The King’s Speech (The Award-winning Film): The Untold Theory of Stuttering

Stuttering. Stammering. The speech disturbance of abnormal fluency. In all the talk about such a vocal phenomenon regarding the movie, The King’s Speech, I have not heard the explanation that I am familiar with. I learned one theory in a university course many years ago. If it since has been discredited, I do not know. At least, it has plausability.

The name associated with the theory is Wendell Johnson. He had a graduate student try to induce stuttering in an experimental study involving orphan children. The children were hurt psychologically, and subsequently monetarily compensated, when the graduate student spent some months in 1939 conditioning them to stutter through negative reinforcement of their normal speech imperfections. The study was generally called “The Monster Study” by some who condemned it for using orphan chhildren to prove a theory. I do not know that the study in any way precludes the theory from serious consideration. (Remember, a “theory” is defined as a statement that attempts to account for all known facts, and if it does, the statement can be taken as a truth.)

These empirical observations are the facts from which Wendell Johnson probably derived his theoretical statement. At a very young age, children are normally nonfluent. Everyone has heard a child run into the house to mama or daddy very excited about having seen or heard something or someone strange or unusual and breathlessly trying to convey a description of the thing or event. That has been regarded as normal nonfluency which children soon outgrow.

UNLESS!

Most parents ignore the child’s nonfluency, tolerating it for what it is, normal disfluency. But a certain kind of parent will ask the child to stop, take a breath, and speak slowly what he has to say. According to the theory, that special kind of parent, observed Johnson, may have an occupation that requires fluent speech, like a preacher, or king, or lawyer. That special parent is taking particular note of the child’s manner of delivering the child’s idea, calling to the attention of the child the “how” not the “what” of the child’s speech, because the father becomes anxious and wants his child to become as fluent as he has found necessary in his occupation. Of course, the child’s nonfluency is normal, but has become abnormal in the father’s view, and the child may internalize the father’s anxiety. It was noted in the material I read that preachers’ sons had a greater tendency toward becoming a “stutterer”. Facts like that led to Wendell Johnson’s theory. I am open to correction of any misunderstanding I may have on this issue. The scientific world said,”The data offered no proof of Johnson’s subsequent theory that stuttering begins, not in the child’s mouth but in the parent’s ear — i.e., that it is the well-meaning parent’s effort to help the child avoid what the parent has labelled ‘stuttering’ (but is in fact within the range of normal speech) that contributes to what ultimately becomes the problem diagnosed as stuttering.” (Look that up on the web site, Wikipedia.

I have not heard the theory mentioned in reference to the new movie that has an Oscar nomination and may win the Oscar; the film led the Golden Globes with seven nominations.

I once directed a play in an old opera house downtown with a cast of adults from the town. I cast one part with the speech-correction-specialist for the city schools. He was himself a stutterer. He memorized his lines and delivered them with nary a stutter. And did a great job of acting.

BTW: I have not yet seen the movie.

Today(3-20-11), I finally saw the movie. A wonderful cinamatic experience! Especially since I wrote this essay about it. Of course, I was looking for anything in the film that would give credibility for the working hypothesis of Wendell Johnson’s views. The film portrayed the king-father as the type of parent who could easily create a stammerer, switching the son’s handedness and terribly rough, over-anxious “handling” of his young boy at a normal non-fluency age, out of whom so much was expected and along with all that the differential treatment of the brothers. The king created a stammerer out of his anxiety for the boy as a future king. I believe that the makers of the film also were working with knowledge of that same hypothesis, as far as I could see, and they had to know the boy’s history. (I am not a speech therapist. I modified other more normal communication behaviors as a teacher and had taken one class in speech correction for the classroom teacher.)

I must report a disturbance, to me at least, during the film. I am a great one for the emotion of empathy in the world as a vital part of everyone’s emotional constitution. BUT, during the film, I learned that some people may be over-endowed with empathy that must be demonstrated audibly as an audience response to events in the film: “O-o-o-o-h!” I do it quietly, in the self-talk of my thinking habits, as an event in my deliberative mind. With that lady, the demonstration must be vocally audible. So that everyone knows? Can she help it? Probably not. Did it interfere with my concentration on the film? I suppose, though very slightly as an interesting phenomenon of another’s experience of the film. Were her interjections well attuned to my own elevated empathic moments? No.

Advertisements

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://emergent79.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/the-kings-speech-the-untold-theory-of-stuttering/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

65 Comments

  1. What i don’t understood is actually how you are not actually much more well-liked than you may be right now. You’re very intelligent. You realize thus considerably relating to this subject, made me personally consider it from a lot of varied angles. Its like women and men aren’t fascinated unless it’s one thing to accomplish with Lady gaga! Your own stuffs excellent. Always maintain it up!

  2. You actually make it seem really easy together with your presentation however I find this topic to be actually one thing which I feel I might by no means understand. It sort of feels too complex and extremely extensive for me. I’m having a look forward to your next submit, I’ll try to get the dangle of it!

  3. I was suggested this web site by my cousin. I’m not sure whether this post is written by him as nobody else know such detailed about my difficulty. You’re incredible! Thanks! Regards Rolf

  4. This site truly has all of the information I wanted about this subject and didn’t know who to ask.

  5. Thank you a tremendous put up, would see your personal others posts. i appreciate your ideas with this, I soon became a lttle bit strike by this article. Merit again! You earn a great moment. Has wonderful data here. I think that in case more people considered it like this, they’d have got a better time frame have the suspend ofing the issue.

  6. WONDERFUL Post.thanks for share..more wait ..

  7. Would you be interested in changing backlinks?
    [JFD: Sorry. No.]

  8. Very nice post, I certainly love this website, keep on it.

  9. An engrossing discourse is worth observe. I believe that you should indite many on this matter, it mightiness not be a preconception substance but generally group are not sufficiency to mouth on specified topics. To the next. Cheers like your The King’s Speech (The Award-winning Film)

  10. I think everything wrote was very reasonable. But, think on this, suppose you were to create a awesome title? I mean, I don’t wish to tell you how to run your website, but what if you added something to possibly grab a person’s attention? I mean The King’s Speech (The Award-winning Film): The Untold Theory of Stuttering The Deliberative Mind: Proactive, Reflective, Prescient, Egalitarian is kinda plain. You could look at Yahoo’s front page and watch how they write news titles to grab people interested. You might try adding a video or a related picture or two to grab people interested about what you’ve written. Just my opinion, it would make your posts a little bit more interesting.

    • You want me to improve my blog writing by making better titles and using pics and videos. By my choice and best judgment, my titles are “descriptive” of my message. I know the younger generation has cut its teeth on the blinking lights and flashiness of commercial advertising and the crash-bang of animated junk yards in movie-making styles. That’s what advanced technology gives you, impossible characters, the most unreal of all fictions.

      Please, do not come to my blog with that expectancy, EVER!!! I am of a different generation. Some people seem to like what I do. Those are the people who keep me writing, those with an old fashioned or refined and educated literacy. Their remarks make me feel that I have said something significant for them. That is a responsibility that I have taken on, and given to me by pleased readers. I am thinking seriously of curtailing my blogging. But when people indicate I have been of service, I go on. Your style is not my style.

      It was either you or somebody like you who wrote the same criticism previously, about my “plain vanilla” blog. Let’s say you tried, but you will not be able to see here the changes you prize. NEVER! If you do not like my style, you will cease coming here to read what I have to say. Awesome titles? Grab attention? Copy Yahoo? Yahoo has a big business and has people, I am guessing, who specialize in writing headlines, just like newspapers do, and also do other sophisticated techie stuff that you and your present generation seem to crave. Yahooo invests big bucks in that, I am certain, so that people like you can be enticed and entertained. Me?! Big bucks?! Go away, please; I am a stand-alone, at home, and not-for-profit operation. Can you appreciate that? I do invest a lot of time in this writing, and I can do no more. Take from it what you can, and welcome to it. My style is me, and you reject that, so please, just…………………… Thank you for your response.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: