Communication restriction in adults who stutter

Abstract

This study explored communication restriction in adults with stuttering (AWS) by means of typical language measures obtained using the Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts – New Zealand (SALT-NZ) software, as well as systemic functional linguistics (SFL) analyses. The areas of language productivity and complexity, modality (i.e. linguistic politeness) and the language of appraisal were compared between AWS and typically fluent speakers (adults with no stuttering (AWNS)). Ten-minute conversational samples were obtained from 20 AWS and 20 age- and sex-matched AWNS. Transcripts were analysed for quantity and complexity of verbal output, and frequency of use of modality and appraisal resource subtypes. Means comparison and correlation analyses were conducted using grouped data. AWS produced less language and less complex language than AWNS, measured by SALT-NZ and SFL indices. AWS also differed from AWNS in their use of modality resources to express politeness – they produced fewer modal operators and more comment adjuncts than AWNS. A smaller proportion of their language expressed the explicit appreciation of things. The linguistic patterns identified in the conversational language of AWS suggested a reduced openness to interpersonal engagement within communication exchanges, which may restrict opportunities for and the experience of such exchanges. The value of SFL to this area of research is discussed.

• Adults
• communication restriction
• stuttering
• systemic functional linguistics

Declaration of interest

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Notes

¹In this paper, the term “language use” refers to the ways in which a speaker intentionally employs the linguistic resources available to him or her for communication purposes (e.g. specific word choices, forms of expression that govern politeness and social appropriateness).

²The examples provided present simple declarative statements – thematic structure does, however, apply to a variety of different sentence types (e.g. sentences containing coordination or subordination, and interrogative sentences).

³It was thought important to rule out underlying receptive language difficulty at the outset of the study, as a precursor to the expressive language analyses that formed the primary focus of the study. The PPVT provided a simple, easily administered means of achieving this by assessing receptive vocabulary.

⁴The same pattern has been encountered by other researchers examining stuttering and language (e.g. Hennessey, Nang, & Beilby, 2008; Prins et al., 1997). Prins et al. (1997) reported significantly lower PPVT scores for a group of 12 AWS compared to 12 AWNS controls, despite their attempts to match participants on PPVT performance. Based on such findings, it is generally accepted that AWS may demonstrate slightly reduced language ability compared to AWNS.

⁵“A communication unit is an utterance which cannot be further divided without the disappearance of its essential meaning, or a subordinate clause which is part of the independent predication. Main clauses can stand by themselves and can be segmented into one C-unit. Subordinate clauses DEPEND on the main clause to make sense. They cannot stand alone or be separated from the main clause. So a C-unit will either consist of a main clause or a main clause with its subordinating clause(s)” (Gillon et al., 2008, p. 12).

⁶SI is calculated as the average number of clauses per C-unit.