Au-Yeung James, Howell Peter
Department of Psychology, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
Clin Linguist Phon. 2002 Jun;16(4):287-93. doi: 10.1080/02699200210128981.
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.
帕克曼、昂斯洛、库姆斯和古德温（2001年）最近开展的一项研究采用了非单词阅读范式，以检验词汇检索过程对口吃的影响。他们认为，对于这种材料，词汇检索过程不会导致口吃，焦虑和/或阅读的运动需求才是主要因素。本文将讨论非单词阅读背后可能的过程，并认为帕克曼等人得出的结论经不起仔细推敲。在引言中，作者承认词汇化过程涉及单词的检索和编码。在非单词阅读任务中，单词检索部分被排除。然而，当作者将口吃归因于运动需求时，他们完全忽略了词汇化过程的编码部分导致口吃的可能性。由于波斯马和科尔克（1993年提出的隐蔽修复假说）以及豪厄尔和欧阳（2002年提出的EXPLAN理论）提出的理论大力支持语音编码过程在口吃中的作用，帕克曼等人的研究并未对这些理论进行评估。撇开理论问题不谈，帕克曼等人基于阅读时间对口吃率和阅读率的论证也存在问题。
