From: Mark Irwin
Date: 05 Oct 2012
Time: 04:58:30 -0500
Remote Name: 121.45.12.87
Eric, Bob, Scott, Thanks for opening up this debate again. I agree with Luc de Nil that this is a "critically needed topic". Definitions exist to give meaning and clarity. Certainly this is needed in the stuttering world to improve public awareness messages and assist research and therapy outcomes. But while I understand your and the SLP profession’s desire to have the word “stuttering” used to define a specific disorder I wonder whether this is a constructive approach given the continued inability to formulate concise definitions for such a broadly ranging disorder. (I can only imagine the difficulty trying to advance treatment and research of “coughing” if it too was still considered a distinct disorder like it once would have been) . Also the word stutter is already used by speech pathologists to describe an overt dysfluency. Percentage syllables stuttered is of course a commonly used measurement. Added to this problem is the general use of stuttering in the wider community as a term to describe dysfluency of other kinds. Only last month two recent newspaper headlines were: “Messi header rescues Barca, English clubs stutter” and “Irish stutter to 123” (referring to a cricket score). However if your non surface definition were to be adopted how would severity of stuttering be defined? Also how would you define covert stuttering? And finally while I agree stuttering should not only be defined from the listeners viewpoint the Perkins definition that makes most sense is the one that considers both listeners and speakers perspective viz.."temporary inability either overtly or covertly to move forward fluently with linguistically formulated speech" JSHD 1984. Great to be discussing this with you, Mark (mark.irwin42@gmail.com)