Theoretical Perspective of Stuttering

Theoretical perspective of stuttering
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,MASLP

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP
What are theories??

Theories-- putting together the bits and pieces of what is known about something to understand it better.
A theory puts together findings in a systematic way, past phenomenon-- explained future-- is predicted.
A complete theory explains why one person stutters on some words and not others In some situations and not others *When a theory explains these things well, it can lead to effective treatment
Scientists --theory a formal set of hypotheses -- explains the important causal relationships in a phenomenon.
These hypotheses are then tested, and the theory may be thrown out, improved or confirmed as a result.
The field of stuttering research and treatment hasnt developed far enough to have a formal theory of stuttering There are a number of informal theories that might be called as theoretical perspectives or theoretical models.
Bloodstein (1973) groups theories as

belonging to 3 types
Theories of the etiology of stuttering which offer an account of the etiology, or onset of stuttering. e.g., Johnsons diagnosogenic theory (1942). Orton-Travis theory (1927; 1931). Theories of the moment of stuttering, which are concerned with the nature of discrete instances of stuttering behaviors. e.g., Wests (1958), Eisensons (1958) and Glaubers (1958) concepts.
Theories that shifts the frame of

reference, whose basic contribution lies in a
a reformulation of a [previous theory, either of the etiology or of the moment of stuttering, in terms of a new frame of reference. E.g., cybernetic models of stuttering (Mysak, 1960; Lee 1951) & learning theory interpretations (Wischner, 1950; Brutten & Shoemaker, 1967; & others).
5 main Perspectives of stuttering

Stuttering as anticipatory struggle behavior. Stuttering as a learned behavior.
Stuttering as a prosodic behavior.

Stuttering as timing and sequencing disorder. Stuttering as a temporal disorder.
I. Stuttering as an anticipatory struggle behavior:
The anticipatory struggle hypothesis: These hypotheses view the moment of stuttering as learned behavior that is some how precipitated by it being anticipated and feared. They indicate that what maintains the disorder is anticipating stuttering and struggling to avoid it. Some of those who advocate such hypotheses refer to the moment of stuttering as struggle behavior.
Theoretically, if a person who had the disorder stopped fearing and desiring to avoid stuttering, he/she would become more fluent, even normally fluent.
If such a person could be made to want to stutter, he or she would be even more likely to experience increased fluency.
Many stutters knowledgeable about stuttering agree that anticipation of stuttering contributes to both precipitating moments of stuttering and maintaining the disorder
There is no general agreement on the nature of the mechanism by which this occur.
Stutteres interfere in some manner with the way they are talking because of their belief in the difficulty of speech.
This idea, termed -- the anticipatory struggle hypothesis, -- in one or another of its forms, one of the most widely employed explanations of the moment of stuttering and has a strong influence on theory, treatment and research.
Early formulations:
The early literature on speech disorders contains numerous references to stuttering as stammering from fear, doubt, or anticipation of speech difficulty.
Boome & Richardson (1931) and Gifford (1940) inferred that stuttering as an expectancy neurosis. Others referred to it as an anxiety neurosis, or speech phobia.
Failure of automaticity:
A distinctive hypotheses --that stuttering resulted from the attempt to exercise conscious control over the automatic processes of speech. West in more refined form stated that stutterers tend to create difficulty for themselves by voluntarily producing individual speech movements rather than by initiating automatic serial responses.
Anticipatory avoidance:
The anticipatory struggle concept is best known in the special form in which Johnson developed it in a series of writings spanning three decades. In accordance with this view, the very things stutterers do in order not to stutter are their stuttering. Stuttering is then, anticipatory, apprehensive, hypertonic avoidance reaction.
That is --it is what happens when a person anticipates stuttering and becomes tense in the attempt to avoid it. In a phrase stuttering is what the speaker does while trying not to stutter again.
stuttering is not a symptom of a constitutional abnormality or an emotional disorder, but a consequence of certain inappropriate perceptual and evaluative reactions with regard to speech that a speaker has learned from the social environment.
Approach - avoidance conflict:

Stuttering may be-- the resultant of a conflict between opposing wishes to speak and to keep silent. This view was developed extensively by Sheehan (1953; 1958) in a learning theory context to be considered further on. From a practical standpoint the conflict hypothesis -stuttering results from the desire to avoid speech. In contrast to Johnsons view of stuttering as the avoidance of stuttering, then the conflict theory depicts it is as the avoidance of speaking.
Preparatory set:
Van riper (1937; 1954) developed his concept of the role of the preparatory set in stuttering primarily as a therapeutic tool and has not appeared to place much emphasis on its theoretical implications. Van riper--, in advance of the attempt on a word perceived as difficult or feared, stutterers tend to place themselves in a characteristic muscular and psychological set which determines the form of the subsequent stuttering block.
This set has essentially 3 identifiable features.

1. Stutteres establish an abnormal focus of tension in their speech organs. 2. They prepare themselves to say the first sound of the difficult word as a fixed articulatory posture rather than as a normal movement blending with the rest of the word. 3. They may adopt this unnatural posture of the speech organs appreciably before initiating voice or airflow, resulting in a silent preformation of the sound
Having done all of these things because of their anticipation of difficulty on the word, it is apparent that they have effectively destroyed their chances of saying it normally.
Tension and fragmentation:

practically all of the integral features of stuttering behavior are reducible to the surface effects of two underlying forms of behavior tension & fragmentation.
In stuttering the underlying tension produces prolongations and hard attacks. The repetition of stuttering may be interpreted as a fragmentation of rehearsing the initial part of
their throw.
Such an interpretation is useful in explaining why it is almost always the first sound of the word that the stutterer repeats, as well as certain other puzzling features of its distribution in the speech sequence.
Anticipatory struggle theories:

The moment of stuttering in which -- stutteres interfere with the way they speak because of their belief in the difficulty of speech and their anticipation of speech failure. The explanations to account for this and differ in the respect that they consider the causative factor of central importance to be 1. The childs excessive hesitations and repetitions (primarily stuttering) 2. The parents high standards of fluency (diagnosogenic theory) 3. Communicative failure or pressures, broadly viewed
People who stutter are frequently viewed as more anxious than non stutterers and as being depressed. A strong and pervasive stereotype is held by non stutterers that people who stutter are guarded, nervous, and tense.
The Relationship Between Communication Attitude, Anxiety, and Depression in Stutterers and Non stutterers Susan Miller, Ben C. Watson; Journal of Speech and Hearing Research Vol.35 789-798 August 1992)
This study examined self-perceptions of general state and trait anxiety, depression, and communication attitude in matched groups of stutterers and non stutterers. Results refute the assertion that people who stutter are more anxious or depressed than those who do not. Anxiety and depression are not related to selfratings of stuttering severity.
Communication attitude is negative for this group of people who stutter and becomes increasingly negative as self-ratings of stuttering become more severe. People who stutter, grouped by severity rating, differed in the strength of the relation between measures of communication attitude, anxiety, and depression. Findings suggest that the anxiety of people who stutter is restricted to their attitude towards communication situations and that it is a rational response to negative communication experiences.
Theories of anticipatory struggle hypothesis

1. Theory of primary and secondary stuttering
2. Diagnosogenic theory
3. Theory of communication pressure

1.Theory of primary and secondary stuttering:
stuttering as a developed disorder arises as a reaction to unusual but relatively simple repetitions in a childs speech, termed primary stuttering. According to Froeschels and Bluemel, stuttering first appears in the form of speech repetitions that occur without effort or awareness on the part of the child. This stage of the disorder was held to be essentially a phenomenon of early childhood and one which tends to disappear is speaking differently.
Many primary stutteres are urged to think before they speak, to take a deep breath or to stop and start over so often that they become guilty and apprehensive about their mild speech interruptions. The more serious form of disorder was then believed to develop from the childs efforts to avoid primary stuttering. This advanced form, marked by strenuous blockages, fear, embarrassment, and various concomitant symptoms of effort and emotion, was characterized as secondary stuttering.
According to this theory of the development of stuttering , is only some time after its onset, in secondary stage, that it becomes an anticipatory struggle behavior as children begin to react with anticipation, fear and avoidance to their primary stuttering Primary stuttering is type of disintegration or breakdown, and both genetic and environmental factors were suggested as its chief cause.
Van riper stated that in some instances the etiology was primarily constitutional, in others neurotic, and in still others from a home environment marked by frequent interruption, unresponsive listeners, demands to confess guilt orally, or other fluency disruptors.
The theory of Weiss (1964) regarding the relationship between stuttering and cluttering, in view of Weisss identification of cluttering with primary stuttering. Cluttering,is a disorder of fluency marked by monotonous, rapid, jerky, repetitive, indistinct utterance with frequent telescoping of words, unaccompanied by fear, anticipation, any sense of difficulty with specific words or sounds or even a detailed awareness of speaking abnormally.
It has long been noted that stuttering and cluttering frequently appear in the same person.
Weiss in 1934 advanced the hypothesis that stuttering essentially always has its onset as a reaction of effort or struggle for the purpose of overcoming cluttering.
Later in 1964 he employed a broader definition of cluttering than is usual, reflected that the difference between cluttering and Blumels primary stuttering was largely one of nomenclature
2.Diagnosogenic theory
According to this theory the disorder is usually caused by a parents diagnosis of normal dysfluencies in childs speech as stuttering. Bluemel, Froschels and others Developed stuttering, reaction relatively simple repetitions in young stutterers. Froschels, noted the similarity of these repetitions to those of many normal children during the early years of speech development
According to Johnsons theory, it was not excessive hesitancy that usually caused a child to develop anticipatory reactions of struggle or avoidance, but abnormal parental reactions to this hesitancy. Others had termed primary stuttering was not a disorder to be treated. It was a normal attribute of speech that was to be prevented from giving rise to stuttering by alerting the parents evaluation of it.
Johnson (1934) found that majority of the descriptions offered were confined to -- brief, effortless repetitions of syllables, words, and phrases of which the child was unaware, He inferred that these descriptions were similar to speech hesitations of most ordinary children
Johnsons findings, may stand as a formal statement of his theory: Practically every case of stuttering was originally diagnosed as such, not by a speech expert, but by a layman- usually one, or both of the childs parents. What these laymen had diagnosed as stuttering was, by and large indistinguishable from the hesitations and repetitions known to be characteristic of normal speech of young children. Stuttering as a definite disorder was found to occur, not before being diagnosed, but after being diagnosed (Johnson, 1944).
According to Johnson, stuttering generally began not in the
childs mouth but in the parents ear.

This was not, however, because the parents were necessarily as aberrant in their perceptions of reality as this might seem to imply.
Evidence show that most young children are relatively disfluent and that parents of stutterers often tend to be dominating, overanxious, or perfectionisic.
But Johnson's basic premise that on the date of original diagnosis, stuttering children may speak in a manner that is not always to be clearly differentiated from that of other children of like age who have not been diagnosed as stutteres is difficult to verify by means of an objective scientific test. Attempts to confirm it, based upon intensive interviewing of parents in case of recent onset of the problem.
3.Theory of communication pressure
If stuttering is based upon the childs belief in the difficulty of speech, there would appear on the surface that there might not be other sources from which stuttering might stem.
scattered references in the literature on stuttering for this kind to the problem of the onset of stuttering was made by Bloodstein (1958; 1975) on the basis of a clinical study of 108 stuttering children.
It usually begins as a response of tension and fragmentation in speech, not sharply different from certain types of normal disfluency, and is brought about largely by the provocation pf continued or severe communicative failure in the presence of communicative pressure. This hypothesis finds its most significant elaboration with reference to the variety of factors that may contribute to a childs conviction that speech demands unusual effort or precautions.
This theory can be summarized by the statement that stuttering is caused by communicative failure as perceived by the child.
From certain stand point it may be seen as a generalization of the two anticipatory struggle theories which are described previously. It differs from them, however, in denying that either a diagnosis of stuttering or the occurrence of excessive repetitions in a childs speech is necessary in order for anticipatory struggle reactions to develop.
Stuttering as an learned behavior
According to this point of view, stuttering has its origin in the early fumbling and hesitancies and interruptions which seem to be a natural and common phase of the speech learning process.
Rather he/she does a form of maladaptive

behavior that is somehow learned.
These learning theories have lent themselves to a number of systematic statements about stuttering. In general, the aim of such statements has been to make use of the relatively precise language of behavior science in order to try to define the process by which stuttering is learned and maintained by identifying the motivational factors, stimulus variables and reinforcing conditions
1.Stuttering as an instrumental avoidance act
proposed by Wischner (1947; 1952).
Wishner based his formulations on two observations that had been the subject of considerable earlier research.
One of these was the adaptation effect and the other phenomenon of expectancy or anticipation, which he equated with anxiety. Drawing an analogy between the tendency for stuttering to decrease with successive readings of the same passage (adaptation) and experimental extinction of a learned response.
One of the best documented facts about stuttering is that, as a group, individuals who stutter show a decrease in stuttering frequency of approximately 50% across five repeated readings of the same material- a phenomenon known as the adaptation effect
(Johnson; Brown; Curtis; Edney & Keaster, 1967; Johnson & Knott, 1937; Van riper & Hull, 1955).
Frank & Bloodstein (1971) reported that stuttering frequency during a solo reading following 5 unison readings was not significantly different from that during the last reading of a conventional adaptation procedure with six solo readings.
Their finding, that the relatively fluent unison readings and the more disfluent solo readings resulted in similar reductions of stuttering frequency, demonstrated that overt stuttering is not later required for adaptation to occur.
The proposed motor learning hypothesis of stuttering adaptation maintains that reductions in stuttering frequency during repeated oral readings can be attributed to improvements in speech motor skill resulting from repeated practice of the same sequences of articulatory and phonatory movements.
The increase in the speed of performance during motor learning is an interesting phenomenon that may prove useful as a first test of Max et als (1997) motor learning hypothesis of stuttering adaptation.
This reasoning is based on the fact that the increase in speed of performance during improvements in non speech motor behavior represents change in the opposite direction of the changes that are known to be associated with many conditions of reduced stuttering.
Increase in fluency as a result of various types of stuttering treatment also have been reported to be associated with a decrease in speech or articulation rate (Story; Alfonso; & Harris, 1996) or an increase in the duration of acoustically or kinematically defined segments (Mallard & West book, 1985; Mc clean, Kroll & Lofrus, 1990).
Adaptation Of Stuttering Frequency During repeated Readings: Associated Changes In Acoustic Parameters Of Perceptually Fluent Speech Authors:Ludo max & Anthony J Caruso JSLHR; Vol:41; Dec98
Study was conducted 8 individuals who stutter It revealed that speech adjustments occurring during adaptation differ from those reported for other fluency enhancing conditions or stuttering treatment.
During the last 6 repeated readings, a statistically significant increase in articulation rate was observed, together with a decrease in word duration, vowel duration, & consonant- vowel (CV) transition extent.
Other adjustments showing relatively consistent trends across individual subjects included decreased CV transition rate & duration, & increased variability of both CV transition extent and vowel duration.
One of the central problems in the application of learning principles to stuttering is to explain the nature of the reinforcement that causes it to persist in the face of repeated punishment.
Wischner posited that this reinforcement consisted of a reduction in the stutterers anxiety following the block.
Prior to the moment of stuttering there was a building up of expectancy, or fear.
The immediate effect of stuttering was a reduction of this tension. Although the block had punishing consequences, Wischner pointed out that these did not follow as immediately on the termination of the block as did anxiety reduction.
Consequently, the stuttering behavior was

reinforced rather that extinguished
Wischners main analysis clearly consisted in part of a reformulation of Johnsons concept of the moment of stuttering as an anxiety motivated avoidance reaction.
He referred to Johnsons diagnosogenic theory as tenable instigators to anxiety in the stutterer might be found in parental disapproval of normal disfluency
2.stuttering as approach avoidance conflict
Sheehan (1953; 1958) viewed stuttering primarily as the resultant of a conflict between opposing drives to speak and to hold back from speaking and developed an interpretation of the moment of stuttering based on Neal E millers research and theoretical formulations on approach avoidance conflict in animals.
Miller (1944) showed that as a hungry rat

approaches a food trough at the end of a runway its motivation to reach the food steadily increases. It is possible to measure the strength of its approach drive and to show by means of a sloping line precisely it increases with nearness to the goal.
If electric shock is substituted for the food the rat flees. The farther it gets from the feared object, the weaker becomes its motivation to avoid it
This declining avoidance drive may also be represented by a sloping line, or gradient. If electric shock & food are combined, together with the appropriate cue stimuli by which the rat may recognize their presence, the element of conflict is introduced.
In such a situation the approach and avoidance drive are present together, and it is possible to represent this by showing both gradients superimposed on the same field.
The gradient of avoidance is steeper than the gradient of approach. As a result, if the opposing drives are of about the same average strength, at a certain distance from the goal the two gradients will intersect. This fact has some rather significant implications. Before the point of intersection reached, the approach gradient is higher than the avoidance gradient, and the rat could be expected to run toward the goal.
He stated that stuttering was basically an approach avoidance conflict.
Whenever stutterers urge to speak was distinctly stronger than their desire to avoid speech, they spoke fluently. When avoidance of speaking was the clearly dominant drive, they were silent. But when their approach and avoidance drives were in relative equilibrium, so that the gradients crossed, they stuttered
Sheehan offered the hypothesis that once the blocking had begun to take place the fear that had elicited it became reduced, the avoidance drive was consequently decreased, and so the conflict was temporarily resolved. He theorized further that the stutterers conflicting feelings of approach and avoidance toward speech tended to be complicated by similar attitudes toward silence, and he pointed out that this, too, had its counterpart in the laboratory which Miller termed double approach avoidance conflict.
Sheehan postulated 5 distinct levels on which speech avoidance drives might operate. He stated that these drives might emanate from Reaction to specific words, resulting principally from past conditioning to phonetic factors. Reaction to threatening speech situations. Guilt & anxiety concerning the emotional content of speech. Feelings of anxiety in the stutterers relationships with listeners, especially when these are seen as authority figures, and The ego defensive need to avoid competitive endeavors posing threat of failure or threat of success.
This clearly suggests that stuttering may have its origin both in the learning of speech anxieties and in unconscious factors of personality.
Perkins (1953) pointed out that the logical implication of the conflict hypothesis was that the stuttering block itself was not learned behavior.
Both Sheehan (1951) and perkins (1953) attempted to determine the effect on stuttering of non reinforcement, which they defined by a procedure in which the subjects repeated each stuttered word until they could say it normally, and obtained somewhat conflicting results.
3. Stuttering as operant behavior
Flanagan, Goldiamond & Azrin [1958 ] concluded that they had been able to reduce the stuttering of three laboratory subjects. These reports suggesting that stuttering and normal disfluency could be brought under operant control did much to arouse interest in investigating these behaviors by applying the conditioning principles of B.F skinner.
In Skinners system of behavioral analysis, a central role is played by the kind of response, termed an operant that is capable of being increased or decreased through its consequences as they affect the organism. Given behavior consists essentially of a specification of the contingent consequences serving to reinforce and maintain it as a response to certain occasioning stimuli.
This reinforcement is described as positive when it consists of such a stimulus as a pellet of food or as negative when it consists of an aversive stimulus such as shock.
They hypothesized that when a childs non

fluent responses are punished the child may respond by changing the form of nonfluency to struggle or silence.
This changes reinforced by the termination of the aversive stimuli of nonfluency (negative reinforcement), but may occasion new punishment are also occasioned by the fact that stutteres tend to become their own listeners.
There are certain positive reinforcements for stuttering.
The child may gain attention or may use stuttering as an excuse for failure or inadequacy. This reinforcement is likely to be particularly strong because of the variable schedule on which it is usually given, responses intermittently reinforced being particularly resistant to extinction.
Various other workers have made of the operant model in connection with stuttering. For the most part, however, they have been less concerned with etiological theories than with experimental demonstrations of the operant nature of stuttering and disfluency.
The result has been a considerable amount of research on punishment in relation to stuttering.
4. stuttering as conditioned disintegration
Brutten & shoemaker (1967) theorized that stuttering in its integral aspects is a failure or disruption of fluency resulting from emotional arousal that has become associated with speech and speech related stimuli through a process of classical conditioning. From this point of view the stuttering blocks not operant, but respondent, behavior.
Most investigators of the learning process recognize at least a rough distinction between 2 kinds of learning, one based on operant or instrumental conditioning and the other on respondent or classical conditioning. Classical conditioning is represented by the well known pavlovian experiment.
Classical conditioning plays a important part in the learning of anxiety reactions or other motivational states of automatic arousal.
Classical conditioning for the stuttering from the point of view of Brutten & Shoemaker. They based their theory on the observation that in normal speakers stress may produce automatic reactions capable of disrupting speech fluency. They suggested that a further, or advanced, stage of stuttering comes into being through penalties the child receives for abnormal speech behavior. As a result of such punishment, the act of speaking itself, or the words employed, come to elicit conditioned negative emotion, & in time the conditioned stimuli for fluency failure may for this reason consist increasingly of speech KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN associated cues ,BASLP, MASLP
Other writers find it very difficult to accept the view that the initial fluency breaks are operantly conditioned. The very consistency of the core behaviors stuttering the syllabic repetitions and fixations or prolongations that are found in all stutteres and that in young children seem to constitute most of the abnormality seem to indicate that these are precipitated rather than learned.
Accordingly, Brutten & Shoemaker & others have held that this core behavior occurs as a result of emotionally induced breakdown in coordination

Theoretical Perspective of Stuttering - PDF / KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Theoretical Perspective of Stuttering - PDF / KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,MASLP

What are theories??

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

Bloodstein (1973) groups theories as

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

Theories that shifts the frame of

5 main Perspectives of stuttering

Stuttering as a prosodic behavior.

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

I. Stuttering as an anticipatory struggle behavior:

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

Approach - avoidance conflict:

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

This set has essentially 3 identifiable features.

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

Tension and fragmentation:

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

Anticipatory struggle theories:

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

Theories of anticipatory struggle hypothesis

3. Theory of communication pressure

1.Theory of primary and secondary stuttering:

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

According to Johnson, stuttering generally began not in the

childs mouth but in the parents ear.

3.Theory of communication pressure

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

Stuttering as an learned behavior

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

Rather he/she does a form of maladaptive

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

1.Stuttering as an instrumental avoidance act

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

proposed by Wischner (1947; 1952).

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

Consequently, the stuttering behavior was

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

2.stuttering as approach avoidance conflict

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

Miller (1944) showed that as a hungry rat

He stated that stuttering was basically an approach avoidance conflict.

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN ,BASLP, MASLP