[ Contents | Next | Previous | Up ]
From:
Date: 10/6/02
Time: 7:15:35 AM
Remote Name: 217.227.21.49
Dear Jonathan,
> I call fluency shaping procedures "micro-managing the speech process". Also, I would call Van Riper's pre-block corrections micro-management. How will you apply the expression?
Fluency shaping to me appears more like a "macro-management." You trade fluency for prosodic distortion. Please read my paper: "Why Do Stutterers Reject Artificial Speech? The Message Incompatibility Conflict" [ http://www.mankato.msus.edu/comdis/kuster/conference/starke2.html ] .
No, I thought that "micro-management" could be a good expression for (as you said) pre-block corrections, but also in-block corrections (pull-outs) and especially monitored speech, i.e. speaking while attending to one or more micro-processes like lip-lip contact, lower lip-upper theeth contact, jaw cycle, tongue-palate contact, voice onsets etc. Many people who stutter can produce completely fluent normal sounding speech when monitoring. Monitoring competes with formulation though, so nobody can monitor their speech for longer periods of time when formulating spontaneously. And it’s a littly tricky to learn.
> To me, the Thinker's role in speech is to formulate the contents of speech. After that, it's the Doer's task to make it happen.
Okay. But that’s not what Gallwey meant with Self I and Self II (as far as I can remember). What I understood was that Self I cares about results and Self II cares about processes. But deal with tennis as a movement skill. Gallwey does not say anything about the formulation of the "content" of tennis. Since I consider stuttering to be a disorder of movement (at least in the first place) I didn’t write anything about a possible conflict between content and form or anything like that.
Regards, Andreas