Skip to main content

Full text of "Stamering And Cognate Defects Of Speech Vol - Ii"

See other formats


by gesture we compel this muscle to act in the way that is nec-
essary for producing perfect sound, that I could control the
difficulty so as to converse tolerably under all circumstances." 1

Dr. Findley's theory concerning the action of the
diaphragm is at variance with the commonly ac-
cepted view. The theory in itself seems a little
inconsistent.  If, during expiration, the diaphragm
is performing its secondary contraction (i.e. is dimin-
ishing its diameter), then it cannot arch itself till
inspiration occurs. But during inspiration Dr. Find-
ley has the primary contraction going on2 (i.e. the
diaphragm is flattening), and the arching movement
is in no way accounted for. But in any case, the
precise connection between gesticulation and dia-
phragmatic action is somewhat obscure. And if the
connection were more patent, it would still be neces-
sary to demonstrate a causal relation between speech-
disturbances and indiscipline of the diaphragm.
Thus the evidence in support of gesture is not very

The ' older argument, that gesture diverts the
speaker's attention from his impediment, may have
some weight. But this would scarcely make gesture

1A third argument in favor of gesture is presented by Rouma
("La parole et les troubles de la parole," pp. 106 .), who holds that
cerebral activity overflows from the arm-centres to the speech-centres.

2 "Both in breathing and in making sound, we inspire by contract-
ing the diaphragm."