who asked the first question? - International Research Center For ...
who asked the first question? - International Research Center For ... who asked the first question? - International Research Center For ...
372• European populations have a stuttering prevalence of about 0.8%-1% of, but bigpart of the populations of the world seem to have very different prevalence numbers(much lower among some Native Americans, or much higher among African populationsand the ir descendants in different regions), and the differences between extreme casescould reach 10 000%.I am well aware of the possible reaction of speech pathologists to my bolddeclarations. Fortunately for all of us, my claim is not difficult to disprove – even asimple prevalence survey conducted in few schools with the Chinese children couldeasily eliminate the biggest of my arguments. But such a survey can provide the proof aswell.PS: What about polyphony?So what about polyphony? We started discussing speech pathology in the firstplace because according to our model there must be a markedly different stutteringprevalence among major human populations due to the fact of the presence of choralpolyphonic traditions: higher prevalence among the carriers of the polyphonic singingtraditions and lower prevalence among carriers of the monophonic singing traditions. Orsimply: “more polyphony – more stuttering”. Let us now have a look at the correlation ofstuttering prevalence and the distribution of vocal polyphony.(1) The reduced number of stutterers among monophonic NativeAmericans, Australian Aborigines, and Polar Eskimos supports theidea of their earlier shift to articulated speech;(2) The significantly increased number of stutterers in polyphonic sub-Saharan African populations and their descendants in North andCentral America supports the idea of their late shift to speech.(3) The incidence of stuttering in the most monophonic East Asia (mostlyChina) is still to be studied sufficiently. A preliminary surveysuggested that the stuttering prevalence in China is also significantlyreduced, but more studies are needed.Even the information about the presence of the highest stuttering prevalenceamong Native Americans, reported in the 1950s and mentioned earlier (Lemert, 1953)confirms this correlation, because the Indian tribes that have been found to have a highernumber of stutterers (Nootka, Kwakiutl and Salish) are known in ethnomusicology as thecarriers of the traditions of polyphonic singing, relatively rare among North AmericanIndians (see the discussion of polyphony among Native Americans in part 1, also seeNettl, 1961, and Halpern 1975).
373Developmental dyslexiaStuttering is not the only “evolutionary” disorder that could be affected by thechronology of the origins of the articulated speech. Significant differences in thechronology of the emergence of spoken language in different human populations couldhave caused differences in the distribution of other forms of innate speech pathologies.According to the suggested model, different forms of innate speech pathologies should beless common in East Asia and among indigenous populations of America and Australia.So, the correlation again is expected to be “more polyphony – more speech pathology”.One such pathology, developmental dyslexia, is also related to this problem.Dyslexia is a developmental disorder connected not to speech, but to reading and writing.Several important factors link developmental dyslexia and stuttering:(1) Both pathologies have a major innate component;(2) Atypical dominance of brain hemispheres is crucial to both;(3) Incidence prevails among the male population; and(4) The magnificent array of dyslexic scholars (which includes Einstein andEdison) proves that developmental dyslexia is not connected with mentalretardation (see review in Snowling & Thomson, 1991; DeFries et al. 1987).(5) Another coincidence between stuttering and developmental dyslexia is that thelatter also reveals “impressive differences in the degree of incidence” indifferent regions of the world.According to one cross-cultural survey, reported in the “Cambridge Encyclopediaof Language”, the prevalence of dyslexia can be as different as 1% and 33% (Crystal,1987:274). The most interesting fact for our discussion is that the lowest incidence (1%)was found in China (Crystal, 1987:274). Such a drastic difference of developmentaldyslexia is usually attributed to the peculiarities of the Chinese logographic writingsystem. Rozin, Ponitzky, and Sotsky reported that American dyslectic children did nothave substantial problems learning to read Chinese characters (Rozin et al. 1971). At thesame time the evidence available does not support this suggestion, as the same lowincidence of developmental dyslexia is also found in Japan, where the writing systemkana is much closer to European writing systems than to Chinese characters. Makita(1968) suggested that the perfectly shallow characteristic of Japanese kana was the mainreason for the very low incidence of dyslexia among the Japanese population. Thissuggestion has been criticized. As Flores d’Arcais writes: “...if for Japanese children, asMakita (1968) proposed, the completely shallow kana orthography could favor readingactivation, the same low incidence should be found for Serbo-Croatian, or, almost to thesame extent, in Italian or Spanish, and this is not the case. To summarize the points madein this section, we can conclude that the evidence available is not clear and strong enough
- Page 321 and 322: 321referential function. In contemp
- Page 323 and 324: 323mental abilities, but even music
- Page 325 and 326: 325articulated elements, where the
- Page 327 and 328: 327development experts would unanim
- Page 329 and 330: 329years after 1996, if I see a new
- Page 331 and 332: 331• Why do we ask questions?This
- Page 333 and 334: 333With the emergence of the abilit
- Page 335 and 336: 335apes’ and humans’ mental abi
- Page 337 and 338: 337The fascinating fact about the T
- Page 339 and 340: 339curiosity cannot exist, although
- Page 341 and 342: 341• Question intonation is argua
- Page 343 and 344: 343A few cases of “wolf children
- Page 345 and 346: 345(2) Children under two and pidgi
- Page 347 and 348: 347Let’s Talk: Origin of SpeechTh
- Page 349 and 350: 349article concluded with the sugge
- Page 351 and 352: 351are disposed to accept such a vi
- Page 353 and 354: 353articulated speech among the anc
- Page 355 and 356: 355speech (possibly in conjunction
- Page 357 and 358: 357function, while in the sub-Sahar
- Page 359 and 360: 359acquired, it is one of the most
- Page 361 and 362: 361millennia. So the historical dyn
- Page 363 and 364: 363of stuttering was mostly margina
- Page 365 and 366: 365when I reminded her of our conve
- Page 367 and 368: 367• A comparison of the stutteri
- Page 369 and 370: 369predisposition towards stutterin
- Page 371: 371There are some well-researched p
- Page 375 and 376: 375mastery or correct usage of soun
- Page 377 and 378: 377• As the process of the declin
- Page 379 and 380: 379major African ground predators (
- Page 381 and 382: 381PostScript:Moral and ethics issu
- Page 383 and 384: 383(Jordania, 1989:240), believing
- Page 385 and 386: 385without turning these difference
- Page 387 and 388: 387Central African Republic, Bangul
- Page 389 and 390: 389polyphon y.” 4. Nailia Almeeva
- Page 391 and 392: 391aural tradition: Results and the
- Page 393 and 394: 3931. Tamar Chkheidze. “Peculiari
- Page 395 and 396: 395Krimanchuli (Yodel) in West Geor
- Page 397 and 398: 397ReferencesABDUSHELISHVILI, MALKH
- Page 399 and 400: 399ASAFIEV, BORIS. 1971. Musical fo
- Page 401 and 402: 401BLACKING, JOHN. 1973. How musica
- Page 403 and 404: 403BUCHER, KARL. 1923 (1919). Arbei
- Page 405 and 406: 405COOKE, PETER. 1998. East Africa:
- Page 407 and 408: 407ELSCHEKOVA, ALICA. 1963. “Der
- Page 409 and 410: 409GANDOUR, JACK, SORANEE H. PETTY,
- Page 411 and 412: 411HALPERN, IDA. 1975. “Music of
- Page 413 and 414: 413JELINEK, JAN. 1978. Homo erectus
- Page 415 and 416: 415methodologies? Erich Stockmann z
- Page 417 and 418: 417---- 1975. Music of Ainu. In Pro
- Page 419 and 420: 419KUTER, LOIS. Brittany. In The Ga
- Page 421 and 422: 421MACCHIARELLA, IGNAZIO. 2005. The
372• European populations have a stuttering prevalence of about 0.8%-1% of, but bigpart of <strong>the</strong> populations of <strong>the</strong> world seem to have very different prevalence numbers(much lower among some Native Americans, or much higher among African populationsand <strong>the</strong> ir descendants in different regions), and <strong>the</strong> differences between extreme casescould reach 10 000%.I am well aware of <strong>the</strong> possible reaction of speech pathologists to my bolddeclarations. <strong>For</strong>tunately for all of us, my claim is not difficult to disprove – even asimple prevalence survey conducted in few schools with <strong>the</strong> Chinese children couldeasily eliminate <strong>the</strong> biggest of my arguments. But such a survey can provide <strong>the</strong> proof aswell.PS: What about polyphony?So what about polyphony? We started discussing speech pathology in <strong>the</strong> <strong>first</strong>place because according to our model <strong>the</strong>re must be a markedly different stutteringprevalence among major human populations due to <strong>the</strong> fact of <strong>the</strong> presence of choralpolyphonic traditions: higher prevalence among <strong>the</strong> carriers of <strong>the</strong> polyphonic singingtraditions and lower prevalence among carriers of <strong>the</strong> monophonic singing traditions. Orsimply: “more polyphony – more stuttering”. Let us now have a look at <strong>the</strong> correlation ofstuttering prevalence and <strong>the</strong> distribution of vocal polyphony.(1) The reduced number of stutterers among monophonic NativeAmericans, Australian Aborigines, and Polar Eskimos supports <strong>the</strong>idea of <strong>the</strong>ir earlier shift to articulated speech;(2) The significantly increased number of stutterers in polyphonic sub-Saharan African populations and <strong>the</strong>ir descendants in North andCentral America supports <strong>the</strong> idea of <strong>the</strong>ir late shift to speech.(3) The incidence of stuttering in <strong>the</strong> most monophonic East Asia (mostlyChina) is still to be studied sufficiently. A preliminary surveysuggested that <strong>the</strong> stuttering prevalence in China is also significantlyreduced, but more studies are needed.Even <strong>the</strong> information about <strong>the</strong> presence of <strong>the</strong> highest stuttering prevalenceamong Native Americans, reported in <strong>the</strong> 1950s and mentioned earlier (Lemert, 1953)confirms this correlation, because <strong>the</strong> Indian tribes that have been found to have a highernumber of stutterers (Nootka, Kwakiutl and Salish) are known in ethnomusicology as <strong>the</strong>carriers of <strong>the</strong> traditions of polyphonic singing, relatively rare among North AmericanIndians (see <strong>the</strong> discussion of polyphony among Native Americans in part 1, also seeNettl, 1961, and Halpern 1975).
Change language