A STUDY OF THE LOCI OF STUTTERING IN SPONTANEOUS SPEECH

Citation preview

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY A STUDY OF THE LOCI OF STUTTERING IN SPONTANEOUS SPEECH

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY FIELD OF SPEECH

By ROBERT FRANK HEJNA JUNE, 1955

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Among the members of the Staff of Northwestern University who have provided generous assistance in completing t h i s study, the writer wishes to acknowledge especial indebt­ edness to the following:

Charles R. Elliott, Assistant

Professor of Speech Correction, for his direction of the research and his suggestions offered at many points which added immeasurably to the total compass and scope of the investigation; Clyde Rousey, for his efforts in the gathering of data on which the study was based; Dr. John Gaeth, Assistant Professor of Audiology, and Dr. James Jerger, Research Audiologist, for their assistance in the statistical treatment of the data; and R. McCaully, Instructor in English, for his assistance in clarifying concepts relevant to

language structure. Finally, a debt of gratitude is expressed to the

w r i t e r ’s wife for her enduring patience and continual encouragement throughout the investigation, and for her assistance in the grammatical and phonetic reliabiiioy st.udies

..

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES.......................................

v

Chapter I.

INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THEPROBLEM. .

1

II.

SUBJECTS, EQUIPMENT, AND PROCEDURE ........

9

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

THE INFLUENCE OF GRAMMATICAL FUNCTION ON THE LOCI OF STUTTERING....................

30

Previous Studies...................... R e s u l t s ............................... Discussion.............................

30 35 44

THE INFLUENCE OF WORD LENGTH ON THE LOCI OF STUTTERING.................................

54

Previous Studies . .................. Results.............................. .. Discussion .............................

54 57 66

THE INFLUENCE OF WORD POSITION ON THE LOCI OF S T U T T E R I N G .............................

74

Previous Studies ...................... Results................................. Discussion.............................

74 77 86

THE INFLUENCE OF THE PHONETIC FACTORON THE LOCI OF STUTTERING.........................

96

Previous Studies ...................... 96 Results............ 101 Discussion............................... 122 VII.

THE INFLUENCE OF STRESS OR ACCENT ONTHE LOCI OF STUTTERING................................. 127 Previous Studies ...................... 127 Results................................... 130 Discussion 13 8

iv Chapter VIII.SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS..................... A P P E N D I X ............................................. BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................

Page 144 163 173

LIST OF TABLES Table

Page

1.

Population Characteristics..................

10

2.

t-ratioa for Parts of Speech Representing Standard Difference of an Error between Proportions.................................

21

t-ratios for Word Length Representing Standard Difference of an Error between Proportions. .

22

t-ratdos for Word Position Representing Standard Difference of an Error between Proportions.................................

23

Investigator test Re-test Reliability Coef­ ficients of Consistency in Sentence Division.

25

Reliability Coefficients of Agreement between Investigator and three Judges in Marking Stuttered Words..............................

27

Investigator Test Re-test Reliability Coef­ ficients for Marking Stuttered Words in Thirty Random Sample Excerpts ......................

2$

Frequency Distribution of Stuttered Words According to Grammatical Function............

37

Percentage Distribution of Stuttered Words According to Grammatical Function............

3&

Frequency Distribution of Random Sample Words According to Grammatical Function............

39

Percentage Distribution of Random Sample Words According to Grammatical Function............

40

Distribution, Sum, and Significance of Signs for Obtained vs. Expected Stuttering According to Grammatical Categories....................

42

Frequency Distribution of Stuttered Words According to Word L e n g t h ....................

59

3. 4.

5. 6.

7.

S. 9. 10. 11. 12.

13.

vi Table 14. 15. 16. 17•

IS. 19. 20. 21. 22.

23.

24.

23.

26. 27*

Page Percentage Distribution of Stuttered Words According to Word.Length...................

60

Frequency Distribution of Random Sample Words According to Word L e n g t h ...................

6l

Percentage Distribution of Random Sample Words According to Word.Length...................

63

Distribution, Sum, and Significance of Signs for Obtained vs. Expected Stuttering According to Word Length Categories..................

65

Frequency Distribution of Stuttered Words According to Word Position in the Sentence. .

79

Percentage Distribution of Stuttered Words According to Word Position in the Sentence. .

SO

Frequency Distribution of Random Sample Words According to Word Position in the Sentence. .

S2

Percentage Distribution of Random Sample Words According to Word Position in the Sentence. .

S3

Distribution, Sum, and Significance of Signs for Obtained vs. Expected Stuttering According to Word Position Categories................

S4

Frequency and Per cent of Stuttering on Initial Position Consonants and Vowels Among Stuttered Words .............................

104

Frequency and Per Cent Distributions of Initial Position Consonants and Vowels Among Random Sample Words..................................

103

Distribution, Sum, and Significance of Signs for Obtained vs. Expected Stuttering on Total Initial Consonants and Vowels ................

107

Frequency Distribution of Stuttering on Sounds According to Location in the W o r d ............

109

Frequency Distribution of Phonemes Stuttered in Initial Position of Stuttered Words. . . .

11.0

vii Table 2S.

29. 30.

Page Percentage Distribution or Phonemes Stuttered in Initial Position of Stuttered ............ Words.

113

Frequency Distribution of Phonemes in Initial Position ofRandomSampleWords..............

11$

Percentage Distribution of Phonemes in Initial Position of RandomSample Words. . .

117

31.

Distribution, Sum, and Significance of Signs for Obtained vs. Expected Stuttering Accord­ 120 ing to Phoneme Categories..............

32 .

Frequency and Per Cent Distributions of Stuttering on Syllables in Initial Position 131 of Stuttered W o r d s .....................

33*

Frequency and Per Cent Distributions of Syllables in Initial Position of Random Sample W o r d s ...........................

34*

133

Distribution, Sum, and Significance of Signs for Obtained vs. Expected Stuttering Accord­ ing to Accent Value of Initial Syllables . .

134

3$.

Frequency and Per Cent Distributions of Accented and Unaccented Syllables on which Stuttering Occurred in other than the Initial Position of Stuttered Words............ 136

36.

Frequency and Per Cent Distributions of Accented and Unaccented Syllables in other than the Initial Position of Random Sample W o r d s .................................

37.

137

Distribution, Sum, and Significance of Signs for Obtained vs. Expected Stuttering Accord­ ing to Accent Value of Syllables in other 139 than Initial Position..................

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction The enigma of stuttering has long been prominent among the speech disorders with respect to the amount of theorizing and conjecturing offered to explain it. Theories have been advanced which are, for the most part, as variable as the phenomena itself. One likely reason for this continual reformulation of ideas concerning stuttering might have been the failure of the older theories to explaih. adequately all the complex interweaving of events inherent in the problem. Early studies concerned themselves primarily with etiology to the neglect of the basic nature of stuttering as it occurs in speech. This led to a prolonged period of investigation aimed at comparisons of the backgrounds and abilities of stutterers with little attention directed toward the study of the speech behavior itself. Over the years, certain shifts in emphasis given the problem have occurred. With less attention dedicated to the location of a strictly organic cause of stuttering, new concepts arose which attempted to explain the problem on a functional basis or on a combination of functional and organic causality. In the past twenty years, certain branches of science offered new concepts which contributed

2 to a broader understanding of the total behavior of the stutterer. The fields of psychology and psychiatry, in their expansion of interests, now came to include this dis­ order in their theoretical formulations. In recent years, certain premises culled from the field of learning theory have been used to explain stuttering as a type of learned behavior. The problem as it exists today has by no means been completely explained in the available data. This in itself is a justification for continued research. A further justi­ fication lies in the social implications inherent in the problem. The difficulty which the stutterer finds in com­ municating with his social environment imposes a multiple problem not only on the stutterer but on society as well. The stutterer may first of all learn to avoid certain situa­ tions where speech is required. In his limited contacts with other people, he may be lonely and frustrated and may be unnable to meet the normal, everyday situations where speech is required. He may limit himself not only socially, but vocationally as well. There may be a fear of approaching certain vocations where a premium on fluent speech is imposed. In this way, certain abilities which the stutterer possesses may never become fully realized, thus constituting a loss not only to the stutterer but to society as well. In some instances, the marriage contract may be avoided,

3 constituting a similar type of loss.

There is indicated,

then, the need to assess more fully the basic phenomenon of stuttering so that more adequate methods of dealing with the problem may be formulated.

In this way, the process

whereby the stutterer may become a more useful asset to society can be more fully un&erstdod.. It is commonly accepted that description, definition, classification, and measurement of a phenomenon must be primary steps in the direction of theory construction to explain its occurrence and the nature of its variability. These basic steps have been of fairly recent origin in the area of stuttering.

Marquis (21) has pointed out the

need for program design in research planning which would incorporate an integrated series of studies focused on a central problem and involving a number of scientists over a period of years.

The present study is designed in part to

fulfill such a need.

The earlier work of Brown, Hahn, and

others has been taken as a basis for the present study. This study seeks to extend in a systematic manner the recent body of research information on the nature of stuttering behavior as a function of the structural variables in language.

In addition, this study, which represents one

of the first attempts to analyze stuttering as it occurs in spontaneous speech, has been planned concurrently with a study by Clyde Rousey at Northwestern University, (26), in

4 which the effect of prolonged talking on the incidence of certain stuttering phenomena was being investigated. Development of the Study-^ The chief goal of the present study was to determine whether, in spontaneous speech, stuttering followed certain patterns of incidence and location, or whether it occurred randomly.

To meet the demands of this goal, there was

necessitated an analysis of the incidence of stuttering as it related to and was influenced by several factors; namely, grammatical function of words, word length, word position, accent value of syllables, and phonetic value of initial sounds.

It was felt that such an assessment

would contribute to a greater descriptive accuracy and understanding of stuttering behavior. Earlier studies were, for the most part, based on oral reading and as such, gave oblique information on the way stuttering actually occurs in spontaneous speech.

These

studies indicated that stuttering did not follow a random arrangement in the speech sequence, but tended to follow observable patterns of incidence and direction.

Brown (2)

and Hahn (16) demonstrated that a rank order of difficulty ^The literature of this field will be indicated only in part in this section. A more comprehensive dis­ cussion will be offered in the various chapters on find­ ings, where it is felt the material will more clearly apply to the special divisions of this study.

5 existed for the various parts of speech.

This indicated that

a locus of stuttering was present which related to gram­ matical function of words.

Words which Brown felt were

more important for conveying the meaning of the sentence were stuttered more frequently than words less important in this regard.

Brown and Moren (7) and Milisen (23) found

that longer words occasioned more stuttering than shorter words.

Hahn (13) and Brown and Johnson (1) demonstrated that

a rank order of difficulty existed with respect to phonetic sounds.

They observed, however, that the individual vari­

ability of the subjects offset the effect of any group trends with respect to specific sounds.

Brown (6) found that the

first three words of sentences occasioned greater frequencies of stuttering than words in any later position.

Brown (6)

also demonstrated that more stuttering occurred on accented than on unaccented syllables. A review of the previous studies and a consideration of their findings have raised certain questions which served as the basis for the present study.

The main question aris­

ing from review of the earlier investigations was whether stuttering obtained under conditions of oral reading was comparable to that which obtains in spontaneous speech. The findings of the earlier studies have frequently been interpreted in a manner which would suggest that the two situations are equivalent.

Up to this time, there have been

almost no attempts to determine whether or not the two situa-

6 tions are in fact equivalent. real differences may exist.

It seems quite possible that Words appearing on the printed

page may have different implications for the stutterer than words which he is obliged to formulate for himself.

There

would, in addition, appear to be differences in the amount of communicative responsibility imposed by the two types of setting.

Differences might therefore exist in the amount

of anxiety which would occur relative to certain words in each, setting. The present study is designed to fulfill two purposes. First, it will quantitatively assess stuttering moments in spontaneous speech to determine whether certain loci are discernible.

Second, it will seek to determine whether such

loci in spontaneous speech differ from those loci which have obtained in oral reading.

In this way, definitive data

may be derived which will determine whether the findings of the oral reading studies rightfully can be applied to stutter­ ing behavior as it occurs in spontaneous speech. Statement of the Problem The title of this study is:

"A Study of the Loci

of Stuttering in Spontaneous Speech”.

The term ”loci”

will refer to the concentration or incidence of stutter­ ing according to movement or position in the speech sequence as it relates to the factors of grammatical func­ tion of words, word length, word position, accent value of

7

syllables, and phonetic value of initial sounds. Assessment will be made of the incidence and position of stuttering in the speech sequence with respect to all of the above factors. "Stuttering” as defined in this study will be considered as any break in the normal flow of speech, characterized by hesitations, repetitions, stoppages, or prolongations of the speech sounds*

In addition to the

above, the following refined criteria have also been adopted; Repetition of an entire word or phrase, when accompanied by tension and not merely serving as a transition in thought, will be considered as stuttering on the entire word or phrase.

The entire word or words in this case will

be assessed for all characteristics other than phonetic and accent values.

Any pause or hesitation of excessive length between

phrases or sentences will be considered as an indication of stuttering on the ensuing word if this word is accom­ panied by stress or intensity suggestive of blocking on the word.

The use of "ah”

( a J,

or "and ah"

(and a ) ,

will

be considered as normal non-fluencies unless they are accompanied by any of the above criteria and are "clearly stuttered."

When "ah"

(a )

is inserted between adjacent

syllables of a word, the entire word will be considered as stuttered.

The term ”spontaneous speech” will refer to the measurable oral speech of the subjects as defined in the study, in which the stutterer has the freedom to structure his verbal utterances according to his own design, using stimulus words as suggestions for topics of his free speech. In this study, the incidence of stuttering for any given category of analysis will be compared with the pro­ portion of all the words in that category spoken by the subjects. For example, if it is found that 10?o of all stuttered words are nouns, this will be compared with the per cent of all words spoken which are nouns.

CHAPTER II SUBJECTS, EQUIPMENT, AND PROCEDURE Subjects Twenty-three stutterers chosen from the Chicago area high school population and ranging in age from fourteen to eighteen years were selected for the study. did not complete the experimental procedure.

Five subjects The results

are based on the remaining eighteen subjects. As it was felt necessary to assess in some way the suitability of the subjects for the experiment, each subject was first interviewed.

Wherever possible, one or the other

parent of each subject was also interviewed.

During the

interview, each subject was administered the Iowa Test of Attitude toward Stuttering, the Bell adjustment Inventory, and the Henmon-Nelson Test of Mental Ability, (Form A, Grades 7-12).

The subjects and parents were also asked to

contribute information pertinent to the date of onset of stuttering.

In fifteen of the eighteen cases, such informa­

tion was contributed..

The parents were administered the

Iowa Test of Attitude toward Stuttering as part of their interview.

In addition, they were sent a prepared question­

naire which investigated the areas of birth and genetic

TABLE I POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

Subject

Race

Sex

C.A.

Birth ¥t.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS

¥ N ¥ ¥ ¥ N ¥ W N ¥ ¥ W ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ N

M F M M M M M M F F M. F F M M M M M

15-0 17-7

l6~l 16“6 14“£ 13-9 16-3

a lb., 15 oz . a n 3 tt i t a 12 tt i t 6 6 It n a It 7 » a tt 7 n 0 tt 9 n 2 tt 9 » 7 3 tt 6 n a tt i t 10 tt 3 1 1 6 14 tt i t a 14 tt t t 1 tt 7 n 0 tt 9 i t 0 tt 7 t t 12 tt 7 n 6 12 tt

Mean

15-4

7 lb.,

15-10 16-7 16-1 14-10 1.5-3 15-4 13"? 15-3 i4-3 15-1

9 oz.

Duration of Labor 10 min. 1 hr. 15 hr. t_

4 hr. 2 hr. a hr. ia hr. 4h hr. 9 hr. 6 hr. 4 hr. 6 hr. 5 hr. 3 hr.. 40 min.

TABLE I - Continued

Held Head Up 1 2 3 4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18

4 days 3 months 3 " Unreported Unreported 2 months Average 3 months 4 " 4 " Unreported Average From the. Start 6 weeks 3 months 6 " 3 " Unreported____

Crawled

Genetic History Walked

5 months 6 months 9 " Unreported Unreported 5 months Average 9 months 8 » 6 " Unreported Average 6 months Average 6 months 1 year 10 months 6 «

9 months 1 year 16 months Unreported Unreported 7 months Average 13 months ft 14 15 n 13 n 13 n 14 tt 14

12

n il

15 13

n

11

Bladder Control 18 months 3 ” 2gi years Unreported Unreported 1 year - Average 15 months 15 " 18 » Unreported 1^ years 14 months 19 tt 12 "

18

»

Unreported 10 months

TABLE I - Continued

Subject

Adj. Score

I.Q.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

26 61 21 22 54 25 29 19 46 23 14 24 54 18 43 33 14 44

87 74 101 97 67 87 120 108 77 131 89 114 100 125 116 133 113 128

Mean

31.7

_ ..

12?-2.

Number of Yrs. Having St. 2 ? 9 • 5 11 13 2 10 12 11 8 9• 4 12 12 6 7 9

.

* -JL ,

Attitude Toward St. (Subject’s Score)

Attitude Toward St. (Parent’s Score)

8*1 1.4 1.1 2.8 3.6 1.6 2.3 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.8 2.4 2.3 1.3 2.9 1.7 2.6 2.7

2.0 4.2 1.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.7 1.5 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.5 2.0 2.4 1.6

2.0

2.0

H ro

13 history.

Table I gives the descriptive characteristics of

the population.^ Population Characteristics The population consisted of eleven white male subjects, three white female subjects, two negro male subjects, and two negro female subjects.

The mean age for the group was

15-4 years with a range of 13 years, 9 months to 17 years, 7 months. Adjustment.— The mean adjustment score derived by the group on the Bell Adjustment Inventory was 31.6.

This indi­

cated an “average" total adjustment for the group as a whole.

Two of the subjects, (Subjects 2, 5), had a total

adjustment score which indicated "unsatisfactory" adjust­ ment.

None of the subjects, however, had a score which could

be classified as "very unsatisfactory." Intelligence.— The mean I.Q. for the group on the Henmom-Nelson Test of Mental Ability was 103.7 with a standard deviation of 19.6. 133.

The range was found to be 67-

As three subjects had a score of less than BO, this

raised some question as to the suitability of these subjects •*-Some of the information pertaining to birth and genetic history and onset of stuttering must be accepted cautiously as it appears that some of the questions may have been misinterpreted.

14 for the study.

However, after conferring with the school

authorities regarding these subjects, it was concluded that the test results were probably not accurate estimates of the subjects1 actual intellectual level and they were retained in the study. Attitude toward Stuttering.— The mean score for both subjects and parents on the Iowa Test of Attitude toward Stuttering was 2.0 with a standard deviation of .70 for the subjects and .66 for the parents.

The mean score of 2.0

indicated that both the subjects and parents had an 11average" attitude toward stuttering.

A "poor" attitude was observed

for six of the subjects, (Subjects 4, 5, 12, 15, 17, and IS), and for three of the parents, (Parents 2, 6, and 17). Conclusions.— The collected data obtained in the personal interviews with subjects and parents revealed that the group as a whole showed no gross deviations from the normal population with regard to the various areas investigated. It was concluded that all of the subjects could suitably be used for the study. Equipment Recording of the spontaneous speech of each subject was accomplished by means of a Pentron Tape Recorder, Model 9T3C.

This was mounted on a mobile unit which facilitated

movement from room to room.

A stopwatch was used for accur­

ate timing of recording periods.

15 The physical plant consisted of a suite of rooms in the Northwestern University Speech Clinic, a central control room, and four adjoining classrooms.

A sound relay system

was arranged by means of which direct contact could be estab­ lished between each of the test rooms and the central control room.

This was accomplished by placing a small wall micro­

phone in each of the test rooms which relayed directly to the control room.

From the control room, the sound could

then be transmitted to the adjoining classrooms, if it was so desired.

By this means, recording and monitoring of the

subjects* speech could be carried out in the central control room, and the investigator could maintain a constant check on the continuous talking of the subjects. For transcribing the data, a Magnecord Tape recorder, Model PT6J was used with headphones. A box containing 13&1 words was placed in each of the test rooms.

These words served as the stimuli for

eliciting the continuous speaking of the subjects.

The

stimulus words had been selected from the High School Index for Subject Headings, a list of which is found in the appendix. such as:

The words suggested broad topics for discussion "gold1*, "camping", "paper", etc.

The words were

selected singly by the subjects and served merely as guides to their unstructured talking.

The subjects were instructed

to talk about the topics in any way they chose.

16 Procedure Conditions Relevant to Gathering and Treatment of the Data-*Prior to the beginning of the testing, certain pre­ scribed conditions were fulfilled for each subject.

Each

subject was given the understanding that their speech would constantly be audited.

The relay system whereby their speech

would be transmitted from the test room to the central control room and to adjoining classrooms was demonstrated.

During

the actual testing, the subjects also had the opportunity of noting that their speech was being audited, as their passage through the hall for rest periods necessitated passing the control room where observers could be seen. In addition, the experimenter was always in the room with the subjects during the period when their speech was recorded as well as at other times, so that the auditing situation was always present.

Each subject was rotated to a different

test room each day to minimize as much as possible an adapta­ tion to the room.

All of the above procedure was designed

to provide, as far as possible, an audience type situation for the subjects.

The test conditions were not intended to

duplicate the real-life situation with which the stutterer •^The method of population selection and of gathering the data was in part dependent on meeting the needs of both the present study and a study by Clyde Rousey at Northwestern University (25). The latter study was planned concurrently with the present study and was completed prior to it, From this, the speech for analysis in this study was obtained.

17 finds himself confronted, but were planned to approach in part, such a setting. Procedure for Gathering the Data.— The basic proce­ dure was to have each subject talk continuously, except for comIfortf rest periods, for ten hours per day for five consecu­ tive days.

The extreme demands of the required talking time in were necessary to the design of the Rousey study/which were measured, changes in severity of stuttering under conditions of prolonged talking. Each subject was required to draw stimulus words from the box containing 1,3^1 such words.

Freedom was

granted the subjects to use the words in any way they chose, using the words only as points of departure in their continued talking.

At two-hour intervals, a four minute

magnetic tape recording was made of each subject’s speech, so that six recordings were obtained each day, making a total of thirty recordings for the five days. Tabulation and Treatment of the Data.— After the collection of data was completed, the total number of record­ ings was transcribed by the author of this study and Mr. Rousey.

After the first transcription had been made, both

experimenters listened to all the recordings a second time, checking the transcribed copy for accuracy and for agreement on the breakdown of the connected speech into sentences. The criteria for determining sentence division were adapted from the McCarthy (20) and Davis (10) studies of language

development.

These criteria were modified as follows:

the

sentence is completed if, 1) the subject stops completely, 2) drops his voice, 3) raises pitch indicating a question, 4) clearly says he is through.

Where "and" is used merely

to string together unconnected ideas to fill in, the sentence is considered completed before the ’•and".

Additional

criteria by the above authors proved helpful in the gram­ matical analysis of words and for determining the position of words in the sentence.

Contractions such as "I’m, we’re,

it’s" were listed as two words as both of the words involved in such contractions represented two different parts of speech.

The exception to this rule was applied in the case

of negative verb contractions such as "won’t" where a break­ down into two words would have changed the form of the initial word.

This criterion adopted for treating contrac­

tions did not affect the phonetic analysis in any way, as in no case were contractions stuttered in other than the initial phonetic value of the word.

Compound nouns such as

"April Fool" and "Boy Scouts" were listed as two words with each word in the compound being treated separately.

In

this way, accurate phonetic analysis and word position determination could be made when the stuttering had occurred on other than the first word of the compound. After transcription of the data had been completed, the experimenter listened to each of the recordings again and proceeded to mark all stuttered words on the copy at the

19 position in the word where the stuttering had occurred.

If

a word or phrase was stuttered in its entirety, such as, "and, and, and” or "and I, and I, and I", the word or phrase was circled and the entire word or phrase was treated as a unit.

These words and phrases were subsequently con­

sidered for analysis only with respect to grammatical func­ tion, word position, and word length as obviously there were no accent or phonetic elements to which the stuttering was confined. Upon completion.of the marking or the stuttered words, assessment was made of each of these words with regard to grammatical function, word position, word length, phonetic sound, and accent value.

In addition, the stutter—

ing was assessed according to whether or not it had occurred on the initial phoneme of the word.

The frequency and per

cent of occurrence of the stutterings among all the stuttered words was then computed, with respect to all of the above factors.

In determining grammatical function of words, the

conventional eight parts of speech were used with the addi­ tion of two categories, interjections and expletives.

The

addition of these two latter categories was found necessary as words in these classifications occurred in the spontaneous speech of the subjects.

Webster*s New Collegiate Dictionary

(30) was used as a guide in the grammatical analysis when confusion arose on some words.

A static or rigid classi­

fication of the words according to the dictionary was not

20 automatically followed at all times.

The final criteria

for the classification of a word depended on the actual use of the word in the speech of the subject.

This will be

discussed further under the section on reliability.

As an

aide in the assessment of proper phonetic value to be as­ signed to stuttered sounds, a phonetic dictionary by Kenyon and Knott (19) was consulted. The total words recorded on the magnetic tape from all of the subjects was 24#,806*.

Each of these words was

audited to identify the total incidence of stuttered words. This total of words on which stuttering occurred was 17,143* Each word on which stuttering had occurred was evaluated and classified according to the categories described pre­ viously.

It was felt that the number or words stuttered

in a given category should be identified as a percentage of the total words in that category.

However, it did not seem

feasible or necessary to analyze and classify every word of the parent population of 24#,806 words. that by suitable sampling an adequate be made of the entire population.

It was felt

estimate could

Random samples, (four per

subject), were drawn from the total words spoken.

Edwards

Table of Random Numbers (11) was used for this purpose.

Each

word within thesample was classified into the categories being used.

The total words thus analyzed was 31,156, which

represented approximately 12.5% of the total recorded words.

21 To test the hypothesis that the sample was really representative of the total words used by the subjects, the words contained in the random sample were divided into two equal parts, and the two halves were then tested for equivalence.

A t-test for determining a standard difference

between two proportions was used to test equivalence between the two halves of the random sample.

Table II lists the

t-Tatd-os for the various parts of speech representing equivalence between the two halves of the random sample. TABLE II t—RATIOS FOR PARTS OF SPEECH REPRESENT­ ING STANDARD DIFFERENCE OF AN ERROR BETWEEN PROPORTIONS Part of Speech Nouns .................... Pronouns.................. Verbs .................... , . Adverbs .................. Adjectives................ , . Prepositions.............. Conjunctions.............. Articles.................. , . Expletives................ Interjections ............

t- ratio*

.91 .51 .92 .13 .51 .53

*1.96 minimum required for 5% level of significance. Table III lists the t - r a M o a for the various word lengths representing equivalence between the two halves of the random sample.

22 Table IV lists the t-raiios for the various word positions representing equivalence between the two halves of the random sample. TABLE III t—RATXGS. FOR WORD LENGTH REPRESENTING STANDARD DIFFERENCE OF AN ERROR BETWEEN PROPORTIONS Word Length (In no. of letters) 1 2 3 4 5 6

t-rafcio*

.............. ....................

69 1.S0 13 .......................... 72 .......................... 15 ..................... 1.69

7 ...................... 62 S 9

.......................... IS .......................... 50

1 0 ........................ 20 1 1 ........................ 00 1 2 ........................ 67 1 3 .......................... 35 *1.96 minimum required for 5$ level of significance.

23 TABLE IV & M 1 1 ® FOR WORD POSITION REPRESENTING STANDARD DIFFERENCE OF AN ERROR BETWEEN PROPORTIONS Position in Sentence

t-ira.1t.ii®*

1

............................ 13 2 ............................ 12 3 ............................ 00 4 ............................ 00 5 ............................ 00 6 ............................ 00 7 ............................ 25 S .................. .00 9 ............................ 13 10 ............................ 24

11

.......................... 26

12 13 14 15 1 6 1 7 I S 19

............................ 37 ............................ 36 ............................ 26 ............................ 12 ............................ 00 ............................ 00 ............................ 00 ............................ 12

20

.......................... 11

2 1 ............................ 11 2 2 ............................ 00 *1.96 minimum required for 5$ level of significance. The tables indicate that no significant differences ex­ isted between the two halves of the random sample with respect to any of the factors being tested.

In no case was

the t-rali© as high as the 1.96 value, the lowest eligible value which would have indicated a 5% level of significance. Thus, it was concluded that the split halves of the random sample

ws/ere equivalent and the random sample

was

repre-

24 sentative of the total recorded word population for the subjects.

The 31,156 words in the random sample were then

used as a basis of comparison between the stuttered word occurrences and the random sample word occurrences of the subjects.

An analysis of the random sample words was then

carried out in a manner similar to the way in which the stuttered words had been analyzed, with frequency and per cent of the words computed as they occurred with regard to the various factors being measured. Conditions Relevant to Determining Reliability of the Investigator The investigation of the spontaneous speech of the subjects presented many hazards to accurate analysis; there­ fore the reliability of the experimenter in making certain judgments was determined. Reliability in Determination of Sentences.— A ^-stretest method, with application of the formula,^ r = V

xy ,

was used to determine the experimenter’s reliability in sentence classification.

Validation for this formula is

found in Guilford (14, p* 364)* Eighteen exerpts of four minutes each, selected at random, were used for this purpose. •%here x = number of sentences determined in the first transcription, y ■ number of sentences determined in the second transcription, and C = total number of agreements be­ tween first and second transcriptions.

25 The interval between test and re-test, was eight months. Table V lists the reliability coefficients for each of the eighteen excerpts. TABLE V INVESTIGATOR TEST RE-TEST RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS OF CONSISTENCY IN SENTENCE DIVISION* Excerpt 1 2

r

........................ 97 ........................ 93

3 .................... 88 4 .................... 90 5 6 7 8

........................ 96 ........................ 91 ........................ 89 ........................ 94

9 1 0 1 1 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 1 6

1.00 ........................ 93 ........................ 92 ........................ 92 ........................ 97 ........................ 87 ........................ 89 ........................ 97 ........................ 90 ........................ 94

Mean Coefficient of Agreement .93 Range .87 to 1.00 *Test Re-test interval?

Eight months.

The mean reliability coefficient was found to be .93 with a range of .87 to 1.00.

The experimenter’s reliability in

determining sentence division appears to have been satis­ factory.

26 Reliability in Marking Stuttered Words.— To deter­ mine reliability in marking stuttered words, the experimenter compared his judgments of moments of stuttering to those of three graduate students in speech correction.

Eighteen

magnetic tape recordings, one per subject, were selected at random and were audited by the experimenter and the three judges independently.

The same conditions were used which

the investigator was to utilize in auditing the total record­ ings used in the study.

Freedom was taken to stop and start

the recorder as often as it seemed necessary. was accomplished with the aid of headphones.

All listening Moments of

stuttering were marked by the experimenter and the three judges on prepared transcriptions of the recorded data. Prior to this actual marking of stuttered words, the judges were given the definition of what would constitute stutter­ ing, as per the definition given on page 6 of the preceding chapter.

An extensive practice session was also held prior

to the marking of words on the eighteen excerpts.

Reli­

ability coefficients, representing degree of agreement in marking the stuttered words were then computed by use of the formula,1 r = C__.

-vTrjr

Table VI lists the reliability coeffic-

ients for the eighteen excerpts. ^ h e r e x = total words marked by the investigator, y - total words marked by judge A, (B, C), and C = total number of agreements between investigator and judge A, (B, C).

27 TABLE VI RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN INVESTIGATOR AND THREE JUDGES IN MARKING STUTTERED WORDS

A Excerpt

Judge B r

G

1 .ao .S4 2 .BO .ao .ao .ai 3 . B2 .ao 4 .61 5 .79 .B2 6 .73 .SO 7 .75 a .S3 .77 •7B 9 .91 10 .77 .93 .B2 .ao 11 12 .74 .71 .ao 13 .74 .90 •S3 14 .72 15 .73 16 .ai .73 .ao •7B 17 is .-71_____ . v75...... Mean degree of Agreement between Investigator and three Judges Range

.74 .79 .S2 .67 .72 .73 .73 .79 .92 .72 ,B6 .77 .S5 .77 .S2 .S2 .S6 .92 .79

.61 to .93

The mean degree of agreement between the investigator and the three judges was .79 with a range of .61 to .93. This degree of agreement was felt to be sufficient. Degree of Consistency in Marking Stuttered Words.— 1 A test-retest method, using the formula, r , was

-Mtfhere x = total number of words marked during first marking period, y = total number of words marked during second marking period, and C = total number of agreements between first and second marking periods.

23 used to determine the consistency with which the investiga­ tor marked the stuttered words. at random for this purpose. re-test was three months.

Thirty excerpts were selected

The interval between test and Table VII lists the reliability

coefficients for the thirty excerpts. TABLE VII INVESTIGATOR TEST RE-TEST RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS FOR MARKING STUTTERED WORDS IN THIRTY RANDOM SAMPLE EXCERPTS*

Excerpt

r

Exc erpt

16 .do 1 2 17 .91 id 3 .91 .aa 19 4 20 5 .d5 21 6 .91 22 1.00 7 a .d6 23 .92 9 24 10 25 .d4 1.00 26 11 12 .39 27 23 .92 13 .96 29 14 .96 15 .......... . 30 . Mean Degree of Agreement .91 Range__________________ .SO to 1.00_________ *Test Re-Test Interval: Three Months.

r .94 .d3 .aa .aa 1.00 .d4 .92 .93 .90 .90 .91 .39 .96 .91 .96

The mean reliability coefficient was .91 with a range of .SO to 1.00.

The result indicated a high degree of consistency

in marking the stuttered words. Reliability in Categorizing Stuttered Words.— To offset the possibility that errors in judgment might have

occurred in the itemizing of words according to grammatical function and phonetic values, studies were carried out to determine the degree of reliability of the investigator for such categorizing.

It was felt that such a study would

be necessary because of the difficulties imposed in analysis of spontaneous speech.

Words appearing on the printed page

are more easily assessable for analysis than words occurring in spontaneous speech.

Words used in spontaneous speech

often depart from standard grammatical usage, and phonetic symbols assigned to certain words in isolation assume differ­ ent value in connected speech because of assimilation and blending.

In the present study, analysis was made, as fully

as possible, of phonemes as they would commonly be used in connected speech. Eighteen excerpts were selected at random from the total recorded passages.

Scoring according to grammatical

category and phoneme on stuttered words in these excerpts by the experimenter and a person trained in phonetics was 1 ^ compared by the reliability formula, r = -yxy • The mean reliability coefficient was .93 for grammatical function and .94 for phonetic values.

This indicated a satisfactory

level of consistency in the scoring of these variables by the experimenter. 3-Where x = total number of words categorized by experimenter, y = total number of words categorized by assistant, . and C = total number of agreements between experimenter and assistant*

CHAPTER III THE INFLUENCE OF THE GRAMMATICAL FACTOR ON THE LOCI OF STUTTERING Introduction The material in the chapters following is organized into the various areas of analysis in this study, viz., grammatical function, word length, word position, phonetic sound, and accent value. It was felt that the reader could follow more clearly the comparison of data from this study and previous studies if they were presented together by area of analysis. Previous Studies Brown (2) found a rank order of difficulty for parts of speech among a group of 32 stutterers during oral reading. The median per cent of stuttering for the various parts of speech did not differ to a degree that was statistically significant. However, Brown felt that the differences were "psychologically significant" which is taken to mean that the stutterers actually experienced the various grammatical cate­ gories in some measurably different way. Brown found that more stuttering occurred on what he felt to be the more meaningful parts of speech, i.e., nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs. He hypothesized that these parts of speech were the primary conveyers of meaning in the sentence.

Correspondingly,

31 less stuttering was found on words of less importance in conveying meaning*

Brown originally used eighteen parts of

speech, but finally reported his work in eight categories after determining that the reduction in number of categories caused no significant loss in their discriminatory function. The rank order of difficulty which Brown found for the eight parts of speech is as follows: adjectives, nouns, adverbs, verbs, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, and articles. A weakness in the above study was the failure to allow for the proportion of total words in the various grammatical categories as a basis of comparison with stuttered words in these categories. in Hahn (16) confirmed Brown’s findings in a study/which he used forty-three stutterers who read prepared passages of material.

He found adjectives and nouns highest in the rank

order of difficulty with prepositions, pronouns, articles, conjunctions, and interjections following in that order. Hahn added interjections to his classification when he found that this part of speech occurred in the reading passage. In view of the fact that Hahn’s reading selection consisted of only 500 words, it is interesting to note that a loci of stuttering was discernible in spite of the small sample. It was unclear in both of the above studies, as to whether stuttering on the various parts of speech was compared to the total word occurrence in the passages. This casts some doubt on the validity of the findings.

32 Brown {$) later published a re-evaluation of his earlier data.

In this report he compared the per cent of

stuttering in each grammatical category with the mean per cent of stuttering for

tne passage as a whole.

He found

9.7$ of the words in the total passage were stuttered.

The

parts of speech which occasioned more than 9.7% of stutter­ ing were nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs while less than the mean per cent of stuttering was found on pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, and articles.

No statistical

test of significance was reported on the degree of deviation from the mean by the various measures. Brown concluded from this analysis that stuttering occurs more frequently on words of more importance for con­ veying the meaning of the sentence. Eisenson and Horowitz (12) demonstrated that stutter­ ing was related to the degree of propositionality involved in the reading selection.

They used three reading passages

of 130 words each; a serial list of words, a nonsense para­ graph style passage, and a meaningful passage.

The first and

last passages were carefully prepared to include an equal number of the various parts of speech. read the materials.

Eighteen subjects

They observed a steady increase in

stuttering from the first to the third selection on nouns, verbs, adverbs, and adjectives.

No such increase was ob­

served on pronouns, articles, and conjunctions.

No signi­

ficant difference was observable among the selections with

33 regard to prepositions.

The authors concluded that the more

important words were stuttered more frequently and words carrying less propositional value were stuttered less fre­ quently. Meissner (22), in studying the relationship between voluntary non-fluency and stuttering, investigated, as a secondary purpose, the frequency of stuttering in relation to the weighting of words outlined by Brown.

One of the

weight factors used was grammatical function, whereby any word that was a noun, adjective, verb, or adverb contributed to the total weight of the word.

Results, from 24 stutterers

in an oral reading situation, showed that more stuttering occurred on words more heavily weighted. the weighting hypothesis in

The validation of

his study lends further confirma­

tion to the function of these grammatical categories as being related to an increase of stuttering during the oral reading situation. Oxtoby (25) used a similar four-factor weighting system in her study of stuttering expectancy, one of the factors being grammatical function.

She found highly signi­

ficant differences in stuttering on the words relative to the assigned weights.

This tfas^additional verification of

the grammatical function as an important factor related to the occurrence of stuttering in the oral reading situa­ tion.

34 Cohen (9) used a similar weighting system, including grammatical function as one of the factors.

He analyzed

stuttering under conditions of spontaneous speech as well as oral reading.

Nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs

contributed to the total weight of the words, and their presence was associated, in both oral reading and spontaneous speech, with a statistically significant increase in stutter­ ing. Wischner (31), in an investigation of stuttering adaptation, varied the stimulus word material while the audience remained constant.

Under one condition he pre­

sented the same 200 word passage five times, and .. under a second condition, he presented five different passages once. Less adaptation was observed under the second condition. His study suggested that a specific word anxiety was present which was influencing stuttering behavior. Johnson and Knott (18) and Johnson and Inness (17) studied the effect which certain words might have on the stutterer during oral reading.

They found evidence for a

specific anxiety or expectancy aroused by cues associated with certain words.

These latter studies referred to above

concluded that the stutterer is capable of responding to certain words in both a reading passage of material and in his spontaneous speech with a heightened anxiety.

35 Summary The previous studies point clearly and consistently to the presence of an increase of sttittering to a significant degree on words of certain grammatical categories.

That the

specific word has a cue value capable of arousing significant­ ly more stuttering has also been demonstrated.

Heretofore,

the findings have been developed; largely on the basis of the oral reading material.

The present study seeks to verify

and extend these findings through the analysis of these factors in spontaneous speech. Results The following is an analysis of results pertinent to the grammatical variable as it contributed to a locus of stuttering.

The grammatical categories are all considered

separately with respect to frequency and per cent of stuttered words within each category.

Frequency and per cent of total

random sample worlds in each grammatical category are also listed. The group contributed a total of 24^,806 recorded words.

Of these, 17,143 were stuttered, all of which were

included in the analysis of grammatical function.

Table

VIII lists the frequency of stuttering among the several grammatical categories.

The table is arranged with the

subjects listed vertically at the left while the grammatical

36 categories appear horizontally at the top, ing to decreasing frequency of stuttered

Arranged accord­ words among the

grammatical categories, the results are as follows:

Nouns,

4,#37 or 2#.2$; Verbs, 3,134 or 18.3$; Pronouns, %0$k or 12.1$; Adjectives, 2,005 or 11.7$; Adverbs, 1,167 or 6.S$; Prepositions, 1,065 or 6.2$; Conjunctions, 1,042 or 6.1$; Articles, 919 or 5*4$; Expletives, #3# or 4.9$; and Inter­ jections, 52 or .30$. Table IX lists the per cent of stuttering among the various categories individually for each subject. remains the same as for Table VIII.

The format

It may be read that of

all the stuttered words spoken by Subject #1, 9.4$ were nouns.

Examination of this table reveals the percentage

of incidence and degree of variability among the subjects with respect to the various categories. As has been pointed out earlier, the above results were considered only as they related to the total recorded verbal output of the group, extrapolated by means of the random sample.

The random sample of 31,156 words, analyzed

for frequency of occurrence according to grammatical function is found in Table X. as for Table VIII.

The format for this table is the same The arrangement of the several gram­

matical categories in order of decreasing frequency is as follows:

Verbs, 6,207 or 19*9$; Nouns, 5,671 or 18.2$;

Pronouns, 4,191 or 13*5$; Prepositions, 2,794 or 9*0$; Adverbs, 2,644 or #.5$; Expletives, 2,653 or 8.5$; Adjectives,

TABLE VIII FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF STUTTERED WORDS ACCORDING TO GRAMMATICAL FUNCTION

Part of Speech Subject 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IB Total _

Noun

Pro.

Verb

Adv.

Ad.i.

73 555 124 41 128 197 107 139 553 50 303' 53 100 625 433 353 789 214

213 28 226 57 23 155 46 181 139 . 53 55 83 22 108 237 162 266 30

107 159 139 37 84 154 53 172 473 49 92 45 65 252 342 350 417 139

58 63 88 10 28 70 35 69 66 35 35 25 29 104 92 157 181 22

48 122 94 31 51 119 60 76 140 28 72 46 25 286 145 217 393 52

2.084

3.13.4

1.167

2.005

18.3

6.8

11.7

4*37 28.2

12.1

Prep.

Con.i.

Art.

Expl.

118 6 142 6 16 87 9 24 50 44 27 11 7 64 128 65 219 19

69 7 63 13 12 57 15 19 257 16 22 14 11 69 130 10 127 8

24 5 41 5 6 126 24 2 182 49 12 5 8 153 106 6 81 3

6 5 12 0 0 9 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 4 0 4 7 1

780 973 1,054 207 367 1,020 373 718 1,993 351 654 301 275 1,761 1,777 1,414 2,600 i.25

1,065

1,042

919

838

52

17,143

6.2

6.1

64 23 125 7 19 46 19 36 133 25 34 19 8 96 164 90 120 37.

5.4 .

Inter.i.

.4 \ 2 _ . . - 2 9

Total

TABLE IX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF STUTTERED WORDS ACCORDING TO GRAMMATICAL FUNCTION

Part of Speech

•

Sub.iect

Noun

Pro.

Verb

Adv.

__Adj. __

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

9.4 57.0 11.8 19.8 34.9 19.3 28.7 19.4 27.7 14.2 46.3 17.6 36.4 35.5 24-4 25.0 30.4 40.8

27.3 2.9 21.4 27.5 6.3 15.2 12.3 25.2 7.0 15.1 8*4 27.6 8.0 6.1 13.3 11.5 10.2 5.7

13.7 16.4 13.2 17.9 22.9 15.1 15.5 24.0 23.7 14.0 14.1 15.0 23.6 14.3 19.2 24.8 16.0 26.5

7.4 6.5 £.3 4*8 7.6 6.9 9.4 9.6 3.3 10.0 5.4 8.3 10.6 5.9 5.2 11.1 7.0 4.2

6.2 12.5 8.y 15.0 13.9 11.7 16.1 10.6 7.0 8.0 11.0 15.3 9.1 16.2 8.2 15.3 15.1

Prep.

Con.i.

Art.

Expl.

8.2 2.4 11.9 3.4 5.2 4.5 5.1 5.0 6.7 7.1 5.2 6.3 2.9 5.5 9.2 6.4 4*6 7.0

15.1 .6 13.5 2.9 4.3 S.5 2.4 3.3 2.5 12.5 4.1 3.6 2.6 3.6 7.2 4.6 8.4

8.8 .7 6.0 6.3 3.3 5.6 4.0 2.6 12.9 4*6 3.4 4.6 4.0 3.9 7.3 .7 4.9 1.5

3.1 .5 3.9 2.4 1.6 12.4 6.4 .3 9.1 14.0 1.8 1.7 2.9 8.7 6.0 •4 3.1 .6

Inter.i.

.8 .5 1.1 .0 .0 .9 .0 .0 .0 .6 .3 .0 .0 .2 .0 .3 .3 .2

VjJ

OO-

TABLE X FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF RANDOM SAMPLE WORDS ACCORDING TO GRAMMATICAL FUNCTION

Part of Speech Subject 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Total

Noun 575 270 315 463 364 411 321 251 104 391 229 410 524 166 298 253 207 195 5,671 18.2

Pro. 465 158 279 429 272 408 192 241 33 279 155 226 272 69 191 28$ 149 .154.. 4.191

Verb

Adv.

Adj.

674 266 388 613 411 499 307 340 93 393 230 349 569 127 279 342 218 217

267 84 148 343 172 252 130 134 12 154 79 173 222 56 95 146 123 127

245 60 151 265 221 177 1£6 83 24 152 71 188 198 80 98 130 139 110

6.207

2,644

2.470

19_.,9

8.5

7.9

Prep.

Conj.

Art.

Expl.

217 79 156 237 172 140 150 89 23 160 58 127 106 83 77 155 134 114

254 97 142 197 159 136 125 98 38 104 89 138 168 72 124 90 110 103

2.794

2.197

2.178

9.0

7.1

7.0

312. 182 185 274 192 174 206 119 33 146 77 179 203 78 108 158 112 107

Interj.

Total

117 158 229 268 91 96 288 51 183 194 81 130 171 231 105 103 127 69

8 3 5 1 3 30 1 35 0 14 8 5 1 9 8 10 9 10

3,135 1,357 1,998 3,095 2,057 2,323 1,856 1,441 543 1,987 1,077 1,925 2,434 971 1,383 1,672 1,382 1,206

2.652

152

.Arl....

31.156

.49 VjJ

v£>

TABLE XI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RANDOM SAMPLE WORDS ACCORDING TO GRAMMATICAL FUNCTION

Part of Speech Subject

Noun

Pro.

Verb

Adv.

Adj.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

IS.3 19.9 15.S 15.0 IS.4 17.6 17.3 1S.0 19.2 19 .,7 21.4 21.4 21.6 17.1 21.7 15.2 16.0 20.S

14.S 11.7 14.0 13.9 13.3 17.7 10.4 16.9 6.1 14.1 14.3 11.6 11.2 7.1 14.0 17.1 10.S 15.4

21.5 19.6 19.5 19.S 19.S 21.5 16.6 23.4 17.1 19.3 21.2 1S.0 23.4 13.1 20.2 20.5 15.9 19.0

3.5 6.2 7.4 11.3 S.2 11.0 7.0 9.4 2.2 7.3 7.3 9.0 9.2 5.3 6.3 3.7 3.1 3.4

7.3 4.5 7.5 3.6 11.0 7.5 7.4 5.6 4*4 7.7 6.3 9.9 S.2 3.3 7.0 7.7 10.7 .._2rL

s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS

Prep.

Conj.

Art.

Expl.

10.0 13.5 9.3 3.9 9.3 7.5 11.1 3.3 6.1 7.4 7.2 9.5 S.4 3.1 7.7 9.5 3.5

6.9 5.3 7.9 7.7 S.O 6.1 3.1 5.7 4.3 3.1 5.6 6.6 4*4 S.6 5.5 9.3 9.3 6.0

3.1 7.2 7.2 6.4 7.3 5.9 6.S 7.2 7.0 , 5.3 3.4 7.3 6.9 7.4 9.3 5.4 S.l 6.3

3.7 11.7 11.5 3.7 4.1 4.1 15.5 3.7 33.7 9.3 7.5 6.7 7.1 23.3 S.l 6.3 11.9 4-2

,

Interj. .3 .2 .3 .1 .2 1.4

.1 2.0 .0 .7 .7 .3 .1 .9 .5 .6 .6 •3

•£ -

o

41 2,470 or 7*9%; Conjunctions, 2,197 or 7*1$; Articles, 2,17# or 7»0$; and Interjections, 152 or .49$« Table XI lisus the percentage of occurrence of random sample words individually for the subjects.

The format re­

mains the same as for the preceeding tables. A non-parametric sign test described by Walker and Lev, (28, Chapter VIII), was adopted for analysis of the results.

The distribution of words into grammatical cate­

gories did not follow a normal distribution and thus could not satisfy the assumption for the conventional statistical tests. The sign test was adapted to the data in the follow­ ing manner. For each subject, the percentage of words contained in the random samples in each grammatical category was compared with the percentage of stuttering on words in each grammatical category.

If the percentage of stuttering

assigned to a particular category exceeded the expected amount, or percentage of random sample words assigned to that category, a plus sign was assigned to indicate this excess.

For example, in Table XII, a plus sign for subject

two on nouns indicates that of all the words he spoke, 19*9$ were nouns; but of all his stuttering, 57.0$ was on nouns. A minus sign was used to indicate the converse of this rela­ tionship.

The signs were totaled for each grammatical

category and a table of binomial probabilities was consulted

TABLE XII DISTRIBUTION, SUM, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF SIGNS FOR OBTAINED VS. EXPECTED STUTTERING ACCORDING TO GRAMMATICAL CATEGORIES* Sub.iect

Noun

-Pro.

Adv.

Verb

Part of Speech Prep. ... Adj.

Conj.

Art.

Expl.

Interj.

mm 1 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 ♦ 4 4 4 4 ♦ 5 6 4 4 4 ♦ 4 4 4 7 * 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 9 10 4 4 4 4 4 11 4 4 4 12 4 4 4 4 ■!• 13 4 4 4 4 14 4 4 4 4 15 16 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 17 18 4 4 2 8 2 8 Total Plusl4 9 17 3 5 3 Total 1 16 16 10 10 Minus 15 14 9 .13 4 Level of .002 .012 1.0 .00 .008 .096 .002 .81 .81 Signi. c* .03 % Level of Signi. _% 1% N.S. N.S. 10g N.S. 1% 1* 1*............. *The above title was shortened for communicative convenience. In this and all subsequent tables with similar titling, "obtained stuttering” will mean percentage of all -pstuttered words falling in a particular grammatical category, and "expected stuttering" w will mean percentage of all spoken words falling in a particular grammatical category. * ■- —

—

—

1| _ | H‘

,

m ~ — -■

- —

■

-------------------------------- *— w m — —i —

■ ■

- * -------------------

‘ -------------------—- —

——

43 for a direct reading of the level of significance.

The

probability figure was doubled to provide for a two-tailed test of significance. Table XII lists the distribution and sum of signs for the eighteen subject relevant to the several grammatical categories, level of significance ©< , and level of signifi­ cance stated in the customary percentage term.

The format

of this table is the same as that of Table VIII, described above.

The sum of signs, level of significance ©4 •4

Table XXXI lists the distribution and sum of signs, level of significance

, and per cent level of significance

expressed in the usual term, for phonemes;

The format

remains the same as for Table XXVIII with the addition of sum of signs, level of significance ©( , and per cent level of significance which appear horizontally at the bottom. ”N.S.” here means that the result was "non-significant” . Observation of the table reveals that significant group trends exist for more than the expected stuttering on some sounds and for less than the expected amount on others, but these trends are more frequent among vowels than among consonants.

On all of the consonants where significant

group trends are observed, the trend is in the direction of more than the expected amount of stuttering with the exception of the voiced "th” sound. less than the expected difficulty.

This sound presented On all the vowels where

significant group trends are observed, the tendency is for less than the expected stuttering.

The group tendency to

experience more than the expected stuttering on (p) and (m) shows a significance level of 5% for each of these sounds. The tendency to experience more than the expected difficulty on (s) and (r) is significant at the 1% level in both instanc The (f) and (1) sounds are stuttered more than the expected amount with group tendencies for these sounds approaching significance at the 10% level.

The group tendency to exper-

TABLE XXXI DISTRIBUTION, SUM, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF SIGNS FOR OBTAINED VS. EXPECTED STUTTERING ACCORDING TO PHONEME CATEGORIES

s

S

I

1 2 3 4

mm

* 4 4

4 4 -

4 -

-

-

-

4

4 4

4 4

-

4

-

-

4 4

-

-

-

4

4

4

-

-

— -

-

4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4

4 4

-

-

4 4 4

4

5

4

10

9

11

13

8

14

13

14

$

9

7

5

10

.03 .096 .03

.81

1.0

.48

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

4 -

* * 4 4 * ♦ 4 ♦ -

* * 4

+ 4

Sum of Plus Signs 15 Sum of Minus Signs 3 Level of sign. o< .008 % Level of Sign. 1%

-

— -

yh

10#

3

W

t —m

-

4 4

4

4

-

-

-

4 -

4 4 4

4

-

4 4 4

ft

4

h

13

_

4

-

N.S. N.S. N.S.

4 4 4 4

4

4

b

i

r

4

m

w 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4

-

-

4 4 4 4 4

-

4

1

4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4

14

2

14

7

13

10

4

16

4

11

5

8

.03 .002

.03

.48 .096

.81

.008

N.S.

1#

4 4 4 -

4 -

10# N.S.

4 4

m

-

-

.096 .81

A

%

1#

4 4 4 4

4

-

4

4 4

-

-

4

5% N.S.

I*

Subject

V-;

Phoneme k f

-

15 .

3

.

, 09-

TABLE XXXI - Continued

Sub.ieet

£

e

ax

,i

1 2

♦

4

-

3

-

* 4

4

4 5 6

-

7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Sum of Plus Signs Sum of Minus Signs Level of Sign.* jo Level oa . .Si£ n -_

......

*

♦

4 ♦

_

* ♦ *

-

-

4 -

-

4 » 4 -

♦ -

hw

n

*

4

♦ * -

-

4 4

-

4

4 4

-

-

4

-

-

-

9

5

9

9

N.S.

-

-

4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4

*

13 8 9 1.0 .096 1.0

4

4

♦

-

4 4 ▼ 4

_

* 4 4 4

Phoneme aa

12

9 5 1.0 .14

4 4

4

T

—

/

o

€

V

a