This is a great question. We certainly want to address the needs of this child…and the needs in this case do seem to be phonological in nature. One consideration is that, while his phonology may still be developing appropriately, his expressive language skills are taking off! When this happens, we often see that even typical intelligibility expectations can be particularly frustrating for these children. There are several strategies that I would incorporate into intervention that, while not directly addressing the phonology, would embed the phonological skills that are still emerging. Tell me more about the strategies that you have been using…perhaps my suggestions will overlap?!

Jessica,

Thank you for your response to my blog post! I love that you mentioned the routine–and how we are most effective in addressing intelligible speech when we target words that fit into a child’s and family’s everyday activities. I could not agree with your more!

Hi Beth,

Thanks for your response. I appreciate your feedback and believe that we agree on several counts! I agree that eliciting sounds that are appropriate and embedded within a child’s life is an important strategy to address overall communication skills. I would actually take this idea one step further to say that for most young children, including those with whom we work, speech sound production can and should be embedded into our practice and in our everyday interactions to ensure that their development of articulation and phonology is stimulated, monitored, and on target as expected. In regard to outcomes, we should be sure that we are addressing the child’s overall functional language and communication needs (versus specific speech sounds) and that these outcomes lead to language and communication-based intervention. This might certainly include the production and elicitation of fun sounds that correspond to the routines or play in which a child and his/her family are actively engaged, including farm animals, cars and trucks, or even pirates roaming the seas! I hope that you will join us for the May Talks on Tuesday, when we discuss this very topic in greater detail!

Thanks for your perspective, Beth. I think sound play can be a great strategy but like you said, learning to “moo” shouldn’t be an end goal. I love it that one of the things you heard was “shimmerytimbers” – I can just hear that coming from a toddler! 🙂

Hello — During my scheduled session I was sitting with several moms of 2-year olds during their play date. I observed and listened for a few minutes. This is what I heard from the other children: argggggh, whooosh, wock wock wock, get him, ee o ee o ee o ee o, dis mine, ahhhhhhh, no, shimmerytimbers, beep beep beep beep, argggggggh, whoosh whoosh, got ya, tick tock tick tock, ughhhhhhh boom, etc. The child I was seeing jargoned constantly with his mouth slightly open and GREAT intonation, but not a single consonant and odd vowel combinations. His mom DID want him to make some pirate sounds like his peers.
If the “scene” was a farm, I bet the mom would have loved to hear animal sounds. So, I think “play sounds” or whatever you want to call them ARE functional for children @12-30 months. I also agree that it does not matter what we call it, but working on sounds IS necessary and helping the parents “challenge” their child’s oral musculature is of benefit (humming, using a straw instead of a nipple, chewing in the back/side of mouth, etc.). I am not talking about working on /b/ cards for an hour, but I am talking about eliciting sounds that are appropriate in a child’s life , not just increasing the child’s vocabulary. Of course it is not the end goal, but still a goal that many parents understand and can work on easily and get quicker results.

Kerry,
Thank you for your post! You make some great points. I am happy to hear that you are experiencing a greater focus on functional language (versus specific speech sound production) within your practice—that is exactly what we should be seeing! Unfortunately, there ARE still a lot of service providers who are focusing on outcomes that target the specific production of sounds, rather than embedding those sounds into language and communication outcomes. I also agree with you–animal sound play is fun and engaging! –and I am certainly not suggesting that we should remove that type of play from our repertoire of activities. I AM suggesting that targeting “animal sounds” as an outcome is not functional…I have never had a family tell me that their goal for their child is to “make animal sounds!” Instead, they want their children to “use words” to get their needs and wants met. So let’s work with families to help their children use words…if modeling and singing and playing with animal sounds are a strategy that we use to work TOWARD that outcome, as a means to an end, excellent! But those animal sounds should not be the “end” in and of itself. Based on your response, I think we are already on the same page about this one!

Beautifully written, Jessica! I love how you write about your focus on how the child’s intelligibility impacts everyday life. That is exactly what Corey was talking about when she said FUNCTIONAL services!