So Near and Yet So Far A Response to Siegel Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor  |   October 01, 1991
So Near and Yet So Far
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • William H. Perkins
    University of Southern California
Article Information
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Fluency Disorders / Speech / Letters to the Editor
Letter to the Editor   |   October 01, 1991
So Near and Yet So Far
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, October 1991, Vol. 34, 1083-1086. doi:10.1044/jshr.3405.1083
History: Received October 25, 1990 , Accepted February 11, 1991
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, October 1991, Vol. 34, 1083-1086. doi:10.1044/jshr.3405.1083
History: Received October 25, 1990; Accepted February 11, 1991
The precision with which Siegel stated my case almost had me prepared to offer him a coauthorship—until he jumped the tracks with his objections. He apparently thinks that what I have formulated is a causal statement. If he had thought of it, as I do, as a description of stuttering only from the perspective of the person who stutters, then most of his five objections would probably be largely resolved. I will respond to them as briefly as I can.
I completely agree with his objective, “to define stuttering in a way that is descriptive….” By viewing my description as a statement of the cause of stuttering, he lumps it along with West’s “convulsive phenomenon” and Glauber’s “pregenital conversion neurosis,” both of which are causal statements. When he speaks of “the loss of control in stuttering,” the word “in” denotes his misunderstanding of my position. The implication of “in” is that loss of control is a cause of stuttering.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access