1
Relationship of stammering and the language competence (English and Urdu)
Sadaf Sajjad
COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad,Pakistan.
ABSTRACT
The research was conducted to find out the relationship between Language
Competency and Stammering. A pilot study was conducted in which Urdu
version of Test of Language Competence (TLC) was administered to speech
disabled and normal group. In the second phase, both groups (N = 34, age range
18-28 years, males, education: O levels to Graduate Level) were given both
English and Urdu version of TLC. Results showed that stammering people
performed significantly poorly on TLC as compared to normal group. On the
basis of this study it is seen that language competency is less in speech disabled
group.
INTRODUCTION
LANGUAGE DEFICITS AND STAMMERING
Some researches show the presence of language deficits in stammering people. Gertner,
Bathany, Rice, Mable and Hadley (1994) demonstrated that limited language ability was
associated with speech impairments. In their study total number of 31 subjects with
stammering problem were compared with the normal individuals on a world category
sentencing test. The scores of impaired subjects were lower as compared to the normal
subjects on the language test.
Kurematsn, Akira and Idia (1992) explained that language is related directly to
communication and it is also responsible for creating and sustaining social interaction
and meaning.
Much psycholinguistic research has examined the relation between linguistic variables
and speech hesitations, including silent pauses, filled pauses such as “ahs”, and various
other speech non-fluencies.
Thannenbaum, Williams, and Hillier (1990) found that words after hesitation tended to
be less predictable than words in fluent speech. In common-sense term, such hesitations
reflect points at which subjects paused to think about what to say next. Maclay-land
Osgood (1989) observed that hesitation coincided with points of uncertainty and that
these were related to both phrase boundaries and lexical choices within boundaries.
Boomer (1985) found that the number of hesitations was much higher in the position
2
following the first word of a phrase unit, than in other locations, when the phrases unit
was defined in terms of stress patterns in speech.
Martin (1987) found that the relation of hesitation to semantic and syntactic variables
depended on the speech task. All these studies suggest that hesitation in speech are
related to syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic factors, but the prediction of such
phenomena is as yet quite uncertain, perhaps because their occurrence is related to
emotional and motivational factors as well as to linguistic and cognitive ones (Brenner,
Felstein, Jaff 1985; Lay & Paivio, 1989; Mahl a& Schulze, 1984; Reynolds & Paivio,
1988).
PURPOSE AND RATIONALE OF THE STUDY
The present research was conducted to study the relationship between language
competence and stammering disorder.
HYPOTHESIS
Less language competence will be found in stammerers as compared to the group
having no speech problem.
METHOD AND PROCEDURE
SAMPLE
Sample consisted of 2 groups, consisting of 34 males. 17 were diagnosed as stammerers
according to DSM IV and were under therapeutic treatment at the CIIT Psychological
Services Clinic .The other group consisted of 17 normal without any speech problem.
The age range was 18-28. The education background was from O levels to graduate
levels.
INSTRUMENT
The test of language competence expanded edition (Wiig and Secord, 1988) was used to
measure language capacities of the subjects. Both versions of TLC were used(English
and Urdu). The test is comprised of 4 subtests which are as follows:
Subtest No.1: Ambiguous Sentences
This is comprised of 13 sentences which evaluate the subject’s ability to identify and
correctly assign meaning to a sentence.
3
Subtest No. 2: Listening Comprehension
This is comprised of 12 subtests which assess comprehension and the ability to draw
inference.
Subtest No. 3: Oral Expression
This subtest is comprised of 13 sentences, which assesses the subject’s ability to express
oral information in sentences.
Subtest No. 4: Figurative Language
This is comprised of 12 subtests which evaluate the subject’s capacity to comprehend
the metaphorical or interpretive language.
PROCEDURE
The test of language competence – expanded edition was translated into Urdu and a
pilot study was done on 6 subjects. 3 were from the sample of stammer, while the other
3 were normal with no speech problem.
With the willingness of the respondents the test (both English and Urdu translated) was
given to them.
Respondents were also asked to give their age, gender education, profession, and
socio-economic status. The behavioral observations of the respondents were also noted.
SCORING
The scoring was done by using the scoring guidelines in the Administration Manual of
Language Competence test.
RESULTS
The scores of stammering group on language competence are low as compared to the
normal people. The means of scores on each subtest was calculated separately. The
results of respective ratings and statistical analysis are tabulated in the forthcoming
tables. Inference drawn from the tabulated ratings is presented in the coming discussion.
4
Table No. 1
INDIVIDUAL COMPOSITE SCORE DATA
STAMMERER GROUP
English
Urdu
Sub1
66
69
Sub2
60
63
Sub3
84
85
Sub4
82
84
Sub5
83
85
Sub6
77
77
Sub7
81
85
Sub8
75
85
Sub9
127
101
Sub10
91
97
Sub11
111
114
Sub12
86
87
Sub13
76
82
Sub14
105
96
Sub15
94
108
Sub16
83
109
Sub17
74
100
Total
1455
1527
Table No. 2
INDIVIDUAL COMPOSITE SCORE DATA
NORMAL GROUP
English
Urdu
Sub1
118
120
Sub2
130
133
Sub3
125
129
Sub4
122
126
Sub5
119
122
Sub6
137
138
Sub7
150
155
Sub8
115
131
5
Sub9
131
143
Sub10
113
129
Sub11
147
132
Sub12
152
141
Sub13
140
149
Sub14
126
142
Sub15
139
139
Sub16
143
126
Sub17
115
126
Total
2222
2281
Table No. 3
AVERAGE OF NORMAL/STAMMERER
ON ENGLISH & URDU
ENGLISH URDU AVERAGE
NORMAL
2222
2281
2251.5
STAMMERER 1455
1527
1491.0
DISCUSSION
The results of the research study shows that the stammering group performed
poorly on the language competence test as compared to the normal group. Specifically
they performed significantly poorly on the oral expression subtest. They also took more
time to complete the test. The results are consistent with the findings previously
reported by many researchers.
The oral expression in language is mainly associated with powerful effects on such
tasks as memory and production (Hayes – Roth and Hayes – Roth, 1987; Kin, 1983).
The finding of the research suggests that stammering disordered are less intact
semantically and syntactically and unable to make an accurate meaningful and complete
sentence as compared to the person having no any speech problem. Studies suggest that
speech hesitation is related to syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic factors. (Brenner, Feld
Stein, & Jaffe, 1985; Lay & Paivio, 1989; Mahl & Schulze, 1984; Rehnords & Paivioi,
1988; Siegman & Pope, 1985).
6
The above evidences appear to support the research that disability in speech may have
some causal relationship to language competence.
If stammering problem to represent some measure of less language competence, then
efforts to improve task performance should result in improvement in speech and vice
versa. Wilhelm (1981) taught subjects to match forms in an intersensory task which
resulted in improved speech performance. Ruscello (1982) administered two oral form
identification tasks both before and after a period of speech therapy. Then subjects
evidenced a small but statistically significant improvement on the oral form
discrimination test. Oral expression task does involve some parameter of oral sensations
it is likely that it also incorporates such additional skills as retention, cognitive
processing and verbal mediation abilities (Kestinger 1983).
The decreased score achieved by the Stammering group may represent a loss of
efficiency in perceptual skills, or possibly an artifact of their environment which is
creating anxiety in them thus effecting perceptual performance. The person with speech
disability is hypersensitive to social attitude and their state of anxiety may be an integral
elements in the fear of verbal difficulty (Fletcher 1943) thus effecting their perception
and hence ability to express oral information in sentences accurately.
In the Stammering group it is found that they avoid the situations wherever they have to
speak, thus there is a lack of exposure in meeting people and with the overall
environments as well. This lack of exposure cause limited perception and
comprehension which also can affect their language competence. According to Bloom,
Rocissana & Hood (1986), the linguistic process is improved by the increasing
participation in speaking.
As the stammering people frequently make errors in their speech, from that they learn to
make errors on certain nouns, verbs etc thus indicates low language competence.
The speech problem in a person is also responsible for his low self esteem and other
emotional problems and thus there may be a low motivation towards any goal directed
behavior which could also result in low language competence.
If someone is fully aware of the characteristics of language than it would be easier to
chose right speech signals. Garrett (1985, 1986) proposed that speakers first decide on a
syntactic outline (basically slots to put words in), then select affixes and functions
words, and finally produce speech. This outline is consistent with errors produced in
speech thus indicating that low scores on language competence may be associated with
speech deficits or vice versa. As speech is produced it is organized so this indicates that
meaning would be decided on before syntax, which in turn would be settled before for
the sentence to uttered (Mc Neill, 1989).
7
The motor theory of speech perception also proposes that we discriminate speech
sounds, or categorize them, based on feedback from speech articulation to speech
perception, thus we tend to categorize speech we produce and we can say that the
accuracy of speech perception depends on the hearer’s ability to “imitate the speech
sub-vocally, or to repeat the sounds internally. ( liberman 1967). So, we can say that
incorrect perception produces incorrect speech.
The research to date has indicated that fluency and selection are related to syntactic and
semantic variables but that they are also effected strongly by pragmatic factors
implicating complex relations between the speaker and the verbal and non verbal
context in which speaking takes place. In brief, what is said and how fluently it is said
depends on the speaker’s grammatical associative and cognitive abilities as well as on
the demands and restrictions imposed by the communicational situations. The
assumption has been that individual learn to understand everything they learn to say and
comprehension leads to speech production, Marler (1995).
It is understood that the integration of content/form/use makes up language competence.
Such competence can be taken of as a plan for the behaviors involved in speaking and
understanding messages. Finally we could point out that there is a mutual influence
between the plan and the behaviors. Thus the plan directs the individual’s behaviors.
One learns language as they use language, both to produce and understand messages.
REFERENCES
1. Adams, M.R.(1969). “Psychological Differences Between Stutterers &
Non-Stutterers.” A Journal of Communication Disorders, Vol.2:163-170.
2. Bloom and Lahey (1986) “Language Development and Language Disorders”. John
Wiley and Sons: New York.
3. Crystal. D and Cooper. J (1991), “Language and Disadvantage” (2nd Ed), Athenaeum
Press Ltd, New Castle upon Tyne. U.K.
4. Code. C and Ball’ M (1984), “Instrumentation in speech – Language Pathology”.
College Hill Press, Inc., Great Britain.
5. Daniell, O’ Connell & Rommetveit. R, ( 1990), “Critical Essays on Language use and
Psychology” . Springer – Verlag Berlin Heid Elberg: New York.
6. Elisabeth Wiig. H and George H, Shames (1982). Human Communication Disorders,
Boston University. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.
7. Gertner, Bethany L; Rice, Mabel. L & Hadley Panda (1994). Communicative
competence and speech improvement. American Psychological Journal (30835) Volume
82.
8
8. Haber. R (1990), “Fundamentals of Behavioral Statistics” , U.S.A.
9. Kersner (1994), “Tests of voice, Speech and language”. U.K.Athenaeun Press Ltd,
New castle upon Tyne.
10. Kurematsin, Akira, Idia (1992), Language and Communication, British Journal of
Speech and Communication.
11. Marler, Studdert-Kennedy, (1995), Speech perception and Language acquisition.
Journal of Psychology. Volume 2.APA.
12. N.Najam, S.Sajjad, (2008), “Language Competence and Speech difficulties”,
Proceedings of the 2nd Convention of Asian Psychological Association, (2008),
Malaysia.
13. NICHY 2004, Speech and Language Impairments, publication of the National
Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities.
14. Paivio. A and Begg. I (1990),“Psychology of Language”. Prentice – Hall,
Englewood cliff, New Jersey. American.
15. Pollio, Howard R., Smith, Michael. K (1990), “Figurative language and cognitive
Psychology – language and Cognitive Process (Vol 5) Pg. 141-167.U.S.A”
16. Wiig, E.H. and Secord W. (1988) Test of Language Competence-Epanded
Edition. The Psychological Corporation. Harcourt brace and javanovich.