[ Contents | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Vasu Parameswaran
Date: 03 Oct 2006
Time: 11:08:48 -0500
Remote Name: 134.29.31.173
Very interesting article and I think questions regarding stuttering in other forms of expressive communication will keep researchers busy for some time. I had the following questions for you: 1. I do not see why the occurrence of stuttering-like behavior in other modes of communication means that everything we know about stuttering as a speech disorder will have to be reevaluated or is necessarily suspect. For example, you point to the "psychology" paradigm of stuttering where stuttering is viewed as a result of "anxiety tension". Why is this view incompatible with the observation that stuttering exists in signing? Why cannot stuttering-in-signing ALSO be a response to anxiety tension? Similar questions can be asked for playing music or handwriting. 2. In one of your replies to an earlier post you wrote "...if stuttering is accepted as a phenomenon representing natural reflexive attempts at self-correction and self-initiation of gestures relative to expressive communication, then it will likely nullify the bulk of our previous efforts as a field. We will look our clients in the eye and tell them that we don’t know what stuttering is, but we can help them live and cope with the pathology..." In fact, there are many therapists who say exactly that to their clients TODAY (mine certainly did - about 7 years ago), regardless of any paradigm shift. I think this point of view has also been quite clearly articulated in the writings of Van Riper and Sheehan - that the etiology of stuttering remains mysterious, but that that does not necessarily stop us from seeking coping strategies for it. In fact, Sheehan referred to the "neurological" nature of "core" stuttering and his view will dovetail nicely with any future finding provided by one of the "hard" sciences.