Announcing 'Stammering Research' - Stammering Research - UCL

Stammering Research. Vol. 1.
CONTINUING COMMENTARIES ON ‘CAN THE USAGE-BASED
APPROACH TO LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT BE APPLIED TO
ANALYSIS OF DEVELOPMENTAL STUTTERING’ BY
C.SAVAGE AND E. LIEVEN
How Useful is the Usage Based Approach to Stuttering Research?
Julie D. Anderson and Julien Musolino
Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences
Indiana University
judander@indiana.edu
musolino@indiana.edu
Abstract. Savage and Lieven (2004) argue that a usage-based (UB) approach to language acquisition may
provide insights into developmental stuttering. In this commentary, we discuss the predictions and proposed
benefits of this approach as applied to stuttering research. Keywords: Developmental stuttering, generativist
accounts, usage-based theory.
1. How Useful is the Usage Based Approach to Stuttering Research?
Savage and Lieven (2004) propose that the usage-based (UB) approach to language development
provides a framework within which one can (a) account for the onset and origin of developmental
stuttering, and (b) make specific predictions regarding the distribution of speech disfluencies. In
specific, the authors hypothesize that the onset of speech disfluencies in young children is coincident
with the development of more abstract syntactic representations or schemas. As a result, stuttering may
be viewed as ‘a “side effect” of the increased demands that (the reorganization of grammar from lexical
schemas into abstract schemas) places on the child’s processing system” (p. 90). In the remarks that
follow, we will comment on the predictions and proposed benefits of the UB approach when applied to
stuttering research.
2. Predictions of the UB Approach
Savage and Lieven (2004) claim that the usage-based (UB) approach and traditional generative
models of language development make different predictions regarding the age of stuttering onset, as
well as the loci of disfluencies. Specifically, the authors argue that while generative models would
predict the age of onset of disfluencies to coincide with early word combinations (i.e., around two years
of age), the UB approach predicts that disfluencies would occur at the point at which children are
believed to develop abstract syntactic representations (i.e., around three years of age). Second, the two
approaches are claimed to differ in terms of whether disfluencies should necessarily coincide with
abstract syntactic boundaries.
It is far from clear, however, that traditional generative models make any such predictions.
Ironically, the very distinction between linguistic competence and linguistic performance that the
authors propose to dispense with (see p. 86), but then implicitly reintroduce as part of their approach
(see p. 92) is exactly what renders generative models immune to their criticism. To be sure, the theory
of Universal Grammar, which is a theory of linguistic competence, has nothing specific to say about
performance issues such as the nature of real-time speech production. In the end, therefore, the
presentation of the UB approach as an alternative to a generative straw man is rather disingenuous,
especially given the fact that the UB approach does seem to make some real and potentially interesting
predictions.
3. The Relevance of the UB Approach to Stuttering Research
On a general level, the UB approach suggests that stuttering begins to occur ‘at points of
vulnerability in language development when the system is under strain through an advance in
acquisition of a linguistic skill’ (p.83). In this respect, the UB approach does not seem to differ much
from other types of capacities and demands models, which generally posit that speech disfluency
patterns are associated with increases in demands or trade-offs in the acquisition of language (e.g.,
Crystal, 1987; Starkweather, 1987; cf. Just & Carpenter, 1992). On the other hand, the UB approach
offers a potentially interesting and independently motivated rationale for the fact that stuttering tends to
develop around three years of age (well documented exceptions notwithstanding; see Bloodstein,
1995); a fact that remains mysterious on many other accounts.
295