Why I Chose Phonetic Syllabification for Speech Therapy

As a speech-language pathologist trained in a phonetically analytic language, I’ve often found that traditional English syllabification — based on spelling rather than speech — falls short in clinical settings. In my experience, especially when working with young children or clients with speech sound disorders, these orthographic rules don’t align with how words are actually spoken.

To bridge that gap, I’ve developed and adopted a method I call phonetic syllabification — a speech-based approach to dividing words into syllables based on how they are articulated, not just how they are written. While the term is not a standard one in existing literature, it describes a practical distinction that has proven consistently useful in therapy. This page explains why phonetic syllabification can be more intuitive and effective for speech-language therapy, particularly in early intervention and articulation-focused contexts — while also recognizing the value of orthographic syllabification in literacy and academic instruction.

The Challenge: Orthography vs. Articulation in English

English syllabification operates on two levels: orthographic (based on spelling, as seen in dictionary hyphenation) and phonetic (based on how words are pronounced in natural speech). Orthographic syllabification follows standardized rules, such as splitting double consonants (e.g., bottle as bot-tle, happy as hap-py) or respecting morphological boundaries (e.g., un-hap-py). These conventions are invaluable for writing, hyphenation, and teaching spelling patterns, as they signal vowel quality (e.g., short vowel in hopping vs. long vowel in hoping).

However, in spoken English, these orthographic divisions often misalign with articulation. For example:

• In bottle, orthographic syllabification (bot-tle) suggests the /t/ sound ends the first syllable and begins the second. Yet, acoustic and articulatory analysis reveals that /t/ typically serves as the onset of the second syllable, resulting in a phonetic division of [bɑ]-[təl].
• Similarly, in happy, the double pp is written as two letters but pronounced as a single /p/ sound, yielding a phonetic division of [hæ]-[pi], not [hæp]-[pi].

This discrepancy poses a challenge in speech therapy, where our focus is on how clients produce and perceive sounds in real speech, not on how words are written. For children, especially those with limited spelling knowledge, orthographic syllabification can be confusing when segmenting syllables for tasks like clapping or correcting articulation errors.

Why Phonetic Syllabification?

Phonetic syllabification divides words based on their spoken rhythm and sound production, aligning with the maximal onset principle (assigning consonants to the onset of the following syllable when possible). This approach offers several advantages for speech therapy:

1. Alignment with Natural Speech:
   • Phonetic syllabification reflects how words are articulated in everyday speech. For example, when a child says bottle ([bɑ]-[təl]), the /t/ is produced as the onset of the second syllable, not as a split sound. Targeting sounds in their natural articulatory context ensures precise diagnosis and intervention.
   • This is particularly critical for clients with articulation disorders. For instance, correcting a /t/ sound in bottle requires focusing on its role in [təl], not as a coda in bot-.
2. Intuitive for Young Learners:
   • Children naturally segment syllables based on auditory and rhythmic cues, such as when clapping syllables. Phonetic divisions like [bɑ]-[təl] for bottle or [hæ]-[pi] for happy align with how they hear and produce syllables, making tasks like syllable counting more accessible.
   • Orthographic divisions, which rely on spelling knowledge, can confuse pre-literate children or those with literacy challenges, hindering their ability to engage with therapy tasks.
3. Relevance to Speech Therapy Goals:
   • Speech therapy prioritizes sound production and auditory discrimination. By using phonetic syllabification, we can target specific sounds in their spoken context, improving the accuracy of interventions and client outcomes.
   • For example, a child struggling with /p/ in happy benefits from practicing it as the onset of [pi], not as a split consonant in hap-py.
4. Support for Childhood Apraxia of Speech (CAS):
   • In CAS therapy, syllable (word) shapes (e.g., CV, VC, V-CV, CV.CV, CV-CV ...)* are used to structure interventions and build motor planning skills. Phonetic syllabification better reflects the spoken structure of polysyllabic words, simplifying therapy planning. For example, bottle is phonetically [bɑ]-[təl], aligning with a CV-CVC shape, rather than the orthographic bot-tle (CVC-CVC), which suggests a more complex structure that doesn’t match articulation.
   • This allows therapists to target syllable (word) shapes that match how children produce words, facilitating clearer progression in CAS treatment.
5. Clarity for Diverse Linguistic Backgrounds:
   • For therapists and clients from phonetically analytic languages, where spelling closely matches pronunciation, phonetic syllabification feels logical and intuitive. It reduces the cognitive load of navigating English’s irregular orthography, allowing us to focus on speech production.

Acknowledging the Value of Orthographic Syllabification

I do not dismiss the merits of orthographic syllabification. It is essential for:

• Pronouncing Unfamiliar Words: Orthographic syllabification helps decode unfamiliar words by breaking them into pronounceable units, such as catalog (cat-a-log) or photograph (pho-to-graph), guiding pronunciation and stress. This is valuable for reading instruction and encountering new vocabulary.
• Literacy Instruction: Orthographic rules help teach spelling patterns, such as how double consonants signal short vowels (e.g., bottle vs. bote). This is critical for reading and writing development.
• Standardization: Orthographic conventions ensure consistency in written communication, such as hyphenation in texts or dictionary entries.
• Advanced Learners: For clients with strong spelling skills, orthographic syllabification can bridge speech and writing, reinforcing literacy goals.

However, in speech therapy, where we typically work with familiar words that clients know or are learning to articulate, the benefit of orthographic syllabification for decoding unfamiliar words is less relevant. For young children or those with limited literacy skills, focusing on written conventions can distract from the core task of mastering spoken sounds.

Application in Practice

To implement phonetic syllabification in our practice, I propose the following:

• Therapy Sessions: Use phonetic divisions (e.g., [bɑ]-[təl] for bottle) when teaching syllable segmentation or targeting specific sounds. For example, guide clients to clap syllables based on spoken rhythm, not spelling, and structure CAS therapy around phonetic syllable shapes (e.g., CV-CVC for bottle).
• Word Bank Database: Update our database to include phonetic transcriptions (e.g., [bɑ.təl], [hæ.pi]) alongside orthographic forms, with syllable shape notations for CAS therapy (e.g., CV-CVC, CV-CV ...).
• Literacy Platform: For our online literacy platform, incorporate audio-visual tools (e.g., waveforms, clapping animations) to teach phonetic syllable boundaries, making it intuitive for children to learn through auditory cues.
• Hybrid Approach: For clients transitioning to literacy, introduce orthographic syllabification later, after they master phonetic segmentation, to connect speech and writing.

Why This Matters

By prioritizing phonetic syllabification, we align our interventions with the realities of spoken English, making therapy more effective and accessible. This approach is particularly impactful for:

• Young children, who rely on auditory cues before developing spelling knowledge.
• Clients with articulation disorders or CAS, who need precise targeting of sounds and syllable shapes in their spoken context.
• Therapists and clients from diverse linguistic backgrounds, who may find English’s orthographic quirks challenging.

I have drawn on acoustic analysis and my experience with a phonetically analytic language to develop this method, and I believe it addresses a gap in current practice, where orthographic conventions often dominate. By testing this approach with clients and refining it based on outcomes, we can enhance our ability to support speech and early literacy development.

I welcome feedback from colleagues to ensure this method is clear, practical, and effective. Together, we can refine our practice to better serve our clients and advance the field of speech-language pathology.