A comparison of syntax in young stutterers and nonstutterers

/OURNAL

OF FLUENCY

DISORDERS

5 (1980),

345

345-352

A Comparison of Syntax in Young Stutterers and Nonstutterers Meryl J. Wall Department

of Speech Arts and Speech

Pathology/Audiology,

Adelphi

University,

Garden

City, NY

This study compares the syntactic structure group of stutterers

and nonstutterers,

of the spontaneous

using

a method

speech of a small

of constituent

analysis.

Speech samples were taped during play sessions with the subjects, and the tapes were then transcribed The stutterers

and analyzed according to preselected constituent

stutterers by experienced reliable.

criteria.

were in the early stages of stuttering and had been diagnosed clinicians.

as

The method of analysis proved to be highly

were found in the number of complete clauses, the number

Differences

of complex sentences, and in clause types between the two groups.

INTRODUCTION

The

purpose of this study

was to compare the syntactic

structure

spontaneous speech samples of a small group of young stutterers matched group of nonstutterers,

of

with a

by analyzing the constituent structure of

their sentences. There have been reports in the literature which state that stutterers frequently

develop speech and language skills

at a slower rate

than do nonstutterers.

Such reports have been summarized

(1971) and Bloodstein

(1975). In addition to data on differences in speech

and language acquisition

of stutterers and nonstutterers,

have found differences in language use in dysfluent diagnosed as stutterers) 1975).

Muma

“double-based”

(1971)

versus fluent found

some researchers children (those not

speakers (Muma,

that dysfluent

by Van Riper

1971;

preschoolers

Westby,

used fewer

sentences (complex sentences) than fluent preschoolers.

Westby’s (1975) kindergarten- and first-grade-aged subjects who stuttered or were highly dysfluent, the number

differed significantly

of grammatical

errors

from their fluent controls in

made, had poor Peabody Picture

Address correspondence to: Meryl J. Wall, Department of Speech Arts and Speech Pathology/Audiology, Adelphi University, Garden City, NY 11530.

@Elsevier North Holland, Inc., 1980 52 Vanderbilt Ave:, New York, NY 10017

0094-730X/80/04345-08$01.75

Meryl

346

1. Wall

Vocabulary Test Scores, and were more variable in all measures than the fluent group. As finer

comparative

measures

examine syntax systematically

groups. The bases of a constituent this

study,

have been well

Rodman, 1974; constituent

structure

documented

Akmajian and Heny,

a) the reliability

are developed,

in linguistically

of a constituent

structure analysis,

it is possible

to

deviant and nondeviant

analysis, (Bach,

which was used in 1974;

Fromkin

and

1975). The present study examined

structure

analysis

and b) using

compared the syntactic structure

taneous utterances of stutterers and nonstutterers

the

of spon-

considered to be in the

early stages of stuttering. METHOD Subjects The subjects were four young male stutterers

ranging in age from 5

yr, 5 mo to 6 yr, 6 mo, matched for age, sex, parental occupation, and birth

order with

four

nonstutterers.

group, an experienced clinician

With

regard to the experimental

had diagnosed each subject as a stutterer

and each was reported to have been stuttering months.

Children

articulation

referred

disorder

for remediation

in conjunction

reason for the referral.

Each child

normal

limits,

were excluded from

problem was the primary

expressed

himself

with

a flow

of

to the examiner. The subjects in the control

group were considered by their families within

of six

of language delay and/or

with stuttering

the study when the language and/or articulation language and was intelligible

for a minimum

and in

to have language and speech

an informal

evaluation,

the examiner

concurred. Procedure The spontaneous session.

speech of each subject was recorded in a play

Each session lasted approximately

45 min, and the children were

encouraged to express themselves freely. The tapes were transcribed

into standard English

word count was made of each corpus of the experimental

orthography.

A

subjects, and a

Syntax of Stutterers

corpus of equivalent controls.

347

and Nonstutterers

size

was used from the corpora of the matched

The corpora were analyzed for the frequency of occurrence of

complex

sentences,

clauses,

coordinate

simple

“and” clauses,

clauses,

“and”

complement clauses (that, for-to,

main clauses,

coordinates,

main “and”

relative

clauses,

and

-ing). It should be noted that the “and”

clauses were included as separate categories because of the excessive number of “ands” that appeared to be present in the stutterers’ corpora. Details of the constituent

analysis appear in the Appendix.

A count was made of the categories which were marked on the transcripts

of both experimental

and control subjects.

A doctoral student who was familiar

with constituent

who had access to detailed information carried out a reliability

check on the constituent

analysis.

rank-order

correlation

correlation

between the analyses of the two judges.

Characteristics

coefficient

analysis,

and

on the nature of this analysis, A Spearman

procedure was used to measure the

of early stuttering

as reported by Van Riper (1971)

were used as criteria to guide the assessment of stuttering instances. These characteristics

are sound and syllable

prolonged articulatory

repetitions;

prolonged

sounds;

postures with or without tension (as only auditory

cues were available in this study, “silent block” with audible tension was substituted here); and broken words. Stuttering

was marked on a second copy of each transcript (in order

not to influence used with reliability reliability

the constituent

structure

a second judgement check of stuttering for dysfluent

of stuttering

analysis).

of stuttering

instances.

The

This

transcript

one month

was

later, for a

Sander’s (1961)

index of

speech was applied to the two sets of judgements

and resulted in a reliability

coefficient of 0.93.

RESULTS With regard to the constituent by the two judges, resulted

structure analysis of the syntax carried out

the Spearman

in a correlation

of 0.97,

rank-order indicating

correlation

coefficient

a high reliability

of this

method of analysis. A comparison nonstutterers

of the constituent

by frequency distribution

shown in Table 1.

structure analyses of stutterers and of clause types for both groups is

MC MAC SAC co ACo RC that f-t ing Total

cs

Clause

Comparison

TABLE 1

86 71 15 7 30 33 25 16 21 0 304

74 53 21 18 19 41 14 6 32 1 279

w

K.H. (NS) 69 65 4 14 18 19 13 11 32 0 245

D.S. (S)

(S) and Nonstutterers

R.G.

of Stutterers

64 56 8 28 13 17 11 9 28 0 234

(NS)

B.C. 33 30 3 6 11 4 4 5 16 2 114

6)

F.M.

(NS) on Number

45 43 2 6 21 6 1 21 21 0 166

(NS)

D.R.

of Various

42 32 10 26 10 22 8 8 16 1 175

6)

M.L. 50 49 1 9 15 3 6 20 21 2 176

(NS)

S.A.

Clause Types Used

218 180 38 64 58 86 39 30 96 4 813

TOTAL S

27 22 5 8 7 11 5 4 12 0

%

245 219 26 50 79 59 43 66 91 2 880

TOTAL NS

28 25 3 6 9 7 5 8 10 0

%

Syntax of Stutterers and Nonstutterers

349

It is evident that on the whole, the stutterers used fewer clauses (813) for the same number of words than the nonstutterers

(880). Two subjects

(R.G. and F.M.) demonstrated this strong directional

trend. One subject

(D.S.) showed a weak trend in the opposite direction,

while subject M.L.

exhibited

no directional

trend.

A high

use of sentence

fragments,

incomplete clauses, and one-word utterances is considered to account for the depressed number of clauses in the corpora of stutterers R.G. and F.M. The nonstutterers

used more complex sentences and more comple-

ment clauses (especially

“that” complements)

than the stutterers.

also used more coordinate clauses than the stutterers,

They

and began these

clauses more often with connecting words of coordination

or subordina-

tion (see Table 2). The stutterers

used more “ands” at the beginning of all the “and”

categories: main “and” clause, simple “and” clause, “and” coordinate. Relative clauses were distributed,

on the whole, fairly evenly between the

two groups. The largest difference between the two groups appears to be on the “and” coordinates, where they constituted of the nonstutterers’ complements

clauses. Another difference occurred on the “that”

where 4%

of the stutterers’

ments, and 8% of the nonstutterers’ DISCUSSION

AND CONCLUSIONS

The results

of this study are twofold

evaluating constituent structure

analysis

11% of the stutterers and 7%

structure

clauses were “that” comple-

were “that” complements.

and pertain to both a method of

and the comparison

for the stutterers

of the constituent

and nonstutterers.

The

method of

evaluating constituent structure appears to be useful; the reliability

is high

and it can be effectively carried out using simple methodology. Discussion the stutterers

of the comparison of constituent structure of sentences of

and nonstutterers

must be tempered by the fact that there

were only four subjects in each group. The following are offered within the limits The

results

of the present study.

suggest that the stutterers

language than the nonstutterers. “and”

conjunction

subordinate

comments therefore

used simpler,

In addition to the prominent

at the expense of more diverse

words, the stutterers

less mature use of the

conjunctions

and

used more coordinate clauses that did

4 19

No Conjunction

Total

3 30

8

4

18

12

With Conjunction

K.H.

With Subordinate

R.G.

18

13

1

4

6)

D.S.

(S) and Nonstutterers

(NS)

Clause

of Stutterers

6)

Coordinate

Comparison

TABLE 2

13

8

3

2

(NS)

B.C.

11

9

0

2

6)

F.M.

(NS) on Number

21

5

10

6

(NS)

D.R.

10

5

1

4

6)

M.L.

and Type of Coordinate

15

8

3

4

(NS)

S.A.

Clauses

58

31

5

22

S

TOTAL

29

9

38

%

79

29

20

30

NS

TOTAL

37

25

38

%

Syntax of Stutterers

and Nonstutterers

351

not begin with a coordinate word, in comparison with the nonstutterers. This

type of coordination,

according to Limber

(1973),

is the first

to

appear in the developmental sequence, followed by “and” coordination. The stutterers “that”

showed a less mature developmental trend in their use of

complements.

complementation

Limber

states that the unreduced form of “that”

(I wish that I could go) is a more advanced form than

the reduced version (I wish I could go). No stutterer used the unreduced form of “that”, while the nonstutterers

used seven.

Further evidence of language use on the part of the stutterers which differed from the nonstuttering and the paucity

controls is the paucity of complete clauses

of syntactic

for dysfluent

The

latter finding

youngsters.

Whether

supports

(1971)

stutterers

are using less efficient and less mature syntax because of their

stuttering,

results

complexity.

Muma’s

or whether they in fact have some difficulties

sentences on a level with their

the young

in constructing

peers, is open to question.

While

no

conclusions

can be drawn from these data because of the limited number

of subjects,

further

investigation

with this

method of analysis

using a

larger number of subjects is suggested for future study. APPENDIX:

CONSTITUENT

A complex sentence conjoined

clauses.

ANALYSIS

is one that contains two or more embedded or

Using

this data, a complex sentence may be com-

posed of a main clause or a main “and” clause, together with one or more of the following:

coordinate

clause,

“and”

clause, complement clauses “that”, “for-to”, A simple

“and”

alone and conveys simple

declarative

clause

coordinate,

relative

“-ing.”

is a simple sentence (a clause which stands

complete sentences

meaning)

beginning

and questions

could

with

“and.”

be simple

Most “and”

clauses. A main construction

clause and is

is an independent clause which is part of a larger attached to one or

Example: I went shopping

more

subordinate

clauses.

because I had to go. A main “and” clause is a

main clause beginning with “and.” A coordinate

clause

is a clause which is connected to another by a

conjunction.

Example: Jane was running so I ran too. In some instances,

coordination

occurs without a coordinate or subordinate

word (Limber,

352

1973).

You

These

were

do this,

included

1’11 do that.

clause beginning

with

A relative Come

when

were well

in the coordinate An “and”

clause category.

coordinate

clause

Example:

is a coordinate

“and.”

clause

is one of the following

(The one that got away do;

1. Wall

Meryl

was big.);

you can.);

types:

WH clause

a relative

a reduced

relative

relative

a modifying

clause

(I know

what

to

(The pets he had

cared for.).

A Complement complements

were

ments:

She knows

ment:

I don’t

“for-to”);

found

could

be one

in the corpora

I’m five;

like

of the

following:

“That”

Reduced

versions

of “that”

and

labelled

for you

to do

that;

They

John wants

like standing

“that”

comple-

“For-to”

I think she’s the mommy;

complement:

“ing”

dog leaving

clause

(I hate it that you eat so much.)

complement

comple-

to leave

like this;

(reduced

There’s

the

it.

REFERENCES Akmajian,

A., and Heny,

Syntax,

Cambridge:

Bach, E. Syntactic Theory. Bloodstein,

Press,

New York:

0. A Handbook V., and Rodman,

Rinehart and Winston, Limber,

J. The

Genesis

Development

of Transformational

1975. Holt,

on Stuttering.

for Crippled Children and Adults, Fromkin,

to the Principles

F. An introduction MIT

Rinehart and Winston, Chicago: National

1974.

Easter Seal Society

1975.

R. An introduction

to Language. New York:

Holt,

1974. of Complex

and the Acquisition

Sentences.

In Moore,

T.

of Language. New York:

(Ed.) Cognitive Academic Press,

1973. Muma, J. R. Syntax of preschool fluent and dysfluent analysis.

journal

Sander, E.K. Reliability

speech: A transformational

of Speech and Hearing Research, of the Iowa Speech Dysfluency

1971,

14, 428-441.

Test.lourna/

of Speech and

/-fearing Disorders, Monogram Supplement, 1961, 7, 21- 30. Van Riper, C. The Nature of Stuttering. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Westby,

C. E. Language performance

ASHA

Convention

of stuttering

address, Washington,

D.C.,

and non-stuttering 22 November

1975.

1971. children.