Major Problems With a Revisit The article by Dayalu, Kalinowski, Stuart, Holbert, and Rastatter (2002)  in the October 2002 issue of the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research contains several notable faults that must be addressed. These faults might be attributable to a generally superficial awareness of pertinent literature; at the same time, however, ... Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor  |   December 01, 2003
Major Problems With a Revisit
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Marcel E. Wingate
    Washington State University, Pullman
  • Contact author: Marcel E. Wingate, PhD, 212 Daggy, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-2420. E-mail: wingate@mail.wsu.edu
Article Information
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Fluency Disorders / Speech, Voice & Prosody / Speech / Letters to the Editor
Letter to the Editor   |   December 01, 2003
Major Problems With a Revisit
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, December 2003, Vol. 46, 1468-1470. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2003/114)
History: Received November 6, 2002 , Accepted March 13, 2003
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, December 2003, Vol. 46, 1468-1470. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2003/114)
History: Received November 6, 2002; Accepted March 13, 2003
Web of Science® Times Cited: 3
The article by Dayalu, Kalinowski, Stuart, Holbert, and Rastatter (2002)  in the October 2002 issue of the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research contains several notable faults that must be addressed. These faults might be attributable to a generally superficial awareness of pertinent literature; at the same time, however, an undercurrent of preconception is discernible within them. It is fitting to mention, in passing, that neither the content/function reference, nor its relationship with stuttering, is properly considered as “concept”; both are observations based in fully descriptive classification.
The most egregious fault in this article lies in the claim that the results obtained by Brown (1937)  yielded “no statistically significant differences between content and function words” (Dayalu et al., 2002, p. 877). This claim is misleading on several levels. First, Brown (1937)  did not report his findings in reference to “content versus function” words. Those designations were introduced much later, when research into the “language factors” was revived some 20 years after the early work by Brown (1937, 1938a, 1938b, 1938c, 1943, 1945) and Brown and Moren (1942)  and corroboration by Hahn (1942a, 1942b). Brown’s several studies were the font of all later research addressed to what he identified as “the language factors” in stuttering. His sequence of studies originated in an effort to identify those sounds that are difficult for stutterers (Johnson & Brown, 1935), an effort prompted by the widespread belief that some sounds (especially among consonants) are more difficult than others. That research effort was generally disappointing, although it (a) did corroborate the common observation that consonants are associated with more stuttering (are “more difficult”) than vowels and (b) found that a few consonants (thereafter identified as “the easy consonants”) were associated with hardly more stuttering than were vowels.
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