Non-word reading, lexical retrieval and stuttering: comments on Packman, Onslow, Coombes and Goodwin (2001).
A recent study by Packman, Onslow, Coombes and Goodwin (2001) employed a non-word-reading paradigm to test the contribution of the lexical retrieval process to stuttering. They consider that, with this material, the lexical retrieval process could not contribute to stuttering and that either anxiety and/or the motor demand of reading are the governing factors. This paper will discuss possible processes underlying non-word reading and it argues that the conclusion arrived at by Packman et al. does not stand up to close scrutiny. In their introduction, the authors acknowledge that the lexicalization process involves retrieval and encoding of words. In a non-word-reading task, the word retrieval component is eliminated. The possibility that the encoding component of the lexicalization process leads to stuttering is, however, completely ignored by the authors when they attribute stuttering to motor demands. As theories put forward by Postma and Kolk (the Covert Repair Hypothesis, 1993) and Howell and Au-Yeung (the EXPLAN theory, 2002) argue heavily for the role of the phonological encoding processes in stuttering, Packman et al.'s work does not evaluate such theories. Theoretical issues aside, Packman et al.'s arguments about reading rate and stuttering rate based on reading time is also questionable.
Au-Yeung
James
J
Department of Psychology, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK. james@psychol.ucl.ac.uk
Howell
Peter
P
D006801:Humans; D010700:Phonetics; D011932:Reading; D013342:Stuttering; D014825:Vocabulary