Applied Psycholinguistics (1986) 7, 57-68

Printed in the United States of America

Sound change: A phonemic split in a

misarticulating child
JUDITH A. GIERUT
Indiana University

ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE

Judith A. Gierut, Speech Research Laboratory, Department of Psychology, Indiana University,
Bloomington, IN 47405

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to report a clinically induced phonemic split (i.e., the restructuring of
allophones as distinct phonemes) by presenting longitudinal data from a functionally misarticulating
child. For this child, three qualitatively and quantitatively distinct stages were observed relative to the
acquisition of the phonemic split:

1. complementary distribution (allophones of the same phoneme);

2. position-specific free variation (intermediate to a phonemic split); and
3. phonemic distinction for some, but not all morphemes (phonemic split).

The results of this clinical case study, documenting the nature and development of a phonemic split,
have implications for related phenomena in normal language acquisition, second-language learning,
and sound change in primary languages.

A common, although difficult, task for second-language learners is to affect a

phonemic split, that is, the restructuring of allophones in the native language as
distinct phonemes in the target language (Lado, 1957). There is little published
literature describing what is involved in the process of learning a phonemic split
or documenting a successful method of teaching a phonemic split.
A similar situation obtains with another language learning population, namely,
young children learning to correct functional articulation errors. Considerable
evidence has been presented in support of the claim that such articulation errors
are the product of the child's own (possibly unique) sound system (Dinnsen,
1980, 1981, 1984; Dinnsen, Elbert, & Weismer, 1979, 1980; Macken, 1979;
Maxwell, 1979, 1981). One possible property of the child's erroneous system is
an allophonic relationship between sounds that are contrastive in the target lan-
guage. To date, only three cases of misarticulating children displaying an al-
lophonic relationship among sounds have been reported (Camarata & Gandour,
1984; Gierut, 1985a; Maxwell, 1981). In only one of these cases (Camarata &
Gandour, 1984) was it suggested that the identification of an allophonic rela-
tionship may aid in more effective and efficient methods of remediation. Cur-
rently, there are no available remediation programs that illustrate how to induce a
© 1986 Cambridge University Press 0142-7164/86/010057-12 $2.50
Applied Psycholinguistics 7:1 58
Gierut: Sound change

phonemic split clinically. Moreover, there are no descriptions of the processes

involved in acquiring a phonemic split for misarticulators. The purpose of this
paper is to report a method of clinically inducing a phonemic split in a misar-
ticulating child. Longitudinal data will be presented, documenting the process of
acquiring the split.

METHOD

Subject
The subject of this case study was a boy, A.J., age 4;11 years. A.J. was
identified as a functional misarticulator, producing several speech sounds in
error, but displaying no cognitive, motor, or neurological impairments. A.J. was
from a monolingual family and had normal hearing.

Phonological description
A standard generative phonological analysis was developed following elicitation
of extended speech samples, potential minimal pairs, and morphophonemic al-
ternations. The results of the phonological analysis revealed a restricted phonetic
inventory, as shown in (1):

m n rj
pb td kg
(1) f s
ts
w j
r
Notice that A.J. produced stops, nasals, liquids, and glides as in the ambient
(target) phonological system. This child's production of affricates was limited to
[ts]; ambient-like productions of [cj] never occurred. The most interesting
aspect of this child's phonological system was his production of fricatives. A.J.
only produced two fricatives, [f,s], and these sounds were used for all target
fricatives. The forms in (2) illustrate that although given an opportunity to
produce all target fricatives, A.J. only used [f,s]:
Target [f] Ifesl "face"
[kosuan] ~ [kos] "coughing " - " c o u g h "
Target [v] [fain] "vine"
[tsetsu] ~ [tsep] "shaving" - " s h a v e "
Target 19] [fAm] "thumb"
(2) [tusi] ~ Itus] "toothy " - "tooth"
Target [$] [fern] "them"
[fxr&] "father"
Target [s] [dop] "soap"
[bwassi] ~ Ibwaes] " grassy " - "grass"
Target [z] [wipa^] "zipper"
[nosi] ~ [nos] " n o s y " - " nose"
Applied Psycholinguistics 7:1 59
Gierut: Sound change

Target [S] [tsip] "ship"

[pusun] ~ |pus] "pushing"-"push"
Moreover, [f,s] were in complementary distribution. Notice in (3) that [f]
always and only occurred word-initially, and [s] always and only occurred
postvocalically. Given the distribution of these sounds, [f,s] were not contrastive
as two distinct phonemes in this child's phonological system, but rather, were
allophones of the same phoneme.1

[fu] "food" [wusi] [wus] "wolfy"-"wolf"

[fast] "fat" [gusi] "goofy"
[fa:ni] "funny" [OS] "off"
[fes] "vest" [tisi] "t.v."
[fu] "view" [Aduan] "oven"
Iferi] "very" [tos] "stove"
[fersi] "thirsty" [nAsirj] "nothing"
[fin] "thin" [mausi] "mouthie"
[file] "thick" [wis] "with"
(3) [fiz] "these" 2 [mAda1] "mother"
[fa:n] "than" [Ada-] "other"
[taena] "santa" [mausi] [maus] "mousie"-"mouse"
[tik] "sick" Igaesi] "glassy"
[deobo] "sailboat" [aus] "house"
[wip] "zip" [kisi] "chcezy"
[wio] "zero" [paeso] "puzzle"
lu] "zoo" [tos] "toes"
[tsco] "shell" [fisin] [fis] "fishing"-"fish"
Usek] "shake" [passin] "splashing"
Itsip] "sheep" [finis] "finish"

It was claimed that A.J. represented morphemes underlyingly with the fri-
cative, /s/; and production of word-initial [f] was derived by an allophonic rule.
1st was posited as the one fricative phoneme in this child's system.3 The al-
lophonic rule is formulated in (4):
(4) [+cont]- [-cor] / # .
(Continuant consonants are realized as noncoronals word-initially, i.e., s * f.)

Remediation program to affect a phonemic split

The identification of complementary distribution in A.J.'s phonological system
necessitated a remediation program to induce a phonemic split, such that [f,s]
were contrastive in all word positions as in the target language. To affect the
phonemic split, a minimal/near minimal pair contrast training program was
developed. Contrast training involved first imitative and then spontaneous pro-
duction of five picturable minimal pairs to a minimum criterion level of 90%
accuracy over two consecutive 40-minute sessions. When criterion was reached,
a spontaneous speech sample was elicited to evaluate A.J.'s progress following
Applied Psycholinguistics 7:1 60
Gierut: Sound change

training. The spontaneous speech sample took two forms: connected speech,
elicited through a storytelling task, and single-word responses, elicited through a
naming task.4
Instead of attempting to teach the [f]-[s] contrast simultaneously in both word-
initial and postvocalic positions, this contrast training program was planned to
proceed in two steps. The first step in the remediation program was to establish a
contrast between ff] and [s] in the postvocalic position. The second step of
training was to establish this contrast word-initially. Concentration on a single
context for training was an intentional choice. It was possible that research
findings related to the process of generalization would come to bear on this
child's acquisition of the phonemic split. Three major findings were considered
relative to the process of generalization in developing this contrast program. The
findings can be summarized as follows:

1. Generalization to novel stimulus items occurs following training on a limited

set of exemplars (Mowrer, 1971).
2. Generalization to untrained positions occurs following training on one word
position (Elbert & McReynolds, 1975, 1978; Powell & McReynolds, 1969).
3. Generalization to untrained sounds, particularly cognate pairs, occurs follow-
ing training on one sound within a particular class (Elbert, Shelton, & Arndt,
1967; Shelton, Elbert, & Arndt, 1967).

These findings were considered in relation to A.J.'s phonological system and

the goals of remediation. It was hypothesized that if A.J. were trained on a
limited set of minimal pairs, he would generalize production of the [f]-[s] con-
trast to other novel items. Also, it was predicted that if [f,s] were trained in the
postvocalic position at first, production would eventually extend to other un-
trained word positions (i.e., word-final or word-initial position). If this were the
case, training on the second step of the minimal pair program would not be
necessary. Finally, if A.J. were trained on production of [f,s], it was predicted
that he would generalize production to [v,z], and possibly even to other fri-
catives. Thus generalized production of the [f]-[s] contrast in untrained contexts
and for untrained morphemes was anticipated, although training was initially
planned for only a very limited context. If the phonemic split were induced
following limited minimal pair training, a more effective and efficient remedia-
tion program would result.

Results of training
The first step of the remediation program (i.e., imitative and spontaneous pro-
duction of the [f]-[s] contrast postvocalically) was completed in approximately 1
month (12 sessions). Following training, three changes were observed in A.J.'s
phonological system. First, for some untrained morphemes, [f] was consistently
produced postvocalically and [s] was consistently produced word-initially. The
forms in (5) illustrate the expanded distribution of these sounds for some but not
all morphemes:
Applied Psycholinguistics 7:1 61
Giemt: Sound change

[ifi] "leafy" Lsop] "soap"

[wufi] "roofy" [sip] "ship"
[wefa1] "wafer" [seo] "shell"
(5) [paef] "puff" [sip] "sheep"
[waef] "giraffe" [seu] "shaving
[lAf] "love"
[ef] "eighth"
IWAfi] ~ [wAf] "wolfy"- "wolf"

BUT: [kosm] ~ [ICDS] "coughing" -"cough

laesirj] "laughing"
[daens] "santa"
[dik] "sick"
[deobo] "sailboat"
[terkaes] "circus"

The second observation was that for certain morphemes, [f] and [s] were in
free variation. Free variation between [f,s] was only observed in the training
context, postvocalic position. Notice in (6) that [f,s] freely vary:

[gofin] ~ [gosirj] "golfing"

[naifi] [naisi] "knifey'
(6) Igufi] Igusi] "goofy"
[tofi] ~ [faosi] "toffee"
[of] ~ [os] "off
[ba;fi] ~ [bassi] "bathie'
Iwif] [wis] "with"

The data in (5) and (6) indicate that, at least for some morphemes, IV and /s/
were contrastive as phonemes. A.J. altered his lexical representations of these
certain morphemes to include /f/ and /s/ in the critical positions. In the postvo-
calic position, however, some target /f/ morphemes were alternately realized as
[fj or [s]. To account for this free variation, an optional neutralization rule was
added to A.J.'s phonological system, such that the phoneme, /f/, was phonet-
ically realized as [s] postvocalically. The neutralization rule is formulated in (7):

(7) [+cont] * [+cor] / [+syll]

(Ccintinuant consonants are optionally realized as coronals postvocalically,
e.g.,f >s.)

At this point in time, there was no evidence available to support the claim that the
allophonic rule, formulated in (4), continued to operate in A.J.'s phonological
system.
Third, the occurrence of other fricatives was noted. On occasion, A.J. pro-
duced the fricatives, [v,z] as shown in (8). As predicted, the new fricatives added
to A.J.'s inventory were cognates of those fricatives already used. Production of
[v] extended to all word positions, but [z] was restricted to postvocalic positions.
Applied Psycholinguistics 7:1 62
Gierut: Sound change

[vaeantain] "valentine [noizi] "noisy

[ves] "vest" [paezo] "puzzle"
(8) [ves] "vase" [noiz] "noise"
[vu] "view" laiz] "eyes"
[veri] "very" [oz] "hose"
[tivi] "t.v."
[ovan] "oven"
Thus training the [f]-[s] contrast in postvocalic position resulted in generalized
production to some untrained morphemes, in untrained positions, as predicted.
Generalization also included production of other untrained fricatives, [v,z]. Free
variation between [f,s] was an unexpected result of training and was accounted
for by an optional neutralization rule. In no case, however, was generalization as
extensive as anticipated; additional training on the [f]-[s] contrast was necessary
to fully induce the phonemic split. Therefore, A.J. received training on the [f]-[s]
contrast in word-initial position.
Training on this second step of the remediation program was completed in
approximately 3 weeks (9 sessions). Again, A.J.'s phonology changed in three
ways. First, and most important, a phonemic split between [f] and [s] was
affected. The forms in (9) illustrate that both [f,s] were consistently produced in
the critical positions. Notice, however, that production of [f,s] still did not
extend to all target morphemes.
[wufi] "roofie [sop] "soap"
[gofig] "golfing" [saens] "santa"
[Mi] "leafy" Isik] "sick"
(9) [naifi] "knifey" [seobqut] "sailboat"
[gufi] "goofy"
[wefa^] "wafer"
[towfi] "toffee"
LpasfJ "puff"
[rasf] "giraffe"
[wAfil ~ IwAfl "wolfie"- " w o l f

BUT: [aesirj] "laughing"

[os] "off"
[kosirj] ~ [kos] "coughing"-"cough"
[terkaes] "circus"
Second, A.J. continued to produce the fricatives, [v], in all positions, and [z],
postvocalically. A.J.'s production of [v,z] extended to many more morphemes.
Two other fricatives, [e,s] were added to A.J.'s inventory, as illustrated in (10).
These sounds were produced infrequently.
[bo9] "both"
(10) [fini§] "finish"
[firja-J] "fingers"

Lastly, a few cases indicated that the phonemic distinction between [f,s] was
not entirely well-defined for this child. For example, in (11), A.J. produced
Applied Psycholinguistics 7:1 63
Gierut: Sound change

fricatives when they were appropriate, but not always where they were appropri-
ate:
(II) Isidi] "t.v."
[fesun] "seven"
As another example, in (12), accurate productions relative to the ambient system
were observed following training in the postvocalic position. Yet, later, follow-
ing training word-initially, these same morphemes were produced in error.

I II
(12) [Df] "off"
[avan] [osun] "oven

To summarize, it was necessary to train the [f]-[s] contrast in all relevant

environments before a phonemic split was induced. However, even after training
in these contexts, there was still some evidence to indicate that the phonemic
split did not extend to all morphemes. Generalization of [f,s] was not as exten-
sive as originally predicted, but one favorable consequence was the addition of
four new fricatives, [v,z,e,S], to this child's phonological system. The new
fricatives added to A.J.'s inventory usually functioned as in the ambient sound
system.

DISCUSSION
By observing longitudinal changes in this child's phonological system, new
information regarding the process of acquiring a phonemic split has resulted.
This process can be qualitatively and quantitatively described. First, three stages
were involved in the process of inducing a phonemic split. These stages were
observed as a result of limiting the minimal pair training to particular contexts.
The stages are described below:

Stage I: No phonemic contrast I Allophonic rule. In this stage, complementary

distribution between allophones of a single phoneme was observed. To account
for the complementary distribution, an allophonic rule was posited.
Stage II: Phonemic contrast in some contexts for some morphemes I Neutralization
rule. In Stage II, the If) - [s] constrast was just beginning to emerge in a few
morphemes and in specific contexts. These cases were limited, however. Also,
position-specific free variation between [f,s] was observed in the training con-
text. To account for the free variation, an optional neutralization rule was
posited.
Stage III: Phonemic contrast in all contexts for most morphemes/No phonological
rules. In this stage, a phonemic distinction between the two sounds was estab-
lished for most morphemes; in the few other cases, idiosyncratic lexical repre-
sentations were maintained. There was no evidence available to suggest that
either the allophonic or the neutralization rule applied during this stage.

A fourth, yet unattested stage may also be added:

Applied Psycholinguistics 7:1 64
Gierut: Sound change

100 —

c
0
R
R
E
C
T
30
C
0
N
T
R
A
S
T
S

0 -

Stage I Stage II Stage III

Complementary Free Phonemic
Distribution Variation Split

STAGES OVER TIME

FUNCTION OF If] & t»] ACROSS POSITIONS

Figure 1. The function of [f,s] in A.J.'s phonology. The percentage of correct contrasts
between [f,s] across all word positions, over time, for each stage are plotted.

Stage IV: Phonemic contrast in all contexts for all morphemes/No phonological
rules.

These stages in acquiring a phonemic split can also be quantified. In Figure 1,

the percentage of correct contrasts between [f,s] across all word positions, over
approximately 2 months training time are plotted for each stage. This figure
displays how [f,s] functioned in A.J.'s phonology. The smooth, gradual pattern
of learning presented here is similar to other learning curves generated for other
types of phonological phenomena (Dinnsen & Elbert, 1984; Elbert, Dinnsen, &
Powell, 1984; Gierut, 1985b). However, a function curve, such as Figure 1, may
Applied Psycholinguistics 7.1 65
Gicrut: Sound change

1 1 1
100 -

1
1
1
If] / •_

1
c
[f] / v_ • /
0 /
R 30 ts] / # _
R Is] / v _ • T
E
C
T

1
1 1
1
0 -

I 1 1
Stage I Stage II Stage III
Complementary Free Phonemic
Distribution variation Split

STAGES OVER TIME

DISTRIBUTION OF C-f J & C»3 BY POSITION

Figure 2. The distribution of [f,s] in A.J.'s phonology. The percentage of correct produc-
tion of [f,s] by position, over time, for each stage is plotted.

be misleading when attempting to quantify the acquisition of a phonemic split.

Notice, for example, that A.J. was not credited with accurate production of [f]
word-initially, or [s] postvocalically in the initial stage.
To more accurately reflect the process of acquiring a phonemic split, a second
type of quantification is necessary. In Figure 2, the distribution of [f,s] in A.J.'s
phonology is examined. This figure represents the percentage of correct produc-
tion of [f,s] by position, over approximately two months training time, for each
stage. Notice that A.J. was credited with accurate production of the target fri-
catives in some positions; the smooth, gradual process of acquiring these targets
in other positions was also displayed. Thus, in order to quantify stages in the
Applied Psycholinguistics 7:1 66
Gierut: Sound change

process of acquiring a phonemic split, it is necessary to distinguish between the

function and distribution of sounds.
The results of this clinical case study may have implications for related phe-
nomena in language acquisition, second-language learning, and language change
and variation. First, with regard to language acquisition, the patterns observed in
the acquisition of a phonemic split by this misarticulator are comparable to the
variability observed in normal phonological development (Leonard, Newhoff, &
Mesalam, 1980; Macken & Ferguson, 1982; Menn, 1979). For instance, Menn
(1979) has identified a kind of variability known as transitional variation. In
transitional variation, there is an alternation between a child's usual production
of a word (e.g., [dA] "duck") and a new production of the same word (e.g.,
[dAt] "duck"). Transitional variation has been observed as an intermediate step
in the shift from an old to a new pronunciation of a word or in the replacement of
an existing rule by a new rule. In the case of A.J., the period of free variation
between [f,s] (Stage II) was similar to transitional variation. Specifically, exam-
ining the stages of acquiring a phonemic split for this child, and generally,
examining variability in misarticulated speech as it is being remediated (e.g.,
"acquired") may provide a unique window into the learning process in normal
phonological acquisition.
Second, with regard to second-language learning, the findings presented here
corroborate those of previous research (Dickerson, 1975; Dickerson, 1980). That
is, phonological variability observed in second-language learners has been sys-
tematic. Furthermore, variable rules have been generated to describe patterns of
production for a particular target sound, in certain environments, for certain
speaking styles, at a single point in time as well as across time. In the case of
A.J., the acquisition of a phonemic split was characterized by regularity in
phonological variation. The process involved a set of rules that changed over
time. Unique to this case, however, was the identification of four distinct stages
of change. At present, it is not clear whether these stages in the acquisition of a
phonemic split are specific only to this child, or only to misarticulators, or
whether the stages are relevant to any language learning population. Longitudi-
nal descriptions of second-language learners are necessary to determine if com-
parable findings will result regarding the nature and development of phonemic
splits.
Finally, the implementation of a phonemic split by this child was strikingly
similar to a particular kind of sound change (i.e., phonetic change) observed in
primary languages over time (Chen & Wang, 1975; Janson, 1983; Janson &
Shulman, 1983; Labov, 1981; Wang, 1969). As in lexical diffusion in primary
languages, the sound change observed in A.J.'s phonology involved gradual
modifications in some, but not all lexical items. The changes were observed in
progress, and synchronic changes paralleled diachronic changes. Findings such
as these may aid in the general study of language. For example, misarticulators
enrolled in remediation can offer a model of "accelerated" versions of sound
change in progress. Clinically induced changes in phonology would provide
additional control and predictability not observed in the naturalistic study of
primary languages.
In conclusion, longitudinal descriptions of the implementation of a phonemic
split in a misarticulating child have resulted in a successful method of clinically
Applied Psycholinguistics 7:1 67
Gierut: Sound change

inducing a phonemic split, and in a characterization of the processes involved in

acquiring a phonemic split. These data have not only furthered our understanding
of the nature and development of phonemic splits, but have relevance for under-
standing phonological variation observed in normal language acquisition, sec-
ond-language acquisition, and primary languages over time.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Stephen Camarata, Daniel Dinnsen, Fred Eckman, Mary Elbert, and
Joseph Stemberger for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper. An
abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the 1984 Annual Meeting of the
American Association for Applied Linguistics, Baltimore, Maryland. This research was
supported, in part, by a National Institutes of Health Training Grant NS-07134-06 to
Indiana University, Bloomington.

NOTES
1. It is possible that [f,s] were two distinct phonemes with defective distributions;
however, this position assumes that the gaps in A.J.'s phonological system were
accidental. The phonetic similarity between [f,s] and the fact that [f,s] patterned in a
complementary manner for all target fricatives provide further support for the claim
that [f,s] were allophones of a single fricative phoneme.
2. Of 51 possible opportunities for [z] to occur in either connected speech or single-
word elicitations, [z] was only produced once, in the morpheme "these." This
production was taken to be idiosyncratic and not representative of the child's
repertoire.
3. /s/ was posited as the fricative phoneme in this child's system, since the breadth of
the distribution of [s] was greater than [f], resulting in a simpler formulation of the
allophonic rule.
4. The single-word naming task sampled each target English stop, fricative, and affri-
cate in initial, intervocalic, and final positions in at least five untrained morphemes.
Each of these morphemes was produced only one time per task administration. This
naming task has been more specifically described in Gierut (1985b).
5. This neutralization rule is a linguistic description of the structural regularity observed
in A.J.'s phonological system. The optionality of this rule specifically refers to the
fact that some, but not all target HI morphemes were realized as [s] in the postvocalic
position. It was not predictable which target morphemes would actually undergo the
rule. This neutralization rule and its optional application are not necessarily descrip-
tions of possible cognitive processing strategies employed by A.J.

REFERENCES
Camarata, S., & Gandour, J. (1984). On describing idiosyncratic phonologic systems. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 262-266.
Chen, M., & Wang, W. (1975). Sound change: Actuation and implementation. Language, 51, 255—
281.
Dickerson, L. J. (1975). The learner's interlanguage as a system of variable rules. TESOL Quarterly,
9, 401-408.
Dickerson, W. B. (1980). The psycholinguistic unity of language learning and language change.
Language Learning, 26, 215-231.
Applied Psycholinguistics 7:1 68
Gierut: Sound change

Dinnsen, D. A. (1980). Linguistic approaches to sampling and analysis of misarticulated speech.

Paper presented at a mini-seminar of the Annual Convention of the American Speech-
Language-Hearing Association, Detroit.
(1981). Phonology and functional misarticulation. Paper presented at the Conference on Dimen-
sions in Communicative Disorders, Milwaukee.
(1984). Methods and empirical issues in analyzing functional misarticulation. In M. Elbert, D. A.
Dinnsen, & G. Weismer (Eds.), Phonological theory and the misarticulating child (ASHA
Monographs No. 22, pp. 5-17). Rockville, Md.: ASHA.
Dinnsen, D. A., & Elbert, M. (1984). On the relationship between phonology and learning. In M.
Elbert, D. A. Dinnsen, & G. Weismer (Eds.), Phonological theory and the misarticulating
child (ASHA Monographs No. 22, pp. 59-68). Rockville, Md.: ASHA.
Dinnsen, D. A., Elbert, M., & Weismer, G. (1979). On the characterization offunctional misar-
ticulation. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Speech-Language-
Hearing Association, Atlanta.
(1980). Some typological properties of functional misarticulation systems. In W. O. Dressier
(Ed.), Phonologica 1980, Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprachwissenschaft.
Elbert, M., Dinnsen, D. A., & Powell, T. (1984). On the prediction of phonologic generalization
learning patterns. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 309-317.
Elbert, M., & McReynolds, L. (1975). Transfer of Itl across contexts. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Disorders, 40, 380-387.
(1978). An experimental analysis of misarticulating children's generalization. Journal of Speech
and Hearing Research, 21, 136-150.
Elbert, M., Shelton, R., & Arndt, W. (1967). A task for evaluation of articulation change. I.
Development of methodology. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 10, 281-288.
Gierut, J. A. (1985a). Generative phonology: Clinical applications in speech pathology. Innovations
in Linguistic Education, 3, 152-167.
(1985b). On the relationship between phonological knowledge and generalization learning in
misarticulating children. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington. (Also
available from the Indiana University Linguistics Club.)
Janson, T. (1983). Sound change in perception and production. Language, 59, 18-34.
Janson, T., &Shulman, R. (1983). Non-distinctive features and their use. Journal of Linguistics, 19,
321-336.
Labov, W. (1981). Resolving the neogrammarian controversy. Language, 57, 267-308.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor, Mich.: The University of Michigan Press.
Leonard, L., Newhoff, M., & Mesalam, L. (1980). Individual differences in early child phonology.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 1, 7-30.
Macken, M. (1979). The child's lexical representation: The "puzzle-puddle-pickle" evidence. Pa-
pers and Reports on Child Language Development, 16, 26-41.
Macken, M., & Ferguson, C. (1982). Cognitive aspects of phonological development: Model,
evidence and issues. To appear in K. E. Nelson (Ed.), Children's language. New York:
Gardner Press.
Maxwell, E. (1979). Competing analyses of a deviant phonology. Glossa, 13, 181-213.
(1981). A study of misarticulation from a linguistic perspective. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana
University, Bloomington. (Also available from the Indiana University Linguistics Club.)
Menn, L. (1979). Transition and variation in child phonology: Modeling a developing system. In E.
Fischer-Jorgensen, J. Rischel, & N. Thorsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International
Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Copenhagen: Institute of Phonetics, University of Copen-
hagen.
Mowrer, D. (1971). Transfer of training in articulation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders,
36, 427-446.
Powell, J., & McReynolds, L. (1969). A procedure for testing position generalization from articula-
tion training. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 12, 629-644.
Shelton, R., Elbert, M., & Arndt, W. (1967). A task for evaluation of articulation changes: II.
Comparison of task scores during baseline and lesson series listing. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Research 10, 578-585.
Wang, W. (1969). Competing changes as a cause of residue. Language, 45, 9-25.