SASLJ Vol. 2 No. 1 SASLJ Vol 2, No 1 | Page 24

Stuttering-Like Behaviors in ASL Cripps et al. fingers. The demonstration of lacking fluidity becomes evident when the signer produces the internal movement to the hand just once and pans the whole hand across the space simultaneously; 8) Increased muscular tension associated with signing – a signer experiencing this possible symptom would not be at ease when signing. With the phrase TRAIN ZOOM-AWAY as an example, the signer would be visibly tense with the first sign (by holding up the movement) and then make a strong release in movement with the second sign. Given the above, it is important to know whether the various characteristics of ‘signed stuttering’ have actually occurred among deaf individuals. Silverman and Silverman (1971) concluded that half of the teachers of the deaf they surveyed reported seeing students exhibiting stuttering-like behaviors while signing. However, their study was limited because the responders were not informed about the characteristics of stuttering-like behaviors (e.g., repetition, hesitation, blocked, etc.). Cosyns et al. (2009) surveyed individuals who interacted with Flemish Sign Language users and provided the participants with the characteristics of stuttering-like behaviors in signed language. Whitebread (2014) cautioned that the sample size (i.e. 13 responders) for this study is too small to draw noteworthy conclusions. Montgomery and Fitch (1988) used a sample size of 77 responders who work in schools for the deaf, but only 12 deaf students were reported to be stutterers. Another weakness in the survey research literature on ‘signed stuttering’ relates to the assessment of secondary behaviors, such as facial grimacing, signs of frustration, etc. For example, Cosyns and her collaborators (2009) failed to specify which secondary behaviors accompanied the identified stuttering-like behaviors in signed language. They only noted whether or not an individual exhibited secondary behaviors (without any additional information). Therefore, the evidence regarding secondary behaviors and their relationship with stuttering-like behaviors in signed language remains unclear. It is important to note that Cosyns and her collaborators went beyond Whitebread’s (2004) list of ‘signed stuttering’ characteristics to include other features of stuttering. For example, they noted the different locations of ‘signed stuttering’ such as at the beginning, middle, and/or at the end of a sign movement. While the number of responders for their study is small, the preliminary finding that stuttering-like behaviors in signed language varied in locations is interesting and warrants further study. With spoken language studies, it has been found that stuttering behaviors were most frequently found in beginning and middle of the utterance (e.g., Au-Yeung, Howell, & Pilgrim, 1998; Wingate 1979). Future studies of 'signed language stuttering' also need to consider external factors, which may account for deaf individuals who experience cognitive interferences to their signing that lead to atypical behaviors as outlined in the Whitebread list, but may not be considered 'signed stuttering'. According to the research literature for spoken language, the impact of communicative settings on an individual ranging from being in front of a large group of people to one-to-one conversations can cause increased stuttering behaviors (e.g., Guitar, 2014; Yaruss & Quesal, 2004). Therefore, the study of external factors that may increase the number of stuttering-like behaviors exhibited by deaf individuals while signing also warrants further study. SASLJ, Vol. 2, No.1 – Spring/Summer 2018 24