- Email: [email protected]
Stuttering prevention II: Reply to reviewers
J. FLUENCYDISORD, 19 (1994), 295
LETTER TO THE EDITOR STUTTERING PREVENTION Ih REPLY TO REVIEWERS CURT H A M R E In terms of a plausible explanation for the onset and development of stuttering, these reviewers ascribe more importance to parental influences than the evidence permits, in my judgment, Most reviewers reacted negatively to my suggestion that stuttering is likely due to a lack of CNS integrity. Several of the criticisms are identical to those raised by Johnson some five decades ago (Hamre, 1972), and it seems to me that they are all without merit. Perkins said that he has "never agreed with [Johnson's] ideas" and asked me to cite chapter and verse for the quote I credited to him. 1 clainted that Perkins agreed with the Iowa School belief that normal disfluency " . , , is the origin of most stuttering," and I took that partial quote from Perkins (1990, p. 379, upper right column), to wit: "Without it [time pressm.], linguistic uncertainty would result in the normal disfluency that Johnson and Bloodstein theorized, correctly in my view, is the origin of most stutteriag." This suggests to me flint Perkins (1990) agreed with the notion that normal disfluency is the origin of mosX stuttering. In conclusion, I thank many of the reviewers for thought-provoking arguments. Treatment principles derive fl'mn the clinician's position on the nature of stuttering--onset, development, progression, remission. Weighing the merits of extant explanations is a continuing clinical obli. gation.
REFERENCES Hamre, C, (1972), A comment on the possible ofganieity of stuttering. British Journal of Disorders of Communication, 148-150, Perkins, W. (1990). What is stuttering? Journal o.fSpeech and Hearing Disorders. 55, 370-382. © 1994 by ElsevierScienceInc, 055 Avenue of the Americas, New York. N Y |0010
295 094.730X/9~V$7,00
LETTER TO THE EDITOR STUTTERING PREVENTION Ih REPLY TO REVIEWERS CURT H A M R E In terms of a plausible explanation for the onset and development of stuttering, these reviewers ascribe more importance to parental influences than the evidence permits, in my judgment, Most reviewers reacted negatively to my suggestion that stuttering is likely due to a lack of CNS integrity. Several of the criticisms are identical to those raised by Johnson some five decades ago (Hamre, 1972), and it seems to me that they are all without merit. Perkins said that he has "never agreed with [Johnson's] ideas" and asked me to cite chapter and verse for the quote I credited to him. 1 clainted that Perkins agreed with the Iowa School belief that normal disfluency " . , , is the origin of most stuttering," and I took that partial quote from Perkins (1990, p. 379, upper right column), to wit: "Without it [time pressm.], linguistic uncertainty would result in the normal disfluency that Johnson and Bloodstein theorized, correctly in my view, is the origin of most stutteriag." This suggests to me flint Perkins (1990) agreed with the notion that normal disfluency is the origin of mosX stuttering. In conclusion, I thank many of the reviewers for thought-provoking arguments. Treatment principles derive fl'mn the clinician's position on the nature of stuttering--onset, development, progression, remission. Weighing the merits of extant explanations is a continuing clinical obli. gation.
REFERENCES Hamre, C, (1972), A comment on the possible ofganieity of stuttering. British Journal of Disorders of Communication, 148-150, Perkins, W. (1990). What is stuttering? Journal o.fSpeech and Hearing Disorders. 55, 370-382. © 1994 by ElsevierScienceInc, 055 Avenue of the Americas, New York. N Y |0010
295 094.730X/9~V$7,00