PURPOSE: this research is a comparative analysis between four different approaches on stuttering, by investigating the line of scientific thought of each author, definition, etiology, evaluation, therapy and raises some hypothesis to justify the absence of dysfluency in a monologue. METHODS: a systematic bibliographic revision of the authors' publications: Ana Maria Schiefer, Claudia Regina Furquim de Andrade, Silvia Friedman and Isis Meira, so designed as approaches 1, 2, 3 and 4. RESULTS: the comparative analysis identified similarities: Definition - between 1 and 2 about descriptive character, between 2 and 3 about self-evaluation; Etiology: between 1, 2 and 4 about the organic factor, between 2, 3 and 4 about psychological implications and between 2 and 3 about environmental; Evaluation - between 1 and 2 about quantitative criteria, between 1, 2, 3 and 4 about qualitative; Therapy - between 1 and 2. The absence of dysfluency was justified by the perspectives: in 1, the time pressure and the pragmatic; in 2, of the Neurolinguistics and Motor adjusts; in 3, about the basic paradox and in 4, of the anticipation, anxiety and fear. CONCLUSION: similarities were found between 1 and 2 on the definition, etiology, evaluation, and therapy; between 1 and 3 about evaluation; between 2 and 3 about definition, etiology and evaluation; between 1 and 4, 2 and 4, 3 and 4, about etiology, evaluation and therapy. The similarities have been partial due to the specificity of theoretical referential of each approach. The absence of speech dysfluency was justified by the inexistence of adjustment to the interlocutor, and the communicative intention in 1, of adjust in the linguistic formulation and temporal in 2, due to the absence of fear of judgment in 3 and the anticipation of anxiety and fear in 4.
Stuttering; Communication; Interpersonal Relations
