Communication restriction in adults who stutter

Amanda Lee, Ondene Van Dulm, Michael P. Robb, Tika Ormond

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

8 Scopus citations

Abstract

This study explored communication restriction in adults with stuttering (AWS) by means of typical language measures obtained using the Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts-New Zealand (SALT-NZ) software, as well as systemic functional linguistics (SFL) analyses. The areas of language productivity and complexity, modality (i.e. linguistic politeness) and the language of appraisal were compared between AWS and typically fluent speakers (adults with no stuttering (AWNS)). Ten-minute conversational samples were obtained from 20 AWS and 20 age-and sex-matched AWNS. Transcripts were analysed for quantity and complexity of verbal output, and frequency of use of modality and appraisal resource subtypes. Means comparison and correlation analyses were conducted using grouped data. AWS produced less language and less complex language than AWNS, measured by SALT-NZ and SFL indices. AWS also differed from AWNS in their use of modality resources to express politeness-they produced fewer modal operators and more comment adjuncts than AWNS. A smaller proportion of their language expressed the explicit appreciation of things. The linguistic patterns identified in the conversational language of AWS suggested a reduced openness to interpersonal engagement within communication exchanges, which may restrict opportunities for and the experience of such exchanges. The value of SFL to this area of research is discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)536-556
Number of pages21
JournalClinical Linguistics and Phonetics
Volume29
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2015

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Speech and Hearing

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Communication restriction in adults who stutter'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this