Patrice Robitaille, PhD1
1. Introduction
Phonetics is not a guessing game and neither is phonology. In 2016, Professor Andrea MACLEOD published a ludicrous article on UofM’s speech pathology website.2 Her analysis is an impressive collection of accrued fatal errors in phonology. The method she used to build her 23-vowel inventory has no scientific basis. Her creative impressions have no connection whatsoever with the phonological description that has taken shape with the teaching of N.S. TROUBETZKOY3, André MARTINET,4 Georges MOUNIN5 and Pierre MARTIN,6 to name but a few. In view of my findings, I continue to urge the University to gain insight from functional phonology to help its school implement a reliable model for the identification and definition of phonemes. MACLEOD (2016) is symptomatic of the creative poetic litter that is crippling speech pathology in Quebec today. The university needs to stop spreading unscholarly articles that are hurting speech pathology.
2. Should We Be Alarmed by the School’s Incompetence in Phonology?
One can only wonder why the University has decided to host and share such a weak article on its servers. How did MACLEOD manage to convince the University that the French language has 23 vowels without anyone ever questioning the inventory she devised? A speech pathology professor cannot spew phonetic nonsense. I sometimes wonder why her article was never disparaged by her colleagues. Why has anyone not reacted to this foolishness over the past ten years? If corrective phonetics is a vital cornerstone of speech pathology, what does the university’s inaction suggest? Are its students correctly trained? Can they manage phonetic evaluations? Are the children under their care assisted by fully competent professionals? These questions are important. Let’s have a look at MACLEOD’s trapezoid to see its shortcomings:
3. What is The Purpose of a Vowel Trapezoid?
A vowel trapezoid indicates the exact number of phonemes in a language’s vowel inventory. It never includes the phonetic variants identified in speech and phonologists do not give them any status in the language. Individuals who do not master phonetic principles only add to the overall confusion I am identifying in speech pathology today.
The French trapezoid indicates the place of articulation of the vowels (/front/ versus /back/) and their degree of aperture (whether they are distinctively /closed/, /mid-closed/, /mid-open/, or /open/). An International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) symbol cannot be both /front/ and /back/ at the same time. To claim otherwise is false. To denote the approximate position of the tongue in the oral cavity, the trapezoid confirms that vowels placed on its left-hand side (/i, y, e, ø, ɛ, œ, a, ɛ̃, œ̃/) are front vowels and those placed on its right-hand side (/u, o, ɔ, ɑ, ɔ̃, ɑ̃/) are back vowels. To denote aperture, the feature indicating to what extent the mouth is either more-or-less closed or more-or-less open, the trapezoid confirms that /i, y, u/ are closed, /e, ø, o/ are mid-closed, /ɛ, œ, ɔ, ɛ̃, œ̃, ɔ̃/ are mid-open and /a, ɑ, ɑ̃/ are open. The phoneme tables (see APPENDIX 1) allow the student to see the functional relationships between distinctive units that have a phonological status in the language.
4. How Phonology Easily Dismantles MacLeod’s Trapezoid.
The Sounds [œ] and [ə]
[œ] and [ə] are never in a state of phonetic opposition. Replacing one with the other in any given moneme never results in a meaning change. Hence, [œ] and [ə] are not separate phonemes. Only one of the two sounds has any relevance. [œ] and [ə] are phonetic realizations of the SAME phoneme. Both fleur [flœr] and fleur [flər] have the same referent, the plant we call a flower.
The Sounds [õ] and [ɔ̃]
[õ] and [ɔ̃] are never in a state of phonetic opposition. Replacing one with the other in any given moneme never results in a meaning change. Hence, [õ] and [ɔ̃] are not separate phonemes. Only one of the two sounds has any relevance. [õ] and [ɔ̃] are phonetic realizations of the SAME phoneme. Both pont [põ] and pont [pɔ̃] have the same referent, the structure we cross called a bridge.
The Sounds [ɛ̃] and [ẽ]
[ɛ̃] and [ẽ] are never in a state of phonetic opposition. Replacing one with the other in any given moneme never results in a meaning change. Hence, [ɛ̃] and [ẽ] are not separate phonemes. Only one of the two sounds has any relevance. [ɛ̃] and [ẽ] are phonetic realizations of the SAME phoneme. Both pain [pɛ̃] and pain [pẽ] have the same referent, the thing we eat called bread.
The Sounds [œ̃] and [ø̃]
[œ̃] and [ø̃] are never in a state of phonetic opposition. Replacing one with the other in any given moneme never results in a meaning change. Hence, [œ̃] and [ø̃] are not separate phonemes. Only one of the two sounds has any relevance. [œ̃] and [ø̃] are phonetic realizations of the SAME phoneme. Both brun [brœ̃] and brun [brø̃] have the same referent, the things we qualify as brown.
The Sounds [i] and [I]
Tense [i] and lax [I] are never in a state of phonetic opposition. Replacing one with the other in any given moneme never results in a meaning change. Hence, [i] and [I] are not separate phonemes. Only one of the two sounds has any relevance. [i] and [I] are phonetic realizations of the SAME phoneme. vite [vit] and vite [vIt] have the same referent, the things we qualify as fast.
The Sounds [y] and [Y]
Tense [y] and lax [Y] are never in a state of phonetic opposition. Replacing one with the other in any given moneme never results in a meaning change. Hence, [y] and [Y] are not separate phonemes. Only one of the two sounds has any relevance. [y] and [Y] are phonetic realizations of the SAME phoneme. buche [byʃ] and buche [bYʃ] have the same referent, the thing we burn called a log.
The Sounds [u] and [U]
Tense [u] and lax [U] are never in a state of phonetic opposition. Replacing one with the other in any given moneme never results in a meaning change. Hence, [u] and [U] are not separate phonemes. Only one of the two sounds has any relevance. [u] and [U] are phonetic realizations of the SAME phoneme. poule [pul] and poule [pUl] have the same referent, the bird we call a chicken.
As a result, [I, Y, U, ə, õ, ẽ, ø̃] are NOT TO BE INCLUDED in the French vowel inventory because they are not phonemes.
5. Fatal Errors Explained: When Silliness Tries to Mimic Linguistics
In the absence of any serious peer review, this dubious article has taken root over time. The author’s incomplete training in phonology allows her to confuse the central vowel [ʌ] (called the wedge in English) with the French back, mid-open vowel [ɔ]. On page 2, she clearly transcribes [fʌnetsɪkelafʌnʌlʌʒi] using the symbol [ʌ], a central lax vowel (a sound that is not part of the French vowel inventory) for a moneme where the back, rounded, mid-open vowel [ɔ] is expected (see [lafɔnetsɪkelafɔnɔlɔʒi]). On page 12, she gives the examples of pomme [pʌm] and cochon [kʌʃɔ̃]. These phonetic notations must be recorded as [pɔm] and [kɔʃɔ̃] respectively.
Curiously, MACLEOD did not see fit to verify her clumsy notations with the help of the Petit Robert. Consulting this authoritative reference for French would have helped her. As a phonologist, I do not know anyone in Quebec, in France, Belgium, or elsewhere who has, in their French-vowel inventory, the sound [ʌ]. That MACLEOD was able to have people swallow her inventory is outrageous. If the school operates using some sort of model that attests to the quality of its research and teaching, one can only wonder if The Council for Accreditation of Canadian University Programs in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology (CACUP-ASLP) certification is of any use.7 The Council’s endorsement must consider phonology as an essential component of speech pathology. If the parameters of the Council’s on-site examination team are wrong, the University must fill the void left by that certification body. A person qualified in French phonology needs to evaluate the articles produced by the school prior to their publication. From a linguistic viewpoint, if the certification allows a professor to make such flawed statements in phonetics, the certification remains pointless if its validation parameters are erroneous, to say the least.
6. Speech and Language
MACLEOD confuses what is related to speech (sounds) and what is, strictly speaking, related to language (phonemes). The author (2016: 6) falsely claims that the French language has 23 vowels. In addition to presenting the lax vowels [Y, ɪ, U] (allophones of /y, i, u/), the author presents a distinction for [œ] versus [ə] (variants of the same phoneme). She makes a linguistically undocumented distinction between nasal vowels, whether in Europe ([õ, ɑ̃, ɛ̃, œ̃]) or in Canada ([ɔ̃, ɑ̃ (front!), ẽ, ø̃]). The vowel [ɑ̃] is a /back/ vowel, by definition. It cannot be both /back/ and /front/ at the same time. From a purely phonetic viewpoint, that distinction is impossible. French has but one /open/ nasal vowel. That nasal is defined by the phoneme /ɑ̃/. In French, there are no two /ɑ̃/ phonemes to distinguish different varieties of usage. In Canada, if we want to talk about an /open/ AND /front/ nasal, it is the sound [ã] that we must talk about. That nasal remains an allophone of /ɑ̃/.
The author suggests a mid-closed nasal [õ] versus a mid-open nasal [ɔ̃], a mid-closed nasal [ẽ] versus a mid-open nasal [ɛ̃] and, finally, a rounded, mid-closed nasal vowel [ø̃] versus a mid-open nasal [œ̃]. In French, there is no basis for saying that [õ, ẽ, ø̃] are phonemes (see section 4). They are allophones of /ɔ̃/, /ɛ̃/ and /œ̃/. To be able to say that [õ, ẽ, ø̃] are phonemes, the author must demonstrate that [õ, ẽ, ø̃], in commutation with other phonemes, play a distinctive role in French.
As with lax vowels [Y, ɪ, U] and central vowel [ə], the nasal vowels [õ, ẽ, ø̃] never appear in the trapezoid. The inventory can only gather the sounds that have a distinctive function in the language. There is no basis for listing all the irrelevant sounds that have no function, the reason being that phonetic sounds are widespread in speech. If, through her inventory, the author’s goal was to list all phonetic possibilities for French, why did she not include Quebec diphthongs8 and why did she not include the central vowel [ʌ] she uses so extensively in her phonetic notations? It is mind boggling.
7. Total Phonological Hogwash at the University of Montreal
For MACLEOD, it suffices to throw 23 phonetic symbols in a blender to conclude her funny phonemes exist. To establish the existence of a phoneme, its function must be determined. Without its function in the language, the phoneme does not exist. Her two vowel systems (one for Europe, the other for Canada) is complete rubbish. The phoneme-identification errors at UofM exist because it does not have a reliable framework that permits it to deconstruct ludicrous trapezoids like the one MACLEOD has imagined.
It is through a phoneme identification procedure that the school can establish the vowel inventory of any language. In French, for example, the monemes lit [li], lu [ly], loup [lu], lait [lɛ], le [lœ], long [lɔ̃], lin [lɛ̃], la [la], là [lɑ], lot [lo] and lent [lɑ̃] confirm that /i, y, u, ɛ, œ, ɔ̃, ɛ̃, a, ɑ, o, ɑ̃/ are phonemes, since the two constituent elements in any minimal pair (for example, lit [li] versus loup [lu]) are distinguished using the single relevant units identified in the moneme (namely, /i/ versus /u/). The phonologist identifies the phonemes /e, ø, ɔ, œ̃/ with the phonological distinctions that exist between dé [de], deux [dø] and dos [do]; with the phonological distinction that exists between un [œ̃] and an [ɑ̃] and, finally, with the phonological distinction that exists between port [pɔr] and pour [pur].
To postulate a phoneme status for the sounds [ə, õ, ẽ, ø̃] in French, the author must demonstrate that the sounds individually have distinctive functions in the language that /œ, ɔ̃, ɛ̃, œ̃/ do not have. From a linguistic viewpoint, the author’s presentation is openly in disagreement with any recognized procedure. Only a demonstration based on the commutation of the minimal distinctive units found can allow someone to identify the phonemes of the language, either to confirm or challenge the accepted nomenclature of French phonology. Nothing else.
8. Varieties of Speech Based on a Unified System
In French, be it in France or elsewhere, there are fifteen (15) recognized vowels. If French-speaking countries have both their regional or national phonetic realizations, the fact remains that they function within the same system, namely the identical number of vowels and consonants. Obviously, the author confuses sounds (speech) and phonemes (language). On that point, MACLEOD’s analysis does not respect the phonology of French that speech therapists in the field can depend on, namely the vowel trapezoid presented here9:
9. High Standards for Medical Students and Dubious Standards for Speech Pathology Students Learning Phonology
A medical school respects established standards. A professor of anatomy cannot throw around arbitrary numbers and pretend that the adult human skeleton10 is comprised of 270 bones. His frivolous claim would inevitably be subject to severe scientific criticism. We know that the adult skeleton has 206 bones.11 There are recognized medical standards and there is accumulated knowledge in medicine. An anatomy professor cannot ignore known data. The reliability of teaching and the recognition of a medical school is based on a process that certifies the qualifications of its faculty, the excellence of its teaching, its medical expertise, its material resources and compliance with the program in force in Canada. The Committee on Accreditation of Canadian Medical Schools (CACMS) of the Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada (AFMC) would openly put into question the accreditation of a school that does not respect the program in force. 12
So, why would a speech pathology professor be allowed to throw around arbitrary numbers when it comes to the French vowel inventory? And why would the standards in speech pathology be less stringent than those observed in medicine? We expect a professor of speech pathology to respect known data and to refer to an established scientific model. MACLEOD cannot simply throw around an arbitrary number and pretend that the French language has 23 vowels. Phonologists have the right to push back on false statements. French has 15 vowels. Allophonic realizations do not have phonological status. They have phonetic status. They are not part of the language’s phonology. Linguists discard irrelevant sounds that have no function. They exclude them from the vowel trapezoid, although they know how to recognize them in speech. As with the science of medicine, there is a recognized linguistic science and there is accumulated knowledge in the field of phonology that must be considered and taught in speech pathology.
The best way to detect errors in the teaching of speech pathology is to verify what UofM graduates can produce. Here are some examples where the respect of known standards in linguistics at the Faculty of Medicine would have prevented gross inconsistencies from ever being published.
10. Rachel Fortin’s translations
Phoneme table descriptions are often inconsistent and lead to significant confusion. Rachel FORTIN’s translation of BOWEN13 allows us to see the shortcomings of the training provided at the University of Montreal. For instance, it is hard to consider that BOWEN’s table (p. 9) is a correct representation of the French consonant system.
The French consonant system is not an exaggerated reduction of articulatory features. FORTIN indicates that French has two /r/phonemes. Whether apico-alveolar [r] or dorso-uvular ([R] or [ʁ]) these two sounds remain realizations of the same phoneme. It is represented by a single symbol in the French phoneme table. That is a recognized standard in phonology.
FORTIN indicates that, in the production of [po] for pomme, the child realizes that the long /m/ sound is missing at the end of the word. French does not distinguish phonemes based on duration. There are no /long/ or /short/ consonants in French. The phoneme /m/ is a nasal consonant, nothing more. When comparing it to other phonemes, we might have to specify that /m/ is /bilabial/. FORTIN’s definition testifies to the insidious theoretical slip-ups that we are faced with in speech pathology in Quebec.
Quite disturbing also is that FORTIN never clearly explains why phenomena exist. She does not describe the phonological relationships behind the processes she identifies. 14 On page 14, she indicates that the child perceives contrasts between vowels. She adds “Thus, a baby recognizes the words belle, balle, and bulle differently,” without saying that the observed processes are linked to the degree of aperture and the rounding of the lips. /ɛ/ and /a/ are unrounded vowels, /ɛ/ is mid-open while /a/ is open. On the other hand, /y/ is rounded and closed. Phonology describes a system where vowels function. It describes the distinctive features (dfs) associated with place of articulation, aperture, and rounding of the lips, and therefore, the functioning of the French language in its given phonology.
In K. MARTIN15, the errors are even more apparent. FORTIN presents an inventory of seventeen (17) consonants, some of which are not drawn from the International Phonetic Alphabet (/p, b, t, d, m, n, k, g, gn, f, v, s, z, l, r, ch, j/). 16 The author should have avoided non-IPA-compliant symbols. Her use of gn for /ɲ/, ch for /ʃ/, and j for /ʒ/ only adds to her stunning confusion. French has 20 consonants, not 17. FORTIN’s training obviously falls short of the mark. In phonetics, the symbol /j/ can only be used to represent the sound identified in words like fille /fij/. Furthermore, unlike the system described in BOWEN, she makes no mention of /ɥ/ as in huit (/ɥit/) and /w/ as in oui (/wi/). Both BOWEN’s and K. MARTIN’s inventories for the same language are completely different. Why? A closer revision, carried out by a competent phonologist at Chenelière Éducation, would have prevented the fatal errors contained in these two publications.
In the end, why are MACLEOD (2016) and FORTIN unable to correctly identify and correctly define the phonemes of the French language? The problem is linked to the absence of any reliable linguistic model at the University. Personal impressions and clumsy haphazard translations are never a substitute for the analytical procedure used to investigate the articulatory features of a language. Good pedagogy refers to phoneme tables (see APPENDIX 1). Good pedagogy is impossible when untrained individuals create freaky trapezoids that have nothing to do with science.
11. The Absence of Standards in Phonology Undeniably Harms the University’s Speech Pathology Program.
MACLEOD (2016) has been shared by the University of Montreal for nearly ten years. The university readily swallows MACLEOD’s 23-vowel inventory.17 Its position is appalling. MACLEOD’s trapezoid is the reflection of an unchecked pseudo-science gone wild. Why does the University allow the incompetence of its school to be on public display? Why does it not defend the true structure of the French language? For the University to endorse the presence of such a clumsy text on its servers and to share it without qualms in Quebec is unbelievable. The University has a duty of scientific thoroughness based on established standards. Not the opposite. Why has no one raised their hand to stop this nonsense?
Faced with the fatal errors made by its graduates, the university cannot say that it does not control what its graduates say and do. That would also be quite appalling. As in medicine, UofM must develop the skills necessary for its graduates to practice speech pathology correctly for the entire duration of their careers.
Currently, the accreditation of The Council for Accreditation of Canadian University Programs in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology (CACUP-ASLP) is not a reliable safeguard to prevent the fatal errors I have identified in 2024. The Council is not having its client comply with a linguistic standard and it is obviously not doing its job. If the Council’s standards are not up to par for the school to operate within the confines of science,18 UofM must either correct them, or implement them beyond the Council’s visibly absent requirements. The University cannot simply acquire an accreditation which is, in practice, an official recognition that is inoperative. Simply copying and pasting the table of consonants and the vowel trapezoid of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), following the tradition established by GRUNWELL (1981) is not a substitute for scientific awareness.19 The French phoneme tables exist. As a phonologist, I am bewildered that the school does not systematically refer to them.
12. Conclusion
The Faculty of Medicine has the medical expertise that allows it to supervise the work of its school of speech pathology. It can handle everything related to speech disorders20 including dysphasia. It has a team capable of tackling lesions. So why is it ignoring the issues I identified in 2024 for MACLEOD’s silly article? The university’s problem lies in its inability to work within a reliable framework. Its CACUP-ASLP accreditation cannot just be a meaningless unchecked rubber stamp letting people say just about anything. The Council must implement a quality assurance control mechanism preventing articles like that of MACLEOD (2016) from ever being disseminated without prior internal validation. The pseudo-science that seems to be rife at the university must be swapped with a reliable model in the field of linguistics. Now, it remains to be seen whether the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine will revise his position and decide to take down that preposterous article instead of displaying the school’s incompetence for everyone to see.
ANNEXE 1
Les voyelles
| Orales | nasales | |||||||
| antérieures | postérieures | antérieures | postérieures | |||||
| non arr. | arr. | non arr. | arr. | non arr. | arr. | non arr. | arr. | |
| Fermées | i | y | u | |||||
| mi-fermées | e | ø | o | |||||
| mi-ouvertes | ɛ | œ | ɔ | ɛ̃ | œ̃ | ɔ̃ | ||
| Ouvertes | a | ɑ | ɑ̃ | |||||
Exemples :
| [i] riz | [y] jus | [u] boue | [ɛ̃] pain |
| [e] blé | [ø] peu | [o] sceau | [œ̃] brun |
| [ɛ] bec | [œ] le | [ɔ] colle | [ɑ̃] gant |
| [a] sac | [ɑ] pâte | [ɔ̃] pont |
Les consonnes
| Bilabiales | Labio-dentales | Apico-alvéolaires | Prédorso-alvéolaires | Prédorso-post- alvéolaires | Dorso-palatales | Dorso-vélaires | Dorso-uvulaires | |||
| orales | occlusives | sourdes | p | t | k | |||||
| sonores | b | d | g | |||||||
| constrictives | sourdes | f | s | ʃ | ||||||
| sonores | v | l | z | ʒ | j/ɥ | w | r | |||
| Nasales (occlusives) (sonores) | m | n | ɲ | |||||||
Exemples :
| [p] pomme | [f] feu | [j] ail |
| [b] bar | [v] rive | [ɥ] huit |
| [t] thym | [l] laine | [w] oui |
| [d] ride | [s] sel | [r] rue |
| [k] cou | [z] rose | [m] rhum |
| [g] gomme | [ʃ] vache | [n] nul |
| [ʒ] jouer | [ɲ] agneau |
ANNEXE 2
Courriel à Mme Susan Wagner, Université de Toronto.
Ref : UofM – Speech Therapy – Phonology issue
To susan.wagner@utoronto.ca on 2024-12-28 07:41
Dear Professor Wagner,
I am looking into the University of Montreal postulating 23 vowels in French (Mise à niveau de la phonétique et de la phonologie pour la pratique en orthophonie, MACLEOD : 2016). That article is still accessible on their website.
Considering that you are the Chair at the Council for Accreditation of Canadian University Programs in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology, I would like to know if your organization refers to an accepted standard (norm) in French linguistics during its onsite examination of universities to ensure that Speech Therapy Schools respect a norm/standard for research and teaching in the field of French phonology.
Please let me know what is available at the Council so I can better understand the problem I have identified.
If I do not get an answer from you, I will take it for granted (on January 15, 2025) that the Council does not apply a standard for French phonology in French-speaking Speech Therapy Schools.
All the best,
Patrice Robitaille, PhD
(U Laval 1994, phonology)
- Patrice Robitaille, (PhD linguistics, Laval University, 1994). Under the supervision of Pierre Martin, the author completed a doctoral thesis on phoneme fluctuations in Georgia (USA). Over the years, he developed and taught the following courses in French : Observation and Screening in Language Difficulties and Intervention: Clients with Language Difficulties in Specialized Education. He wrote reviews and articles in the field of linguistics. Additionally, he is the author of Éléments de phonologie fonctionnelle pour l’intervention et l’orthophonie (2024). ↩︎
- https://eoa.umontreal.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/dpc_MacLeodAndrea_DEC_Phonologie_16_09_30.pdf ↩︎
- TROUBETZKOY, N. S. (1970) : Principes de phonologie, Paris, Klincksieck, 396 pages. ↩︎
- MARTINET, André (1956) : La description phonologique, Paris, Minard, 108 pages et MARTINET, André (1960) : Éléments de linguistique générale, Paris, Colin, 224 pages. ↩︎
- MOUNIN, Georges (1968) : Clefs pour la linguistique, Paris, Seghers, 189 pages. ↩︎
- MARTIN, Pierre (1983) : Éléments de phonologie fonctionnelle, Chicoutimi, Gaëtan Morin, 140 pages. ↩︎
- The author wrote to Council on 20 December 2024 to obtain a profile of the review team (mainly speech therapists and audiologists) and the evaluation grid for assessing the teaching of French phonology to find out whether it requires the use of the phonological tables found in the appendix. These emails remain unanswered. ↩︎
- Pierre MARTIN (1996 : 87) : Éléments de phonétique avec application au français, PUL, Sainte-Foy, 253 pages. ↩︎
- Adapted from the website of Professor Christian Guilbault of Simon Fraser University – https://www.sfu.ca/fren270/Phonetique/trapze.htm#:~:text=Les%20voyelles%20fran%C3%A7aises%20sont%20souvent,servent%20%C3%A0%20caract%C3%A9riser%20leur%20production – Consulted 19-02-2024. ↩︎
- See: Anesthesiology, cardiology, dermatology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, genetics, geriatrics, hematology, immunology, emergency medicine, nephrology, neurology, oncology, pediatrics, physiatry, pulmonology, psychiatry, rheumatology, etc. ↩︎
- KAMINA, Pierre (2009) : Anatomie clinique – Anatomie générale, Membres (Tome 1), Maloine, 4e édition, 577 pages. ↩︎
- Let us recall the case of McGill University: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mcgill-s-medical-school-put-on-probation-by-accrediting-body-1.3117241 ↩︎
- BOWEN, Caroline (2007) : Les difficultés phonologiques chez l’enfant, Chenelière Éducation, 60 pages. ↩︎
- BOWEN (2007:6). ↩︎
- K. MARTIN (2009) : Le langage et la parole chez l’enfant, Chenelière Éducation, Montréal, 135 pages. ↩︎
- E. K. SANDER (1972) : When are Speech Sounds Learned ?, Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, vol. 37, page 62. Parents and caregivers in Quebec can learn the IPA symbols. Instead of presenting symbols like gn and ch, it would have been better to present /ɲ/ and /ʃ/ with examples that demonstrate their presence in the inventory. ↩︎
- I wrote personally to the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, Mr. Patrick Cossette, and to the President of the University, Mr. Daniel Jutras, as well as to the head of the school to ask them to remove MACLEOD (2016) from their website. This request remains unanswered. The University cannot plead ignorance in this matter. ↩︎
- I wrote to the President of the Council to find out whether the organization requires speech therapy schools to implement norms and standards in phonology. My email remains unanswered (see Appendix 2). ↩︎
- GRUNWELL, Pamela (1981) : The Nature of Phonological Disability in Children, Academic Press, London, 243 pages. ↩︎
- Dyspraxia, dysarthria, dyslexia, dysorthography, dysphasia, dysgraphia and dyscalculia, etc. ↩︎