1. Paul Brocklehurst

2. Background theory & research Covert Repair Hypothesis Vicious Circle Hypothesis Our own stuff Speakers’ perceptions of disfluency in the speech of others Perfectionism & disfluency

3. monitoring our own speech while speaking – We all do it

4. monitoring our own speech while speaking – We all do it – but to varying extents

5. monitoring our own speech while speaking Appropriacy of message – Do I really want to say this? Linguistic quality – Syntax – Words – Phonology – Timing/speech-rate Acoustic quality – Loudness – Pitch – Clarity See Levelt (1989) for an in depth discussion

6. Overt speech – Auditory feedback Just like monitoring other people’s speech Relatively slow – Proprioceptive & stretch receptor feedback Dependent on prior knowledge of what speech feels like Relatively slow Inner speech – Monitoring the inner-voice (~ = monitoring thoughts) Fast

7. “errors” do not normally disrupt the flow of speech; however, error repairs do.

8. Speakers stand to gain an advantage if they are able to detect and repair errors as quickly as possible. Speakers stand to gain an advantage if they detect and repair errors covertly in inner speech – before articulation begins

9. Speakers stand to gain an advantage if they are able to detect and repair errors as quickly as possible. Speakers stand to gain an advantage if they edit their speech covertly in inner speech – before articulation begins But for this they might have to slow down

10. From a listeners perspective, many covert repairs sound like stuttering-like disfluencies. – E.g. he asked Roger… Robert for dinnerslow detection he asked Ro … Robert for dinner faster detection he asked R … Robert for dinner even faster detection

11. PWS are disfluent because their phonological encoding abilities are impaired – they make (and covertly repair) many phonological encoding errors – Their covert repairs also contain errors… sparking off more repairs

12. Stuttering phenomenology – no problem with phonology in inner-speech Picture copied from: http://www.mnsu.edu/comdis/isad7/papers/badmington7/badmington17.htmlhttp://www.mnsu.edu/comdis/isad7/papers/badmington7/badmington17.html

13. Abandons the assumption that phonological encoding is impaired in PWS. Keeps the core assumption of the Covert Repair Hypothesis, – that disfluencies are covert self-corrections. Self corrections of WHAT?

14. PWS try to repair/correct their disfluencies “Our proposal is, paradoxically, that individuals who stutter do so because they are trying to avoid it”.

15. PWS have become hypersensitive to their normal disfluencies they apply overly strict acceptability criteria. They consider disfluencies to be “errors”

16. PWS have become hypersensitive to their normal disfluencies they apply overly strict acceptability criteria. They consider disfluencies to be “errors”

17. PWS have become hypersensitive to their normal disfluencies they apply overly strict acceptability criteria. They consider disfluencies to be “errors” 2 pieces of research that relate to the VCH…

18. Lickley et al.(2005)

19. Listeners were asked to rate recordings of fluent and normally disfluent speech spoken by PWS and PNS Type of speech recording Recordings of PWS were rated more negatively irrespective of whether or not those recordings contained disfluencies. Findings suggest even fluent speech of PWS is not normal Relative fluency rating

20. Listeners were asked to rate recordings of fluent and disfluent speech spoken by PWS and PNS Type of speech recording Recordings of PWS were rated more negatively irrespective of whether or not those recordings contained disfluencies. Findings suggest even fluent speech of PWS is not normal Relative fluency rating

21. Listeners were asked to rate recordings of fluent and disfluent speech spoken by PWS and PNS Type of speech recording Recordings of PWS were rated more negatively irrespective of whether or not those recordings contained disfluencies. Findings suggest even fluent speech of PWS is not normal Relative fluency rating

22. Listeners who stutter were also asked to rate the same recordings Type of speech recording All ratings made by listeners who stutter were more negative. Suggests PWS are more sensitive to disfluencies… and/or more likely to interpret speech as disfluent. Relative fluency rating

23. Listeners who stutter were also asked to rate the same recordings Type of speech recording All ratings made by listeners who stutter were more negative. Suggests PWS are more sensitive to disfluencies… and/or more likely to interpret speech as disfluent. Relative fluency rating

24. Listeners who stutter were also asked to rate the same recordings Type of speech recording All ratings made by listeners who stutter were more negative. Suggests PWS are more sensitive to disfluencies… and/or more likely to interpret speech as disfluent. Relative fluency rating

25. Conclusion “the self-monitor becomes hyper-vigilant because the speaker is aware that his/her speech is habitually deviant, even when it is not, strictly speaking, disfluent”.

26. Brocklehurst & Corley (submitted)

27. Perhaps a perfectionistic personality may lead to hyper- vigilant monitoring, and a tendency to evaluate minor disfluencies as “errors”

28. “demanding of oneself or others a higher quality of performance than is required by the situation” (Hollender, 1965, p94)

29. Burns perfectionism scale completed by respondents twice – current and retrospective (“how you would have answered it as a young child”) “People Who Stutter tend to be significantly more perfectionistic than people who do not stutter” 47 PWS (mean age 41.65) 22 controls (mean age 43.76) ANOVA, main effect: stutterers vs. controls, F= 10.91 p =.0012

30. An online survey – Replicate and extend Amster’s (1995) findings using the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS: Frost et al., 1990)

31. Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS) (Frost et al.,1990) – 35 statements– 6 factors 1.Concern over mistakes e.g. “I should be upset if I make a mistake” 2.Personal standards e.g. “I set higher goals than most people” 3.Parental expectations e.g. “My parents set very high standards for me” 4.Parental criticism e.g. “as a child I was punished for doing things less than perfectly” 5.Doubts about actions e.g. “even when I do something carefully, I often feel that it is not quite right” 6.Organization e.g. “Organization is very important to me” Respondents give Likert style ratings… 1= totally agree, 5=totally disagree On all subscales, higher scores equated with perfectionistic personality

32. 81 people who stutter 82 non-stuttering controls – all respondents completed the FMPS – respondents who stutter also gave ratings of “difficulty speaking fluently” - in 10 different common speaking situations. PWS disfluency scores were based on the OASES self-rating scale. Yaruss & Quesal, 2006)

33. Questions… Do respondents’ FMPS self-ratings predict whether or not they belong to the group of respondents who stutter? Do stuttering respondents’ FMPS self-ratings predict how much difficulty they experience speaking fluently? Multiple regression analyses

34. PWS n = 59 Controls n = 57 Findings Stuttering group membership predicted by Raised “Concern over Mistakes” Lower “Personal Standards”

35. PWS n = 81 Findings PWS: Difficulty speaking fluently predicted by Raised “Concern over Mistakes” Lower “Personal Standards”

36. Conclusions (1) Stuttering, and (2) severity of disfluency (in respondents who stutter) are both related to… High levels of Concern over Mistakes Low Personal Standards This is not a “perfectionistic” profile – These findings do not suggest that respondents who stutter are more perfectionistic than controls. This FMPS profile may reflect attempts of respondents’ who stutter to adapt to an underlying speech/language impairment Lowering personal speaking standards may be of benefit to PWS, although the underlying impairment still remains.

37. To classify something as an “error” frequently involves Drawing a line where, objectively speaking, no line exists Disfluencies may result from speakers’ attempts to repair their errors Disfluencies are not always “bad” They can help listeners maintain appropriate attention They can highlight key parts of an utterance They can assist listener comprehension by forcing the speaker to slow down Trying to avoid disfluencies can cause disfluency rates to increase

38. To classify something as an “error” frequently involves Drawing a line where, objectively speaking, no line exists Disfluencies may result from speakers’ attempts to repair their errors Disfluencies are not always “bad” They can help listeners maintain appropriate attention They can highlight key parts of an utterance They can assist listener comprehension by forcing the speaker to slow down Trying to avoid disfluencies can cause disfluency rates to increase

39. To classify something as an “error” frequently involves Drawing a line where, objectively speaking, no line exists Disfluencies may result from speakers’ attempts to repair their errors Disfluencies are not always “bad” They can help listeners maintain appropriate attention They can highlight key parts of an utterance They can help listeners to remember what has been said Trying to avoid disfluencies can cause disfluency rates to increase

40. To classify something as an “error” frequently involves Drawing a line where, objectively speaking, no line exists Disfluencies may result from speakers’ attempts to repair their errors Disfluencies are not always “bad” They can help listeners maintain appropriate attention They can highlight key parts of an utterance They can assist listener comprehension by forcing the speaker to slow down Trying to avoid disfluencies can cause disfluency rates to increase

41. Any questions???

42. Amster, B. J. (1995). Perfectionism and stuttering. In C. Starkweather, & H. (. Peters, Stuttering: proceedings of first world congress on fluency disorders (pp. 540-543). Nijmegen, Netherlands: Nijmegen University Press. Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Researach, 14, 449-468. Hockett, C. F. (1973). Where the tongue slips, there slip I. In V. A. Fromkin (Ed.), Speech errors as linguistic evidence (pp. 93-119). The Hague: Mouton. Levelt, W. J. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge MA: Cambridge MIT Press. Lickley, R., Hartsuiker, R. J., Corley, M., Russell, M., & Nelson, R. (2005). Judgment of disfluency in people who stutter and people who do not stutter: Results from magnitude estimation. Language and Speech, 48, 299–312. Postma, A., & Kolk, H. (1993). The covert repair hypothesis: Prearticulatory repair processes in normal and stuttered disfluencies. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 472-487. Vasić, N., & Wijnen, F. (2005). Stuttering as a monitoring deficit. In R. J. Hartsuiker, Y. Bastiaanse, A. Postma, & F. Wijnen (Eds.), Phonological encoding and monitoring in normal and pathological speech (pp. 226-247). Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Yaruss, J. S., & Quesal, R. W. (2006). Overall Assessment of the Speaker’s Experience of Stuttering (OASES): Documenting multiple outcomes in stuttering treatment. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 31, 90-115.