we can promote other theoretical approaches. This article describes preliminary results from a questionnaire designed to discover what models of phonology are taught in institutions training speech-language pathologists in the United States. Results support anecdotal evidence that only a limited number of approaches (phonemic, distinctive features, and processes) are taught in many instances. They also demonstrate that some correspondents were unable to distinguish aspects of theoretical phonology from similar sounding (but radically different) models of intervention. This ties in with the results showing that some instructors of phonology courses have little or no background in the subject.
我们讨论理论语音学的发展，特别是旨在充分解释数据的理论与那些声称具有心理语言学有效性的理论之间的分歧。似乎后者对言语语言病理学家可能更有用。然而，在推广其他理论方法之前，我们需要了解临床语音学在临床教育和实践中的主导模型。本文描述了一项问卷调查的初步结果，该问卷旨在发现美国培训言语语言病理学家的机构中教授了哪些语音学模型。结果支持了轶事证据，即在许多情况下，只教授了有限数量的方法（音位、区别特征和过程）。结果还表明，一些受访者无法区分理论语音学的各个方面与听起来相似（但截然不同）的干预模型。这与结果显示一些语音学课程的教师在该学科方面几乎没有背景相吻合。
