Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

What Parts of Language Production Are Considered Complex for Stuttering People?

Linguistics 429F

Research Paper
Professor Laura Spinu

Stefanie Cortina and Yu-Ti Huang

April 15, 2013

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

Abstract
There are many types of speech that we can conduct, spontaneous speech, aided
spontaneous speech, automatic speech, reading (controlled speech), and repeated
speech. Each of these speech situations involves different degrees of linguistic
processing. The brain circuits during different speeches are different between
stuttering and non-stuttering people; hence, different complexity might be shown.
Our experiment focuses on participants pausing and repetition rate, as well as the
speaking speed. Different degrees of complexity are then linked to different
pausing-repetition rates as well as speaking speed.
Aim: To study whether the complexity differences between five linguistic
processing tasks will vary among stuttering individuals and non-stuttering
individuals.
Materials and Methods: Four adults with stuttering, age range 18 to 41 years old
were studied. A match control group of 4 adults without stuttering were also
studied. Five types of speeches, spontaneous, repeated, aided spontaneous,
automatic, and reading, were manipulated and recorded. For evaluating pausingrepetition rate, all speeches were calculated with the exception of the formula
developed by Boberg and Kully (1994). Speed is also spontaneously recorded.
Results: Our result shows that relatively complex speeches for stuttering people
are also complex for non-stuttering people, and vice versa. There is no significant
difference between stuttering and non-stuttering people.

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

Conclusion: Reading, although controlled, as well as automatic (singing) and

repeated speeches, is relatively easier. Singing, which is able to significantly
diminish stuttering problems, has slower speaking speed and less pausing rate due
to the slow melody and already memorized lyrics, which could ease the tension
and prolong the syllables during the speech. A common strategy in stuttering
therapy is teaching individual who stutter to relax and take their time while
speaking.
Introduction
Stuttering is a neurodevelopmental speech disorder that involves genetic, motor,
language, environmental, and emotional factors. It is a disruption of normal fluency in
verbal expression characterized by abnormal fluency errors such as involuntary
repetitions of phonemes, syllables or words, phoneme prolongation, complete or
temporary interruption of speech production and tension pauses or fragmented words.
These characteristics are not readily controllable and may be accompanied by involuntary
movements like tremors, eye blinking, twitching and hand movements. They can also
evoke negative emotions in a stuttering speaker like frustration, embarrassment and even
fear. Typically, stuttering occurs upon the first syllable or sound in a word, the first word
in a sentence and is more prominent in pragmatic words. (Kalinowski & Saltuklaroglu,
2007)
Like many aspects of human language, much about speech disorders still remains a
mystery. In the case of stuttering, the exact cause is yet to be determined; however
advancements are being made to give us a better understanding of the disorder and to
determine better treatments. What has been determined though, is that there are three

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

general types of stuttering. Among the most rare cases is psychogenic stuttering, which
is caused by emotional trauma or problems with thought or reasoning. There is also the
case of neurogenic stuttering, which may occur after a stroke, head trauma or other types
of traumatic brain injuries. Finally, there is developmental stuttering, which occurs in
young children as they are acquiring and developing language and is reportedly the most
common form. (Bchel & Sommer, 2004)
Before getting into the purpose of this research, a few more details concerning
stuttering must be explained. There are areas within both emotional and linguistic
situations that trigger dysfluency. When analyzing stuttering in the emotional context, it
has been found that fluency increasing when an individual is at ease in a comfortable
situation, while stressful situations where on is tense can result in decreased fluency. For
the purpose of the paper however, linguistic situations regarding fluency will be looked at
more closely. Dysfluency (i.e., stuttering) is triggered by or increased in controlled
language processing tasks, which involve linguistic planning. Controlled speech happens
mostly in spontaneous discourse scenarios and events where a one is asked to read out
loud. These events require thoughts to transform into linguistic material such as prosody,
syntax and assigning semantic representation and heightens the need for each phoneme or
syllable to be produced at the right time, all of which could be identified as the planning
period of speech production. Linguistic discourses that are common or that involve
repetition (automatic language processing) are likely to enhance fluidity or fluency of
speech because they reduce semantic, syntactic and prosodic planning. (Sandak & Fiez,
2000)

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

Several neuroimaging studies have emerged in order to identify areas associated with
stuttering. Brain imaging studies have primarily been focused on adults.
1. Studies utilizing positron-emission tomography (PET) have found during tasks that
invoke dysfluent speech, people who stutter show hypoactivity in cortical areas
associated with language processing, such as Brocas area, but hyperactivity in areas
associated with motor function (Sandak & Fiez, 2000). Maybe thats why stuttering
people have tremors, eye blinks, or hand movements during the speech.
2. Recent studies have found that adults who stutter have elevated levels of the
neurotransmitter dopamine due to the hyperactivity in certain areas, such as the motor
area we just mentioned (Bloodstein, Oliver, 2007).There are dopamine antigonists you
can take to reduce stuttering but with lots of unpleasant side effects.
3. Auditory processing deficits have also been proposed as a cause of stuttering.
Stuttering is less prevalent in deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals, and stuttering may be
improved when auditory feedback is altered, such as masking. There is some evidence
that the functional organization of the auditory cortex may be different in people who
stutter. (Ward, David, 2006, Gordon, N., 2002)
4. There are certain circuitry roots during each kind of linguistic processing. When we
are speaking a written word, we read the word with our eyes. This information is then
transferred to our visual cortex, comprehended in our Wernickes area, processed in our
Brocas area then passed to our motor cortex, which then activate our articulatory system
to read the word. When we are speaking a heard word, we hear the word with our ears.
This information is then transferred to our auditory cortex, comprehended in our

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

Wernickes area, processed in our Brocas area and then passed to our motor cortex,
which then activate our articulatory system to repeat the word.
In single-word-recognition tasks, people who do not stutter show the circuitry root
I just mentioned. The people who stutter also first had visual cortex activation, but,
interestingly, the Brocas area was activated only after the motor area was activated.
(Sandak & Fiez, 2000, Bloodstein, Oliver, 2007) .
If the circuitry root, level of some certain neurotransmitters, the functional
organization of auditory cortex, or the brain area activations in stuttering people are
different with non-stuttering people, the way they process languages must be different as
well. Some tasks are considered easy for us might be difficult for them, some are hard for
us might be easy for them. Thats where our hypothesis comes in.
Null Hypothesis (H0): There are no complexity differences in linguistic
processing across the stuttering group and non-stuttering group.
Research Hypothesis (H1): The complexity differences between five
linguistic processing tasks will vary among stuttering individuals and nonstuttering individuals.
What this research aims to discover is whether automatic linguistic tasks or controlled
linguistic tasks increase dysfluency in stuttering adults and how this compares to nonstuttering adults. Specifically, it is hypothesized that the complexity differences between
five linguistic processing tasks will vary among stuttering individuals and non-stuttering
individuals. Since we do not have access to brain imaging technology, we have designed

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

a way to examine different speech situations, automatic and controlled, based on

linguistic tasks performed.
At this point, it is important to note the distinction between linguistic competence and
linguistic performance. Linguistic competence is defined as ones internal, intentional
and individual knowledge of a language. In other words, linguistic competence is
directly related to ones grammar and knowledge their own language. Linguistic
performance on the other hand is not as easily defines. Basically, all aspects of speech
production and comprehension that do not directly reflect an individuals grammar are
said to be a part of linguistic performance. (Isac &Reiss, 2008) In other words, a lot of
things can affect the one speaks. For example, a lot of stigmatism has been placed upon
different dialects of English, Black English Vernacular (BEV) being among the most
stigmatized. To many, people who use BEV are less intelligent than users of Standard
American English. This however, could not be any more wrong. Having an accent or
different dialect all fall under the performance part of linguistics and do not have
anything to do with ones competence. Similarly to take a more basic example, someone
who is under the influence of alcohol or has a mere cold for that matter may begin to slur
or mispronounce words; again this affects the persons performance but competence is
unhindered. We adopt the view that the same goes for individuals who stutter. Stuttering
is a symptom that affects the linguistic performance of those who suffer from it. As we
have seen through past research and will see throughout this research is that a stutterers
linguistic competence is not affected by their stutter; they are all able to produce
sentences that are syntactically, pragmatically and semantically grammatical. Many
associate having a speech disorder with being less intelligent, and in terms of stuttering

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

we want to stress that a stutterer is not mentally slower or less intelligent than nonstutterers. Stutterers face difficulty in the performance of speech production. This being
said, we will examine linguistic complexity in terms of the performance of language tasks.
Methods And Materials
Participants
The sample size consisted of eight participants (N=8), where four of them were
clinically diagnosed with stuttering and four of them were not (nexperimental=4, ncontrol=4).
The age range for the total sample was 18-41 with a mean of 25 and a standard deviation
of 7.43. Participants were asked to participate voluntarily, however as it was hard to
recruit stutterers, a compensation of 10 dollars was offered upon completion of the
experiment. Participants were recruited from The Royal Victoria Hospital stuttering
sessions, through a fellow undergraduate also conducting a study involving stuttering and
through adds on internet sites such as Craigs List and Facebook. Participants were asked
to sign a consent form and fill out a simple questionnaire that provided background
information. Once the study was completed, participants were debriefed and were
encouraged to ask any questions concerning the purpose of the research and pilot study.
The same as to the non-stuttering participants, a consent form and simple questionnaire
were filled out. Non-stuttering participants participated in this experiment due to the
kindness and helpful nature they possess; hence, no compensation was offered. They
were recruited in the campus of Concordia University. They were usually studying alone
in a quiet place where the experiment was conducted.
Materials

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

In terms of materials, not much was needed to conduct this experiment. A laptop
computer was used to record the participants responses, and wav audio files were created
using Pratt. Other than this, nothing but a pen was needed for the participants to fill out
the required forms. In the analysis of data, the SPSS software was used to run an
ANOVA. For relative complexity, T-test is used with Microsoft Excel for calculation,
and Microsoft Powerpoint for graphing.
Measures
With the exception of the formula developed by Boberg and Kully (1994), there have
not been many instruments widely used in daily clinical practice. For this reason, their
formula was used in this experiment to assess stuttering through frequency counts
expressed as a percentage of syllables stuttered:
Total Syllables Stuttered (paused-repeated) x 100 = %SS (Pausing-repetition rate)
Total Syllables Spoken
Because stuttering people pause/repeat more than non-stuttering people and even
within stuttering people, the severity of stuttering is different. We cannot simply compare
their pausing/repetition rates to make any conclusion. So, this is not the data we want to
use for comparing. We will use relative complexity (Rel.Com.)
= Rel.Com.

We calculate each participants personal average pausing-repetition rate.

After each task deducts the average, we divide the result with the average.

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

10

When we pause or repeat more in a certain task, we could say this task is harder, so
the relative complexity will show us how many times harder or easier each task is to the
participants average.
For pausing-repetition calculation, other than regular pausing and syllable
repetition, meaningless wording and sound will be considered a pause as well, you
know~!, eh~! etc.. Also, speaking speed (how many syllables spoken per 10 seconds)
varies tremendously between different individuals, so speed will be recorded and
calculated as extra reference to consider complexity. We will call it the relative
complexity of speaking speed (Rel.Com.S.). It represents how many times faster (easier),
and how many times slower (harder) than the personal average.
= Rel.Com. S.

Procedure
The experiment was run over the course of three weeks, in which experimenters met
with participants from both the experimental and control groups. Upon meeting each of
the participants, the experimenter introduced the purpose of the study and provided them
with a consent form and a questionnaire regarding demographic information. The
experimenters were friendly and welcoming so that each participant would feel
comfortable. The following tasks were asked of the participants: 1) They were asked to
discuss a typical birthday party or a happy birthday memory, which involved spontaneous
speech production, 2) The participant was then asked to repeat three sentences after the
experimenter, which was an example of a repeated speech scenario, 3) three separate
pictures were presented and participants were asked for a description of each, a task that

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

11

looked at aided speech production, 4) each participant was asked to sing the Happy
Birthday song, which allowed the researchers to look at a common and automatic speech
scenario, and finally 5) participants were asked to read a short paragraph about a birthday
party, a task that elicited controlled speech. Participants were not given a time limit so
the total time of the experiment varied; on average the experiment last a total of 30
minutes.
The speeches were all recorded and carefully typed, and then syllables were
calculated using a syllable counter tool found on the following website: WordCalc.com.
The speed of each speech was carefully calculated and recorded.
Results
Our hypothesis,
H0: There are no complexity differences in linguistic processing across
the stuttering group and non-stuttering group.
H1: The complexity differences between five linguistic processing tasks
will vary among stuttering individuals and non-stuttering individuals.
Our result of pausing-repetition rate (%SS) and relative complexity (Rel.Com.) are both
shown in table 1. T-test is shown in table 2: tables of T-test, and figure 1 represents the
average of Rel.Com.
According to table 2, we dont reject H0. There is insufficient evidence among all
five tasks to indicate a difference in the mean assembly the relative complexity among

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

12

stuttering individuals and non-stuttering individuals at the =0.05 level of significance.

We can also see the same result from figure 1:

Task 1 (Spontaneous speech) and Task 3(aided spontaneous speech) both are
relatively harder (pause more) for these two groups.

Task 2(Repeated speech), task 4 (automatic speech), and task 5 (controlled

speech) are relatively easier (less pauses) for these two groups.

Table 3 (Tables of relative complexity of speaking speed) and figure 2 show us:

Task 1 (describing a memory), 3(describing pictures), 4(singing) are relatively

slower (less syllables per 10 seconds) for both groups.

Task 2 (repeating) and 5(reading) are relatively faster (more syllables per 10
seconds) for both groups.

What we found using ANOVA is a main effect of participant type (see "tests of
between subjects effects in the tables at the end of the paper) F(1,6) = 4.173, p = .087.
If you look at the estimated marginal means (refer to table) you'll see that that main
effect is coming from the fact that on average, stutterers have a higher score (M = 11.6,
SD = 3.08) compared to non-stutters (M = 2.7, SD = 3.08). This means that stuttering
people pause and repeat more than non-stuttering people, which is the truth everybody
knows. This is not the purpose of this experiment.
We also found a main effect of time, which is found in the table entitled "tests of
within subjects effects". By selecting the option (LSD none) in SPSS, we can see where
that effect is coming from. It is listed under "Pairwise comparisons" and it shows that
regardless of whether one stutters, scores on task 1 (M = 15.25) are statistically higher

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

13

than scores on task 2 (M = 4.63), task 4 (M = 1.25), and task 5 (M = 3.13). Scores on task
2 (M = 4.63) are a trend to be lower than scores on task 3 (M =11.5). Finally, scores on
task 3 (M = 11.5) are statistically higher than scores on task 4 (M= 1.23) and task 5 (M =
3.13). The same result was found using relative complexity in our T-test. Task 1 and task
3 are relatively harder for both stuttering and non-stuttering people. Task 2, 4, 5 are
relatively easier for both stuttering and non-stuttering people.
The interaction between task type and participant type is found under "tests of
within subjects effects) and it is a trend F(3.06, 18.36) = 2.52, p = .089. If you look at
the graph, the trend seems to be coming from the fact that stutters and non-stutters are
more different on tasks 1 and 3, but more similar on tasks 2, 4 and 5. The same result is
found in T-test for task 1, 2, 3 and 4, but task 5 is found more different in T-test.

Discussion
Going back to the initial hypothesis, our research question hypothesized that the
complexity differences between five linguistic processing tasks will vary among
stuttering and non-stuttering individuals. If the experiment proved that there was non
statistical difference among the tasks across the two groups, then we would fail to reject
the null hypothesis, which was that there are no complexity differences in the linguistic
processing across the stuttering and non-stuttering group. We were hoping to see that
speech processing tasks that required controlled planning such reading or speaking
spontaneously was relatively more complex for stutterers than non-stutterers. However,
what we found through both the T-test of relative complexity and the conducted ANOVA
for percentage of syllables stuttered was that regardless of whether or not the participant

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

14

suffered from dysfluency of speech, the task of spontaneous speech (both aided and
completely spontaneous) is a more complex language task. However, we can support
research suggesting that stuttering is a condition that concerns the prosodic planning of
speech. Interestingly, we did not find the same story in reading scenario (task5). Reading
is considered as controlled speech and should be relatively more difficult for stutterers
according to the information we drawn from various references. Reading, in our
experiment, shows as easy a course as singing (task4) and repeating (task2) in stutterers
and non-stutterers. In figure 3(%SS), the gap between stutterers and non-stutterers is
relatively small in task 5; contrarily, in figure 1 (Rel.Com.), the gap is relatively large in
task 5. We can conclude that although reading is relatively easier for both groups, the
difference is not so significant in stutterers.
Ideally, if this research were to be taken further a bigger sample size should be
obtained and compared. Also, although the percentage of syllables stuttered formula is
among the most common measure for stuttering in clinical practice, it does threaten the
validity and reliability of statistical results, as it can be hard to count the exact number of
pauses/repetitions and stutters. In that case, other ways of measuring stuttering frequency
should be researched or developed to provide more accurate results.
During our experiment, some stutters show low pausing and repetition rates, but
abnormal slow speaking speed. Speed thus was taken to be a way of measuring speaking
difficulty in our experiment. The speaking speed of both stuttering and non-stuttering
groups is stable across different linguistic processing tasks. In table 3 (Tables of relative
complexity of speaking speed), as well as figure 2, we found the same result for task1, 2,
3, and 5. However, a difference in task 4 is found. Task 4 (singing/automatic speech) is

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

15

relatively slower than other tasks for both stutterer and non-stutterers. This does not
mean singing is harder because it takes longer to be completed. Task 4 is slower, not
because it is harder, because there is melody in it. Other than the syllables, participants
need to also finish the melody. It explains why singing significantly diminishes stuttering
in individuals that stutter. Melody slows down ones regular speaking speed and eases
tension, which gives people more time to process the lyrics in a relaxing mood. A
common strategy in stuttering therapy is teaching individual who stutter to relax and take
their time while speaking.

Since our research was not aimed towards the interaction of singing and
stuttering, our research done on this topic was preliminary and so we can only speculate
about of findings and what they mean. What may play a role in the reduction of
stuttering during singing, is that there is no time pressure imposed on the individual
during singing nor is there any communicative pressure. Also, since singing is an
automatic language task and lyrics are usually memorized, typical word retrieval or
searching is not needed. (Healey, Mallard, & Adams, 1976). As we have stated, it may
have to do with the fact that the level of planning required during song is quite minimal;
this may play a crucial role in understanding stuttering. Understanding what reduces
stuttering during singing may eventually help to understand stuttering better and offer
new approaches to treatments.
Because simpler wording is found being used more among stutterers during
spontaneous and aided spontaneous speech, we could say other than stuttering issue,
stutterers might be just not good at talking. Each move from us is the complicated
interaction between different factors, our personality, surrounding, or our physical and

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

16

mental statues. Psychological or mental issues, such as tension or shyness, might trigger
our physical responses, like sweating or shivering. Our physical statuses, such as
tiredness or hunger, might trigger our psychological responses, like anger or depression.
For a shy person, one cannot do without shivering, sweating, or blushing while
socializing. For a stutterer, the individual cannot do without stuttering while speaking in
public. We know that psychologically the stutterer is nervous and tense, and that
physically they have abnormal brain circuitry, neurotransmitter amount etc., but we dont
know which causes which. One of our experimental participants recalled that she was
always stressed out and hence stuttered a lot in front of her critical mother, and that she
didnt stutter at all in front of her dad, who she felt comfortable and at ease with. The
critique upon a child who is not good at searching proper words efficiently during
language developing could cause huge long lasting impact on him/her. The critique upon
a child who is not good at socializing will just do the same.
Some certain genetic disposition might make the person more vulnerable to
certain behavior. The environment also plays an important role of triggering the onset of
that behavior. Overall, people are different. Each individual is unique. If everyone can
accept who they actually are, then they can be at ease and behave naturally most of the
time, which then reduce the unnecessary stuttering or shyness. Hopefully our research
can add to existing stuttering research that has already been done and help understanding
this dysfluency disorder.
Although this was not the aim of our research, our results can also offer support
for the fact that there is a distinction between linguistic competence and linguistic
performance. All the participants who stutter were able to successfully complete each

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

17

language tasks, as was the same for the non-stuttering participants. The actual level of
complexity across tasks did not differ in the two populations. The difference lied in the
way the tasks were performed (i.e., with or without a high pause-repetition rate).

Note
T-test and ANOVA both are the reliable and accurate ways of assisting our
experiment. However, which data to use in each test may make a huge difference on our
result. Since, tests of between subjects effects in ANOVA showed the comparison
between tasks, pausing-repetition rates were used here. It allowed us to look at the tasks
as the independent variable in a within-subject design, where participants were subjected
to all levels (or in our case tasks) of the variable and well as comparing the two groups
which in and of themselves created two levels of another independent variable, and lead
to a between-subject design, where participants were divided into two separate groups
(i.e., stutterers or non-stutterers). T-test can only show the comparison task-by-task, so
relative complexity analyzes the data within each other beforehand. Using both tests
also gave us the subtle difference between pausing-repetition rates and relative
complexity, which would not be shown by one test alone.
The right test to use and proper explanation from the test result are very crucial
for conclusion making. Experimenters should always carefully study the function of each
test, and what it stands for before choosing it.
On a more informal note, stuttering has in fact been stigmatized in a lot of
cultures. One participant has told us that in his country, stuttering has a very negative
connotation and in the olden days victims of stuttering went so far as to seeking spiritual

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

18

guidance. Thankfully, with recent literature and research stuttering is coming to be more
understood and in North America does not seem to have a negative connotation anymore.
In fact, many well-known famous people were diagnosed with stuttering like King
George IV, Marilyn Monroe, Winston Churchill and Bruce Willis to name a few.

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

19

References
Boberg, E., & Kully, D. (1994) Long-Term Results of an Intensive Treatment program
for Adults and Adolescents who stutter. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,
37, 1050-1059.
Bchel, C., & Sommer, M. (2004). What Causes Stuttering?. Plos Biology, 2, 0159-0163.
Doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020046
Healey, C.E., Mallard, A.R., & Adams, M.R. (1976) Factors Contributing to the
Reduction of Stuttering During Singing. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,
19, 475-480.
Isac, D., & Reiss, C. (2008). I-Language: An introduction to linguistics as a cognitive
science. UK: Oxford University Press. 307-312
Kalinowski, J., & Saltuklaroglu, T. Stuttering. Plural Publishing 2007, 37-39. Web. 29
Jan. 2013.
Pamplona, M. M., Ysunza, A. A., & Gonzlez, F. F. (2008). Linguistic Development in
Stuttering Children. Open Otorhinolaryngology Journal, 2,1-6.
Sandak, R., & Fiez, J.A. (2000). Stuttering: A View from Neuroimaging. The Lancet,
356, 445-456. Doi: 10.101650140-6736(00)02547-2.
Bloodstein, Oliver. (2007). Handbook on Stuttering, p.142.
Gordon, N. (2002). Stuttering: incidence and causes. Developmental medicine and
child neurology 44 (4): 27881.
Ward, David (2006). Stuttering and Cluttering: Frameworks for understanding treatment.
Hove and New York City: Psychology Press. ISBN 978-1-84169-334-7, p. 467, p.
58

20

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

Tables and Figures
Table 1. the %SS and Rel.Com. of Exp. And Con.

Experimental Group(Exp.)
Par.1
%SS
Rel.Com.
Task 1
23.77
1.19
Task 2
0.00
-1.00
Task 3
30.43
1.81
Task 4
0.00
-1.00
Task 5
0.00
-1.00
Average
10.84
Par.2
Task 1
Task 2
Task 3
Task 4
Task 5
Average
Control Group

%SS
52.08
22.50
26.53
0.00
14.53
23.13
(Con. )

Par.1
Task1
Task2
Task3
Task4
Task5

%SS
4.05
0.00
2.70
0.00
0.85

Average

1.52

Par. 2
Task1
Task2
Task3
Task4
Task5

%SS
3.42
0.00
4.93
5.26
0.00

Average

2.72

Rel.Com.
1.25
-0.03
0.15
-1.00
-0.37

Par.3
Task 1
Task 2
Task 3
Task 4
Task 5
Average

%SS
6.11
0.00
1.75
4.76
0.00
2.52

Par.4
Task 1
Task 2
Task 3
Task 4
Task 5
Average

%SS
18.94
7.50
12.23
0.00
9.40
9.61

Rel.Com.
1.42
-1.00
-0.31
0.89
-1.00

Rel.Com.
0.97
-0.22
0.27
-1.00
-0.02

(Par.=Participant)
Rel.Com
1.66
-1.00
0.78
-1.00
-0.44

Par.3
Task1
Task2
Task3
Task4
Task5
Average

Rel.Com.
0.26
-1.00
0.81
0.93
-1.00

Par.4
Task1
Task2
Task3
Task4
Task5
Average

%SS
3.60
2.50
6.17
0.00
0.00

Rel.Com.
0.47
0.02
1.51
-1.00
-1.00

2.46
%SS
10.29
2.50
6.54
0.00
0.00
3.86

Rel.Com.
1.66
-0.35
0.69
-1.00
-1.00

21

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

Table2: Tables of T-Test (Using relative complexity)

t/2=t0.025= 2.447
Reject Region = t>2.447
Degrees of freedom =nE+nC-2=6
Task 1
Exp.

Par.1
1.19

Task1

Con.

Par.2

Par.1
1.66

Task1

Par.3

1.25

1.42

Par.2

Par. 3

0.26

0.47

Par.4
0.97

Par.4
1.66

AverageET1

1.21

AverageCT1

1.01

Variance S ET1
2

0.07

Variance S ET1
2

1.42

H0T1 : ET1 =CT1 H1T1 : ET1 CT1

t=

0.32

Task 2
Par.1

Exp.

-1.00

Task2

Par.1

Con.

-1.00

Task2
H0T2 :
ET2 = CT2
t=

Par.2
-0.03

Par.2

Par.3
-1.00

Par.3

-1.00

0.02

Sp2=
0.74
t<2.447, so we dont
reject HoT1

Par.4
-0.22

Par.4
-0.35

AverageET2

-0.56

AverageCT3

-0.58

H1T2 : ET2 CT2

0.03

Sp2=
0.72
t<2.447, so we dont reject HoT2

Variance S ET2
2

0.71

Variance S CT2
2

0.73

22

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

Task 3
Exp.
Task3

Con.
Task3

Par.1
1.81

Par.1
0.78

Par.2
0.15

Par.2
0.81

H0T3: ET3 = CT3

Par.3

Par.4

-0.31

Par.3

0.27

Par.4

1.51

0.69

AverageET3

0.48

AverageCT3

0.95

Variance S ET3
2

2.52

VariancS CT3
2

0.39

H1T3: ET3 CT3

t=

-0.55

Sp2=
1.45
t<2.447, so we dont reject
HoT3

Task 4
Exp.
Task4

Con.
Task4

Par.1
-1.00

Par.1
-1.00

Par.2
-1.00

Par.2
0.93

H0T4: ET4 = CT4

Par.3

Par.4

0.89

Par.3

-1.00

Par.4

-1.00

-1.00

AverageET4

-0.53

AverageCT4

-0.52

Variance S ET4
2

2.53

VarianceS CT4
2

2.64

H1T4: ET4 CT4

t=

-0.01

Sp2=
2.58
t<2.447, so we dont reject
HoT4

Task 5
Exp.
Task5

Con.
Task5

Par.1
-1.00

Par.1
-0.44

Par.2
-0.37

Par.2
-1.00

Par.3
-1.00

Par.3
-1.00

H0T5:
ET5 =CT5 H1T5: ET5 CT5

Par.4

AverageET5

-0.02

-0.60

Par.4

AverageCT5

-1.00

-0.86

Variance S ET5
2

0.49

VarianceS CT5
2

0.22

23

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

0.62 Sp2=
0.35
t<2.447, so we dont reject HoT5

t=

Figure1 Rel.Com. of Exp. And Con.

Table 3: Tables of relative complexity of speaking speed

Experiment Group:
Par.1

Task1
0.10

Task2
0.30

Task3
-0.35

Task4
-0.46

Par.2

-0.26

-0.22

0.28

-0.11

0.30

Par.3
Participant4

-0.11
0.00
-0.07

0.10
0.10
0.07

-0.14
-0.11
-0.08

0.10
-0.14
-0.15

0.06
0.16
0.23

Average

Task5
0.41

24

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

Control Group

Par.1
Par.2
Par.3
Par.4
Average

Task1
-0.12

Task2
0.12

Task3
0.04

Task4
-0.32

Task5
0.27

-0.06

0.28

-0.17

-0.39

0.34

0.04
-0.18
-0.08

0.37
0.35
0.28

-0.23
-0.08
-0.11

-0.46
-0.33
-0.38

0.29
0.23
0.28

Figure2: Rel.Com.S. of Exp and Con.

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

Table 4: Tables of ANOVA Test (Using % pausing repetition rate)
Within-Subjects
Factors
Measure: MEASURE_1
Tasks

Dependent
Variable

Task1

Task2

Task3

Task4

Task5

Between-Subjects Factors
Value Label

.00

Non-stutterers

1.00

Stutterers

Participants

Descriptive Statistics
Participants
Non-stutterers
Task1

Task2

Task3

Task4

Std. Deviation

5.2500

3.20156

Stutterers

25.2500

19.37997

Total

15.2500

16.72253

Non-stutterers

1.5000

1.73205

Stutterers

7.7500

10.84358

Total

4.6250

7.92712

Non-stutterers

5.2500

1.70783

Stutterers

17.7500

13.12440

Total

11.5000

10.94140

Non-stutterers

1.2500

2.50000

Stutterers

1.2500

2.50000

Total

1.2500

2.31455

.2500

.50000

Stutterers

6.0000

7.34847

Total

3.1250

5.71808

Non-stutterers
Task5

Mean

25

26

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Source

Type III Sum of

df

Mean Square

Sig.

Squares
Sphericity Assumed

1135.350

283.838

6.159

.001

Greenhouse-Geisser

1135.350

1.841

616.694

6.159

.017

Huynh-Feldt

1135.350

3.060

370.979

6.159

.004

Lower-bound

1135.350

1.000

1135.350

6.159

.048

Sphericity Assumed

464.650

116.163

2.521

.068

Greenhouse-Geisser

464.650

1.841

252.386

2.521

.128

Huynh-Feldt

464.650

3.060

151.826

2.521

.089

Lower-bound

464.650

1.000

464.650

2.521

.163

Sphericity Assumed

1106.000

24

46.083

Greenhouse-Geisser

1106.000

11.046

100.125

Huynh-Feldt

1106.000

18.363

60.231

Lower-bound

1106.000

6.000

184.333

Tasks

Tasks * Participants

Error(Tasks)

Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts

Measure: MEASURE_1
Source

Tasks

Type III Sum of

df

Mean Square

Sig.

Squares
Linear

610.512

610.512

7.773

.032

Quadratic

35.437

35.437

1.057

.344

Cubic

23.113

23.113

1.524

.263

Order 4

466.287

466.287

8.167

.029

Linear

241.513

241.513

3.075

.130

58.580

58.580

1.747

.234

.613

.613

.040

.847

Order 4

163.945

163.945

2.872

.141

Linear

471.275

78.546

Quadratic

201.196

33.533

90.975

15.163

342.554

57.092

Tasks

Tasks * Participants

Quadratic
Cubic

Error(Tasks)
Cubic
Order 4

27

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed Variable: Average
Source

Type III Sum of

df

Mean Square

Sig.

Squares
Intercept

2044.900

2044.900

10.772

.017

792.100

792.100

4.173

.087

1139.000

189.833

Participants
Error

Estimates
Measure: MEASURE_1
Participants

Mean

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Non-stutterers
Stutterers

Upper Bound

2.700

3.081

-4.839

10.239

11.600

3.081

4.061

19.139

Pairwise Comparisons
Measure: MEASURE_1
(I) Participants

(J) Participants

Mean Difference

Std. Error

Sig.

(I-J)

95% Confidence Interval for

Difference
Lower Bound

Non-stutterers

Stutterers

Stutterers

Non-stutterers

Upper Bound

-8.900

4.357

.087

-19.561

1.761

8.900

4.357

.087

-1.761

19.561

Based on estimated marginal means

a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments).

28

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

Pairwise Comparisons
Measure: MEASURE_1
(I) Tasks

(J) Tasks

Mean

Std. Error

Sig.

Difference (I-J)

95% Confidence Interval for

Difference
Lower Bound

10.625

2.768

.009

3.852

17.398

3.750

3.288

.298

-4.296

11.796

14.000

5.420

.042

.738

27.262

12.125

3.631

.016

3.241

21.009

-10.625

2.768

.009

-17.398

-3.852

-6.875

3.350

.086

-15.073

1.323

3.375

3.201

.332

-4.457

11.207

1.500

1.168

.246

-1.358

4.358

-3.750

3.288

.298

-11.796

4.296

6.875

3.350

.086

-1.323

15.073

3.881

.038

.753

19.747

3.287

.044

.331

16.419

-14.000

5.420

.042

-27.262

-.738

-3.375

3.201

.332

-11.207

4.457

-10.250

3.881

.038

-19.747

-.753

-1.875

2.340

.453

-7.600

3.850

-12.125

3.631

.016

-21.009

-3.241

-1.500

1.168

.246

-4.358

1.358

-8.375

3.287

.044

-16.419

-.331

1.875

2.340

.453

-3.850

7.600

Upper Bound

10.250

8.375

Based on estimated marginal means

*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments).

29

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

Multivariate Tests
Value
Pillais trace

.804

Wilks lambda

.196

Hotellings trace

4.112

Roys largest root

4.112

Hypothesis df

Error df

Sig.

3.084

4.000

3.000

.191

3.084

4.000

3.000

.191

3.084

4.000

3.000

.191

3.084

4.000

3.000

.191

Each F tests the multivariate effect of Tasks. These tests are based on the linearly
independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means.
a. Exact statistic

3. Participants * Tasks
Measure: MEASURE_1
Participants

Tasks

Mean

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Non-stutterers

Stutterers

Upper Bound

5.250

6.945

-11.743

22.243

1.500

3.882

-8.000

11.000

5.250

4.679

-6.200

16.700

1.250

1.250

-1.809

4.309

.250

2.604

-6.122

6.622

25.250

6.945

8.257

42.243

7.750

3.882

-1.750

17.250

17.750

4.679

6.300

29.200

1.250

1.250

-1.809

4.309

6.000

2.604

-.372

12.372

Running head: LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY IN STUTTERING

Figure 3. The Average of %SS

30