[_borders/disc10_ahdr.htm]

Re: Agree with Luc

From: Bob Quesal
Date: 07 Oct 2012
Time: 10:59:43 -0500
Remote Name: 69.243.155.213

Comments

Hi Mark. Thanks for your comments-sorry to have taken so long to respond. You bring up a number of interesting points and I will try my best to respond to them. Part of the motivation for this paper is that the current definitions of stuttering really don’t work - they don’t describe the disorder of stuttering, just a part of it. I would argue that avoidance is just as much a symptom of stuttering as repetitions, prolongations, and blocks. It’s just that avoidance is much more difficult to observe and measure and I believe that is why it has been afforded a lower status in definitions. I also believe that, while avoidance is very real to the person who stutters, it is much less tangible to the person who does not. In fact, if one examines the definitions of stuttering, one sees that the definitions that are more dismissive of the “under the surface” features of stuttering (e.g., Wingate’s) were written by people who do not stutter. You ask, “if your non surface definition were to be adopted how would severity of stuttering be defined?” Scott Yaruss, Craig Coleman, and I are already attempting to do that via the OASES. You further ask, “…how would you define covert stuttering?” In our definition, “overt” and “covert” are not different types of stuttering but instead are different manifestations of a disorder that arises from some core breakdown. The result of that breakdown may be overt behavior (e.g., prolongations and repetitions), it may be something more covert (avoidance or word substitution) or it may be a combination of both. The important point we are trying to make is that the avoidance arises from the same processes that the prolongations arise from. At least that’s what we want people to start thinking about. I hope this helps to clarify things. Thanks again for your comments. Bob Q.


Last changed: 10/22/12