International Journal of Management and Applied Science, ISSN: 2394-7926 Volume-3, Issue-5, May-2017 http://iraj.in STUTTERING ON CONTENT AND FUNCTION WORDS IN PUNJABI-URDU SPEAKERS

1MAHMOOD AHMAD AZHAR 2GHULAM HASNAIN

Email: [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract: Typologically, Punjabi and Urdu belong to the Indo-European languages. These languages are mostly spoken in the Subcontinent region located in South Asia. It is evident from past studies that the type and severity of stuttering is yet to be determined in Punjabi-Urdu bilinguals. In this study, the authors investigated the stuttering pattern focusing on the content and function words in the two languages to see if the bilinguals exhibit the identical pattern in both languages or not. Three Punjabi-Urdu bilinguals who stutter with ages ranging from 28 to 37 were selected for the study. All were affected with developmental stuttering as the case history form shows. The spontaneous speech samples of duration 15 minutes were gathered in L1 (Punjabi) and L2 (Urdu). The first 300 words were extracted from the samples for further analysis. The severity and types of stuttering were analysed following Keheo (2006) and Ambrose (2006). The participants stuttered more on content words in more dominant language (Punjabi) as well as in less dominant language (Urdu), whereas they stuttered less on function words in both Punjabi and Urdu. Further the stuttering severity was observed more in less dominant language (Urdu). The findings agree to those past studies that report adults exhibit more stutter like disfluencies (SLDs) on content words than on function words.

Keywords: Bilingual, Stuttering, Content And Function Words

I. INTRODUCTION words, as a group, are considered closed in the sense that they are unlikely to increase or decrease with the The differential stuttering on content and function passage of time (Quirk, 1977). words has drawn attention of the researchers to The age related difference in stuttering on content and unearth possible reason(s) behind. Au-Yeung et al. ( function words has drawn attention of a number of 1998), Brown (1945), Dayalu et al.( 2002), and researchers. Au Yeung et al. (1998) theorise that Howell et al. (1999) have established that the adults children exhibit stutter like disfluencies (SLDs) on commonly stutter more on content words which function words because of unavailability of the speech include noun, main verbs, modifiers (adjectives) and plan of content words. It follows that yntactic adverbs, compared to function words. Content words around function words serve as a delaying tactic when contribute to the formation of semantic component of the phonetic plan of the following more difficult word an utterance and are considered as open word class is not yet complete. In order to support his theory, Au because new words enter this group and old words get Yeung et al. (1998) analysed stuttering in obsolete with the passage of time (Quirk, 1977). phonological word (PW) defined as “consisting of a Further the content words being multisyllabic are single content word as its nucleus and any number of more complex compared to function words. They function words that serve as prefixes or suffixes to the carry primary stress, have Late Emerging content word” (Howell et al., 1999: p. 346). Their Consonants 1 (LEC) as the initial sounds and have findings proved that stuttering was more likely to LEC strings (Dayalu et al., 2002; Howell et al., 1999). occur on function word preceding content word within On the other hand children, very intriguingly, stutter a PW unit than on function words following a content more on function words (Bernstein Ratner, 1997; word in a PW unit. These results support the theory Bloodstein & Grossman, 1981; Graham et al., 2004; that disfluencies around function words are meant for Howell, 2007) which are considered as highly yntactic allowing more time to plan the subsequent content and more frequently occurred words (Dworzynski et word. al., 2003). As opposed to content words, function words determine the grammatical structure of an Howell et al. (1999), too, explained this phenomenon utterance. Semantically, they more or less do not have in a similar way. They established that stuttering on meaning and structurally they have simpler forms. function words is used to prevent stuttering on the They entail articles, pronoun, auxiliaries, prepositions following content word within a PW. In order to and deictics (e.g., over there, up there, right there substantiate this theory they investigated the shift of etc.). Function stuttering from function to content words as the PWS grows from child to adult. It was suggested that as disfluencies around function words decrease with age 1 According to Sander (1972), as cited by Dworzynski & Howell more disfluencies should occur on the subsequent (2004), nine consonants are acquired late in development by the content word within a PW. The outcomes of the study children and are termed as late emerging consonants (LEC)

Stuttering on Content and Function Words in Punjabi-Urdu Speakers

61 International Journal of Management and Applied Science, ISSN: 2394-7926 Volume-3, Issue-5, May-2017 http://iraj.in favoured this theory and further explained the less likely to stutter on function words as their stuttering pattern for adults. That is the adults cease to syntactic system develops and certain sentence use the delaying tactic previously reported for children constituents can be assembled more rapidly. Bernstein (Au Yeung et al., 1998) and instead attempt the Ratner (1997) argues that function words make part of content word within a PW directly i.e., before the the syntactic plan and should not be analysed on phonetic plan of that word is ready. As a result, morphological level. Further, she refers to Kutas and stuttering occurs on the first part of the content word Van Patten (1994) who suggest that content and for which the phonetic plan is complete and stuttering function words may be processed by different regions will last until the phonetic plan for the rest of the word of the cerebral cortex even in children. is available. The findings of the studies conducted by Au Yeung et al. (1998) and Howell et al. (1999) have The relationship between syntactic complexity and further been supported by what Au-Yeung et al. stuttering has been reported by Bernstein Ratner & (2003) and Dworzynski et al. (2004) reported after Benitez (1985), Jankelowitz & Bortz (1996), and investigating stuttering in Spanish and German Gonzalez et al., (2004). Further it has been suggested speaking PWS. These theories were summarized and that syntax involves more in precipitation of stuttering merged into the Execution and Planning (EXPLAN) than phonology. Bernstein Ratner & Benitez (1985), Theory of Fluency Control (Howell & Dworzynski, after examining a simultaneous English-Spanish 2005; Howell, 2002; Howell & Akande, 2005; Howell bilingual PWS, concluded that syntactic component of & Au-Yeung, 2002). a language is more instrumental in producing stuttering compared to its phonological system. Dayalu et al. (2002) shared different view about Juxtaposing the phonological system of English with differing stuttering pattern in respect of content and that of Spanish, it has been observed that 71% of verbs function words in children and adults. Explaining the in Spanish begin with a vowel sound as compared to findings of their study, they argued that the age related only 6% of English verbs. In both English and Spanish shift from function to content words is due to stuttering occurred more frequently on verbs. If this adaptation effect2. This theory is based on the findings result is compared with that of Brown (1945) who that irrespective of the word type, the words used more suggested that words beginning with consonants have frequently exhibit less stuttering. On the other hand greater chance to be stuttered on than those words stuttering occurs more on less frequently used words. having vowels in the initial position, it can be argued Assuming that the function words are frequent, less in that stuttering is largely influenced by syntax rather number and repeatedly used in typical conversation, than phonological component. Bernstein Ratner & the authors suggested that the repeated usage of this Benitez (1985) suggested that occurrence of SLDs is closed set of words in typical conversation could cause higher on verbs and on syntactical boundaries like an adaptation effect. Children therefore stutter more verb phrases in a sentence. on function words as they have not had the same amount of practice compared to adults. The authors The studies that examine stuttering particularly term this adaptation effect as “generalized” adaptation focusing on content and function words have largely that occurs in conversation so that it may be been conducted on PWS who speak English. However, differentiated from transitory adaptation effect that the research investigating this phenomenon in persons occurs when a passage is repeatedly read without who speak a language other than English is scanty. pausing between the readings. Yet research examining this phenomenon on non-English speaking PWS is scanty (Schäfer, 2008). Relationship between the morpho-syntactic To date studies conducted by Dworzynski et al. complexity of an utterance and the age related shift (2003), Dworzynski et al. (2004), Dworzynski and from disfluencies on function and content words or Howell (2004a, 2004b), Nakte et al. (2004), and specific sentence constituents has been suggested by Rommel et al. (2004) reported the same pattern for Bernstein (1981), Rispoli (2001), and Rispoli (2003). German adults and children. Similar results have been This suggestion bases on the argument that the reported for Portuguese speaking PWS (Juste & de yntactic system of a language develops as the child Andrade, 2004; Andrade & Juste, 2006) and Spanish grows. The competence to combine the constituents of speaking PWS (Au-Yeung et al., 2003; Howell et al., a sentence, hence, differs in children and adults 2004). However, Spanish speakers have been reported resulting into differential stuttering pattern for content to exhibit stuttering more on function words across all and function words in children and adults age groups (Howell et al., 2004). This contrasts with experiencing stuttering. As a result the children are previous findings for English and German speaking PWS (Au-Yeung et al., 1998; Dayalu et al., 2002;

2 Adaptation, in the words of Nicolosi, Harryman and Krescheck Dworzynski et al., 2003; Dworzynski et al., 2004; (1989), “is the tendency for stuttering to decrease with repeated reading or speaking of the same sounds or words”(p. 251).

Stuttering on Content and Function Words in Punjabi-Urdu Speakers

62 International Journal of Management and Applied Science, ISSN: 2394-7926 Volume-3, Issue-5, May-2017 http://iraj.in Dworzynski & Howell, 2004a, 2004b; Howell et al., 1999; Nakte et al., 2004). II. LINGUISTIC SYSTEMS OF PUNJABI AND URDU

Geographically, Punjabi and Urdu belong to the Subcontinent region comprising Pakistan and India. Urdu, being national language, has got high prestige in Pakistan and is deeply rooted as compulsory subject in the curriculum of the educational institutions. Figure 2: vowels in Punjabi (Karamat, 2002) Punjabi, like other languages of the world, has got different dialects. ‘Majhi’ is considered as standard III. METHOD dialect; it is spoken in the region generally known as ‘Majhay Da Ilaka’, which comprises Gurdaspur, A. Participants Amritsar, Firozpur (parts of India), Lahore, Three individuals who stutter speaking Punjabi as L1 Gujranwala, Sialkot and Gujarat (areas located in and Urdu as L2 were selected for this study. As to age, Pakistan) (Malik,1989). they range from 28 to 37 (mean age 30, SD= 4.2). Two The experts have dichotomized the dialects of Punjabi of the participants were recorded at home. One into Eastern and Western dialects. The Eastern participant was recorded in office situated in Toba Tek dialects are prevalent in India that are: Bhatiani, Singh. The setting for data collection i.e., office and Pawadhi, Rathi, Malvi and Doabi. On the other hand, home was not controlled. However, the level of noise the Western dialects include all the dialects spoken in in each setting was kept as low as possible to ensure Pakistan that are: Pothohari, Dhani, Chachi, Shah clarity of video recordings. The participants were Puri, Riasti, Multani and Janglo/Jangli (Malik, 1989). traced out by means of self help organizations as well The participants under observation speak either of the as through personal contacts. All the participants two dialects, Janglo/Jangli and Majhi. reported not to be exposed to speech therapy up till Janglo dialect is prevalent in the region commonly now. known as Ganji Bar and Neeli Bar that include Toba All the participants reported L2 exposure since they Tek Singh, Sahiwal and Pakpatan. The region was joined school (at mean age 5.7 years). Further, the covered with thick forest so the dialect drew its name participants were judged for selection to participate in accordingly. this study following criteria devised by Bloodstein, As to vowels in Urdu and Punjabi, they are identical to (1995), Nicolosi et al. (2004), Natke, (2000), and large extent because of the influence of Persian and Yairi (1997) i.e., more than 3 per cent out of 100 Arabic on both languages. Seventeen vowel sounds syllables are stuttered; the disfluencies being have been reported in the phonological system of experienced are involuntary; sound syllable and word Urdu. Out of them eight are long, three are short and repetitions with more than two iterations take place; six are nasal vowels (figure 1). According to (Khan, prolongation of sound longer than 1 second occurs; 1997) nasal vowels mostly come in the middle and broken words occur; a fixed posture is observable; an final position within a word. The nasalization of vowel increase of pitch or volume occurs; a word is spoken depends on the presence of nasal consonants /m/ and with excessive visible and audible tension; and /n/ because a vowel gets nasalized when it comes adjacent visible movements take place. before and after the nasal consonants. Punjabi has got ten vowels. They are categorised into short /ɪ, ʊ, ə/ and B-Data Collection long vowels /i, e, ε, u, o, ɔ, a/. According to Campbell The stuttering case history form taken from Guitar (1995), every vowel in Punjabi possesses a nasal (1998) and a questionnaire comprising open-ended allophone. A vowel gets nasalized when it precede or and closed questions was used to assess stuttering and follows /m/ and /n/, the nasal consonants (Gill & bilingualism. The case history form was modified by Gleason, 1962), for example, /kə͂ n/ ‘nose’ and /ha͂ / inserting Urdu translation of the contents to avoid the ‘yes issue of unintelligibility. The questionnaire incorporates questions that would elicit information regarding the level of proficiency the participants have in the two languages. Further, it has also got questions to determine the type of bilinguals they are that is balanced and simultaneous etc. The level of proficiency in the languages the participants are familiar with was gauged by cloze

Figure 1: vowels in Urdu (Raza et al., 2009) technique devised by Taylor (1953), cited by Oller

Stuttering on Content and Function Words in Punjabi-Urdu Speakers

63 International Journal of Management and Applied Science, ISSN: 2394-7926 Volume-3, Issue-5, May-2017 http://iraj.in (1979). Cloze tests in Punjabi and Urdu (one in each participant’s conversational language sample was language) were designed following Laesch and Kleeck replayed by the researchers as many times as required (1986). For Urdu, the passage was selected from the to orthographically transcribe the sample. The text included in the curriculum of the state owned researchers are bilingual Punjabi-Urdu speaker with educational institutes. So he was not unfamiliar to more than 30 years of exposure to Urdu. Based on L1 these extracts as he himself was schooled in and L2 transcriptions the number of stutter like government institutes. As to Punjabi, little literature is disfluencies (SLDs) was determined. SLDs were available in the dialect that makes L1 of the subject; defined as those containing part word repetitions, the researchers, therefore, constructed the passage prolongations, blocks and/or single syllable word themselves. In order to provide contextual clues, the repetitions (Ambrose, 2006). first sentence in the beginning and two sentences at the end of the passages were left unchanged. Fifty After calculating an overall percentage of stuttering omissions were made in each passage by deleting out for each participant, the researcher performed a every fifth word in the paragraphs. The subject was combined qualitative and quantitative estimate of required to fill in the omitted words that were stuttering severity (Lewis & Sherman, 1951) for each contextually appropriate. respondent. Severity ratings were calculated by using Conversational speech samples of 15- minute duration the scaling procedures of Onslow et al., (2003). were collected in Punjabi (L1) and Urdu (L2) spoken Accordingly a score ranging from 1 (no stuttering) to by the participants. The researchers acted as discourse 10 (extremely severe stuttering) was assigned to each partner. The topics opted for conversations include participant’ speech samples in L1 and L2 respectively. hobbies, education, favourite TV dramas, business, trips and job. Each of the participant was free to decide The stuttering moments involving content and what language he wants to converse in first. The function words in Punjabi and Urdu was analysed. The participants were encouraged to avoid code-switching definitions used to describe content and function and code-mixing during conversation. All the samples words in English language were employed for Punjabi were video recorded by Google Nexus 7 (tablet). and Urdu languages. Function words encompass The data was transcribed verbatim in their respective articles (e.g., the, a, an), pronouns (e.g., his, she, I, it, languages. First the loci of stuttering moments were you, me, these), verbal auxiliaries (e.g., have been + highlighted keeping in view the Core Stuttering verb, am + verb), modals (e.g., can, may, will, shall, Behaviours and the Secondary Stuttering Behaviours must), deictics (e.g., over there, up there, down there, as described by Kehoe (2006). Stutter like dysfluencies right here), expletives (e.g., there are, it is), particles (SLDs) were separated from ordinary dysfluencies (e.g., however, if, thus, well, then, no), interjections (ODs) following Ambrose (2006) and Yairi and (e.g., hm, ah, mm), pro-sentences (e.g., yes, okay), Ambrose (1999). conjunctions (e.g., but, and, for, or, so, yet, although, because, while), and prepositions (e.g., under, next, Table 1: General characteristics of participants (M) and (F) on, against, like). Content words contained nouns refer to the distinction of sex (male and female); L3/L4 to additional languages known to the participants; Results are (e.g., mouse, car, Thomas), main verbs (e.g., eat), based on the post-conversation questionnaire. The mean and adjectives (e.g., beautiful, cold, tall), and adverbs standard deviation (SD) are provided. (e.g., here, today, tomorrow, later).

Owing to linguistic differences between English and Urdu and Punjabi, certain rules needed to be devised in order to categorise a stuttering moment according to word type. That is verbs in Punjabi and Urdu have suffixes e.g., the parallel expressions of ‘he slept’ in Punjabi and Urdu are: ‘o siay(n) gya’. And ‘wo so gia’ respectively. Here the underlined words are attached with the stem word ‘siay(n)’ and ‘so’. Stuttering on such type of words was taken as stuttering on verbs. To estimate language proficiency in L1 and L2 the cloze technique was administered. For each of the 50 blanks contained in the cloze test, for correct answer IV. DATA ANALYSIS one point was awarded. Following Oller (1972) and Kobayashi (2002), it was suggested that exact word The first 300 words were taken from the speech guessing does not essentially show a language skill samples of each participant to determine stuttering therefore a word contextually appropriate was severity in each language. The recording of each considered correct. Accordingly spelling mistakes

Stuttering on Content and Function Words in Punjabi-Urdu Speakers

64 International Journal of Management and Applied Science, ISSN: 2394-7926 Volume-3, Issue-5, May-2017 http://iraj.in were not taken into account. The percentage of Mean 31.3/300 10.4 53.3/300 proficiency in the two languages was gauged by 17.8 calculating the percentage of correct answers in the cloze test. SD 3.1 3.9 The information elicited by the questionnaire provides assistance to estimate proficiency of the participants. Specifically the questions that require the participant to report language use, language exposure and language proficiency provide appropriate clues to gauge proficiency.

V. RESULTS

Measurement of stuttering severity Out of the speech sample of 300 words, the total number of words the participants exhibited SLDs on was sifted out in each language. In Punjabi (L1), the percentages of stuttered words ranged from 7% to 14% TABLE 3: The rating of stuttering severity with overall mean of 10% and standard deviation is assigned by the researchers for each participant in 3.1 for the whole group. In Urdu (L2) , percentages of Punjabi (L1) and Urdu (L2).with mean and words stuttered ranged from 13% to 23% and the standard deviation (SD) for the whole group is overall average and standard deviation are 18%, 3.9 given. respectively for the group. In order to determine Participant Severity Rating in Severity Rating whether the overall mean of stuttering differed In between Punjabi and Urdu, a paired t-test was Punjabi (L1) Urdu (L2) performed. The test was significant [t (1, 14) = 2.72, p = .017], showing that more stuttering occurred in L2. 1 7 9 2 6 8 Determining Severity rating 3 5 7 In Table 3, the severity of stuttering of each Mean 6 8 participant determined by the researchers in both SD 0.8 languages is given. In L1 It ranged from 2 to 9 with 0.8 average 5.5 and SD 2.1 for the group. The severity Stuttering pattern regarding content and function ratings in L2 ranged from 2 to 9 with average 6 and words SD 2.6.for the whole group. A paired t-test was The content and function words were sifted out of the administered In order to find whether stuttering words stuttered for each participant in both Punjabi severity differed between L1 and L2 . The t-test was and Urdu languages and are shown in Table 4. As not significant. regards content words the percentage of stuttering ranged from 70% to 88% with average of 77% and the TABLE 2: The total words the participants standard deviation is 8.4 for the group. On the other stuttered on in each language are given. hand the percentage of stuttering on function words Further the mean and standard deviation of all varies from 12% to 29%. The average is 24% whereas the three bilinguals who stutter in Punjabi (L1) the standard deviation is 8.4 for the group. In order to and Urdu (L2) are provided. find difference of stuttering between content and function words in Punjabi (L1), a paired t-test was Participants Words Stuttered (WS) Words administered. The t-test was significant [t (1,14) = Stuttered (WS) in Punjabi in Urdu # of WS/Total -2.27, p = .04], indicating that stuttering level is Words %age WS # of WS/Total Words %age higher on content words than on function words in WS Punjabi ( L1). In case of Urdu (L2), the percentages of content and 1 43/300 14.3 68/300 function words on which the participants were 22.7 observed to stutter are displayed in Table 5. For 2 20/300 6.7 40/300 content words percentage of stuttering ranged from 13.3 62% to 79% with mean 76% and standard deviation 3 31/300 10.3 52/300 10.9 for the group. Stuttering on function words varied 17.3 from 13% to 39% with average 24% and standard deviation 10.9 for the group. Again the paired t-test

Stuttering on Content and Function Words in Punjabi-Urdu Speakers

65 International Journal of Management and Applied Science, ISSN: 2394-7926 Volume-3, Issue-5, May-2017 http://iraj.in was employed to know the difference of stuttering on content and function words in Urdu (L2). The test was L2 Function Words Stuttered L2 Content Words not significant. Stuttered Participants # F Words/Total # WS In order to investigate the difference of stuttering % # C Words/Total WS % WS exhibited on content and function words by the respondents in Punjabi and Urdu, a series of t-tests 1 14/68 20.6 54/68 were performed. For the sake of multiple t-test 79.4 comparisons, the alpha level was adjusted employing 2 5/40 12.5 35/40 the Bonferroni procedure (.05/2 comparisons = p < 87.5 .025). The t-test assessing the percentage of content 3 20/52 38.5 32/52 words stuttered in Punjabi and Urdu was not 61.5 significant, revealing there was no difference of Mean 23.9 76.1 stuttering on content words in Punjabi and Urdu. A SD 10.9 10.9 similar t-test was administered to assess the difference of stuttering on function words in Punjabi and Urdu. The test was not significant [t (1, 14) = 2.53, p = .024], showing that the stuttering on function words in Punjabi and Urdu largely resembles. A display of the overall percentages of stuttering on content and function words in Punjabi and Urdu is provided in Figure 6. TABLE 4: The number (#) and percentage of words stuttered (%WS) according to function and content word status in each participant’s first language (L1). The results are based on the total number of words stuttered within a 300-word conversational speech sample. The overall mean and standard deviation is provided.

L1 Function Words Stuttered L1 Content Words Stuttered TABLE 6: Comparison of content and function Participants # F Words/ %WS # C words stuttered in Punjabi and Urdu Words/ % WS Language percentage of function percentage of Total # WS Total WS content words stuttered words stuttered

1 5/43 11.6 38/43 88.4 Punjabi 23.5 76.5 2 6/20 30.0 14/20 70.0 Urdu 23.9 76.1 3 9/31 29.0 22/31 71.0 Mean 23.5 76.5 SD 8.4 8.4

TABLE 5: The number (#) and percentage of words stuttered (%WS) according to function and content word status in each participant’s second language (L2). The results are based on the total number of words stuttered within a 300-word conversational speech sample. The overall mean and standard deviation is provided.

Stuttering on Content and Function Words in Punjabi-Urdu Speakers

66 International Journal of Management and Applied Science, ISSN: 2394-7926 Volume-3, Issue-5, May-2017 http://iraj.in VI. DISCUSSION close set of highly frequent and highly practiced words. In contrast, children do not have the same The present study intends to investigate the stuttering amount of practice as adults, which is why they stutter pattern in Punjabi- Urdu bilingual stutterers regarding more on function words. content and function words. Stuttering was observed Bernstein Ratner (1981), Rispoli and Hadley (2001) to be higher on content words than function words in and Rispoli (2003) have suggested that an both Punjabi (more dominant) and Urdu (less incompletely developed syntactic system in children dominant). Comparing stuttering on content words triggers stuttering on function words. Children, with function words in Punjabi and Urdu, it was therefore, cannot assemble certain sentence observed that no significant differences exist as the components at the same speed that adults do. statistical results indicate. The participants exhibit Accordingly, with experience and practice, children stuttering almost equally on content words in Punjabi show less stuttering on function words as the syntactic and Urdu. Same is the case with function words in system develops with the passage of time. both languages. Howell et al. (2004) for the first time examined Past studies, quite intriguingly, reveal that stuttering manifestations of stuttering focusing on content and occurs more on function words in children who stutter function words in a young bilingual PWS who spoke whereas the adults exhibit greater level of stuttering Spanish (more dominant language) and English (less on content words (Au-Yeung et al., 1998; Bernstein dominant language). The study revealed that more Ratner, 1997; Bloodstein & Grossman, 1981; Brown, stuttering was observed on content words in the more 1945; Dayalu et al., 2002; Dworzynski et al., 2003; proficient language (Spanish) and more stuttering was Dworzynski & Howell, 2004a, 2004b; Dworzynski et noted on function words in English, he is less al., 2004; Graham et al., 2004; Howell, 2007; Howell proficient in. Howell et al. suggested that the young et al., 1999; Nakte et al., 2004). Howell et al. (2004) PWS exhibited a typical stuttering pattern in the more have interpreted this phenomenon in the the light of proficient language (i.e., more stuttering occurring on EXPLAN Theory of Fluency Control (Howell & content words), whereas the opposite pattern was Dworzynski, 2005; Howell, 2002; Howell & Akande, found for the less proficient language (i.e., more 2005; Howell & Au-Yeung, 2002). According to this stuttering occurring on function words). This opposite theory, content words are considered to be more pattern of stuttering in English (the less proficient phonetically complex than function words, and language) was judged to reflect a more immature therefore, the speech planning for the ultimate pattern of stuttering in L2. production of content words takes longer time than Schäfer (2008) conducted study to investigate function words. Despite the fact that content words are occurrence of stuttering on content and function words phonetically more complex than function words the in bilinguals who spoke German and English. 15 children experience higher stuttering on function individuals who spoke German as L1 and English as words than on content words. Stuttering on function L2 were examined for this study. He observed that the words then reflects a coping strategy used by children bilinguals showed higher stuttering on content words to delay the production of more difficult (content) than function words in German (L1). The opposite words until the phonetic plan is ready. In other words, pattern was observed in English (L2). These findings the children stutter on function words to avoid agree to those of Howell et al, (2004). However, the stuttering on the following content word. However, results of this study have also revealed higher there is an age-related shift in this pattern of frequency of stuttering on function words in L2 stuttering. As children get older (i.e., beyond 8-years regardless of age. It lends support to the assumption of age), the SLDs on function words decrease and the that occurrence of stuttering on content and function disfluencies on the subsequent content word increase. words is closely linked with overall language abilities Therefore, the original coping strategy is abandoned of the bilingual stutterers (Au Yeung et al., 2003; as older children (and adults) directly attempt the Bernstein, 1981). content word resulting into occurrence of stuttering on The results of the current study seem to disagree with initial part of a content word until the phonetic plan those of Howell et al. (2004) and Schäfer (2008) as the for the remaining portion of the word is available. participants exhibit the same stuttering pattern in Dayalu et al. (2002) considered the adaptation effect to Punjabi (more proficient language) and Urdu (less be a possible explanation of the age-related change in proficient language). It ,therefore, may be argued that stuttering on function and content words in language proficiency does not seem to be responsible monolingual persons who stutter. They found that for precipitation of stuttering regarding content and regardless of word type, more frequently used words function words as Au Yeung et al. (2003) and were stuttered less than less frequently used words. Bernstein (1981) suggest. Thus, the assumption was made that adults stutter less The results tend to concur with the adaptation theory on function words because these words represent a proposed by Dayalu et al. (2002). As a whole, the

Stuttering on Content and Function Words in Punjabi-Urdu Speakers

67 International Journal of Management and Applied Science, ISSN: 2394-7926 Volume-3, Issue-5, May-2017 http://iraj.in participants in this study use Urdu (L2) less often than Nijmegen: Nijmegen University Press. Retrieved 30 January 2007, from, Punjabi (L1) i.e., they have less practice of producing 16. |http://www.speech.psychol.ucl.ac.uk/PAPERS/PDF/ifa03ger L2 compared to L1. Therefore, one could argue that man.pdf|. the lower level of stuttering observed in L1 than in L2 17. Dworzynski, K., Howell, P., & Natke, U. (2003). Predicting was indicative of a practice (adaptation) effect on their stuttering from linguistic factors 18. for German speakers in two age groups. Journal of Fluency overall speaking behaviour. Furthermore, Segalowitz Disorders, 28, 95-113. and Lange (2000) researched differences in lexical 19. Dworzynski, K., & Howell, P. (2004b). Predicting stuttering access rates according to content and function words. from phonetic complexity in 20. German. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 29, 149-173. Findings suggested that lexical access for function 21. Graham, C., Conture, E., & Camarata, S. (2004). Childhood words was only faster compared to lower frequency stuttering on function words. Paper presented at the American content words. Due to less experience speaking L2, Speech-Language-Hearing Association Annual Convention, Philadelphia, PA. L2-words are generally lower frequency words 22. Gonzalez, B., Austin, L., Watson, J., Yarbrough, L., Glover, compared to L1-words; thus, slower phonological G., Totten, G., Castor, D., process (word retrieval) in L2 might make adaptation 23. Garcia, C., & Belgodere, M. (2004). Texas Speech-Language-Hearing-Association more difficult, causing more stuttering in L2. 24. (TSHA) Task Force on Culturally and Linguistically Diversity As far as the severity of stuttering is concerned, it was (CLD) Issues: found that the respondents exhibited more stuttering 25. Linguistically diverse populations: Considerations and in less dominant language that is Urdu. The severity of resources for assessment and 26. intervention. Retrieved 4 February 2008, from, stuttering was primarily determined by the percentage 27. |http://www.txsha.org/Diversity_Issues/cld_document.asp|. of words stuttered in L1 and L2. Based on these 28. Howell, P. (2007). Signs of developmental stuttering up to age measures stuttering was found to be significantly more eight and at 12 plus. Clinical 29. Psychology Review, 27, 287-306. severe in Urdu compared to Punjabi. The result 30. 4th World Congress on Fluency Disorders, Montreal, obtained confirm that severity of stuttering differs in Canada. (pp. 382-388). Punjabi (L1) and Urdu (L2), lending support for the 31. Nijmegen: Nijmegen University Press. Retrieved 30 January 2007, from, Difference Hypothesis (Bernstein Ratner & Benitez, 32. |http://www.speech.psychol.ucl.ac.uk/PAPERS/PDF/ifa03ger 1985; Jankelowitz & Bortz, 1966; Jayaram, 1983; man.pdf|. Nwokah, 1988; Lim et al., 2008; Schäfer, 2008). 33. Howell, P., Au-Yeung, J,. & Sackin, S. (1999). Exchange of stuttering from function words to content words with age. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing REFERENCES 34. Research, 42, 345-354. 35. Howell, P., Au-Yeung, J,. & Sackin, S. (1999). Exchange of 1. Ambrose, N. (2006). Early stuttering: Parent counseling. In N. stuttering from function words to content words with age. Bernstein Ratner & J. Tetnowski (Eds.), Current issues in Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing stuttering research and practice. (pp. 87-98). Mahwah, New 36. Research, 42, 345-354. Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 37. Howell, P., & Dworzynski, K. (2005). Reply to letter to the 2. Au-Yeung, J., Howell, P., & Pilgrim, L. (1998). Phonological editor: Planning and execution processes in speech control by words and stuttering on function words. Journal of Speech, fluent speakers and speakers who stutter. Journal of Fluency Language, and Hearing Research, 41, Disorders, 30, 343-354. 3. 1019-1030. 38. Howell, P., & Akande, O. (2005). Simulation of the types of 4. Bernstein, N. (1981). Are there constraints on childhood disfluencies produced in spontaneous utterances by fluent disfluency? Journal of Fluency Disorders, 6(4), 341-350. speakers, and the change in disfluency type seen as 5. Bernstein Ratner, N., & Benitez, M. (1985). Linguistic analysis 39. speakers who stutter get older. In J. Veronis & E. Campione of a bilingual stutterer. (Eds.), Disfluency in 6. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 10, 211-219. 40. Spontaneous Speech. ISCA Tutorial and Research 7. Bernstein Ratner, N. (1997). Stuttering: A psycholinguistic Workshop, Edinburgh, Scottland. perspective. In R. F. Curlee & G. 41. (pp. 93-98). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. 8. M. Siegel (Eds.), Nature and treatment of stuttering: New 42. Howell, P., & Au-Yeung, J. (2002). The EXPLAN theory of directions. (pp. 99-127). fluency control and the diagnosis of stuttering. In E. Fava (Ed.), 9. (2nd ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Pathology and therapy of speech disorders. (pp. 75-94). 10. Bloodstein, O., & Grossman, M. (1981). Early stutterings: 43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Hussain, Q., Mahmood R., & Some aspects of their form and distribution. Journal of Speech Mahmood M.A. (2011). Vowel Substitution: A Comparative and Hearing Research, 24, 298-302. Study of English Loans in Punjabi and Urdu. International 11. Brown, S. F. (1945). The loci of stuttering in the speech Journal of Linguistics, 3. sequence. Journal of SpeechDisorders, 10, 181-192. 44. Jankelowitz, D. L., & Bortz, M. A. (1996). The interaction of 12. Campbell, G.L. (1995). Concise compendium of the world’s bilingualism and stuttering in an adult. Journal of languages. Great Britain: T.J Press. Communication Disorders, 29, 223-234. 13. Dayalu, V. N., Kalinowski, J., Stuart, A., Holbert, D., & 45. Juste, F., & de Andrade, C. R. (2004). Word Class: Influence Rastatter, M. P. (2002). in the speech disruptionsof Brazilian children. Paper 14. Stuttering frequency on content and function words in adults presented at the American Speech - Language -Hearing who stutter: A concept revisited. Journal of Speech, Association Annual Convention, Philadelphia, PA. Language, and Hearing Research, 45,871-878. 46. Khan, M. A. (1997). Urdu ka sauti nizam. National Language 15. Dworzynski, K., & Howell, P. (2004 a). Cross-linguistic Authority, Pakistan. factors in the prediction of stuttering across age groups - The 47. Kobayashi, M. (2002). Cloze Tests revisited: Exploring item case of German. In A. Packman, A. Meltzer, and H. F. M. characteristics with special attention to scoring methods. The Peters (Eds.), Theory, research and therapy in Fluency Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 571-586. Disorders. Proceedings of the 4th World Congress on 48. Kehoe, T.D. (2006). No Miracle Cure. UK: University College Fluency Disorders, Montreal, Canada. (pp. 382-388). Press.

Stuttering on Content and Function Words in Punjabi-Urdu Speakers

68 International Journal of Management and Applied Science, ISSN: 2394-7926 Volume-3, Issue-5, May-2017 http://iraj.in 49. Laesch, K.B., & van Kleeck, A(1986). The cloze test as an 61. Rispoli, M. (2003). Changes in the nature of sentence alternative measure of language proficiency of children production during the period of considered for exit from bilingual programs. Language 62. grammatical development. Journal of Speech, Language, and Learning 37, 171-189. Hearing 50. Lewis, D., & Sherman, D. (1951). Measuring the severity of 63. Research, 46, 818-830. stuttering. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 16, 64. Rommel, D., Häge, A., & Johannsen, A. S. (2004). Überblick 320-326. und ausgewählte Ergebnisse 51. Malik, A.N. (1989). The phonology and morphology of 65. der Ulmer prospektiven Längsschnittstuie zur Entwicklung Punjabi. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharial. des Stotterns im 52. Nakte, U., Sandrieser, P., van Ark, M., Pietrowsky, R., & 66. Vorschulalter sowie deren Bedeutung für Diagnostik, Kalveram, K. T. (2004). Linguistic Beratung und Therapie 53. stress, within-word position, and grammatical class in relation 67. stotternder Kinder im Vorschulalter. Paper presented at the to early childhood 31. Bundeskongress der 54. stuttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 29, 109-122. 68. Stotter-Selbsthilfe e. V., Rothenburg, Germany. 55. Nicolosi, L., Harryman, E., & Krescheck, J. (1989). 69. Schäfer, M.C.M. (2008). Stuttering characteristics of Terminology of communication disorders, Speech Language German-English bilingual speakers. Unpublished master rd Hearing (3 .ed.).Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins. thesis, Canterbury University, New Zealand. 56. Oller J.W. (1979). Language tests at school. London: 70. Segalowitz, S. J., & Lane, K. C. (2000). Lexical access of longman. function versus content words. Brain and Language 75, 57. Quirk, R. (1977). A university grammar of English: Pearson 376-389. Education India. 71. Van Borsel, J., & Taillieu, C. (2001). Neurogenic Stuttering 58. Rispoli, M. (2001). The leading edge: The significance of VS Developmental Stuttering An Observer Judgement Study. sentence disruptions in the Journal of Communication Disorders, 34, 385-395. 59. development of grammar. Journal of Speech, Language, and 72. Williams, D. F. (2006). Stuttering recovery: Personal and Hearing empirical perspectives. Mahwah,New Jersey: Lawrence 60. Research, 44, 1131-1143. Erlbaum Associates.



Stuttering on Content and Function Words in Punjabi-Urdu Speakers

69