This paper reviews Anticipatory Struggle Hypothesis of
stuttering, identifies its weaknesses, and proposes modifications to bring it into line with recent advances in psycholinguistic theory. The review concludes that the Anticipatory Struggle Hypothesis provides a plausible explanation for the variation in the severity of
stuttered disfluencies across speaking situations and conversation partners. However, it fails to explain the forms that
stuttered disfluencies characteristically take or the subjective experience of loss of control that accompanies them. The paper then describes how the forms and subjective experiences of persistent
stuttering can be accounted for by a threshold-based regulatory mechanism of the kind described in revision of the EXPLAN hypothesis. It then proposes that shortcomings of both the Anticipatory Struggle and EXPLAN hypotheses can be addressed by combining them together to create a ¡®Variable Release Threshold¡¯ hypothesis whereby the
anticipation of upcoming difficulty leads to the setting of an excessively high threshold for the release of speech plans for motor execution. The paper also reconsiders the possibility that two
stuttering subtypes exist: one related to formulation difficulty and other to difficulty initiating motor execution. It concludes that research findings that relate to the one may not necessarily apply to the other.
Learning outcomes: After reading this article, the reader will be able to: (1) summarize the key strengths and weaknesses of Bloodstein's Anticipatory Struggle Hypothesis; (2) describe two hypothesized mechanisms behind the production of stuttered disfluencies (tension and fragmentation & release threshold mechanisms); and (3) discuss why the notion of anticipation is relevant to current hypotheses of stuttering.
