Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
Localization Duration of Illness Diagnosis Aphasia
Table 2. Background data of the participants with aphasia.
Participant Lesion
localization Duration of illness Diagnosis Aphasia type
(BDAE) BNT score
Severity of aphasia (BDAE)
L, male, 79 years MCA 5 years CVA Conduction/fluent 34/60 3 K, male, 65 years MCA 29 years CVA Broca/non-fluent 17/60 2
Note. MCA = medial cerebral artery, CVA = cerebrovascular accident, BDAE = Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (Goodglass & Kaplan, 1983; Finnish version Laine, Niemi, Tuomainen & Koivuselkä-Sallinen, 1997); BNT = Boston Naming Test (Kaplan, Goodglass, Weintraub & Segal, 1983; Finnish version Laine, Koivuselkä-Salllinen, Hänninen & Niemi, 1997); BDAE severity scale 1 = most severe, 5 = mildest).
CLINICAL LINGUISTICS & PHONETICS 773
Along with speech, embodied actions such as hand gestures were described in small capitals within double parentheses on a separate line below the utterance they co-occurred with. For the sake of clarity, the data extracts include embodied actions only if they are relevant for the present analysis. In the data extracts (see example 1), an English translation is provided (in bold face) alongside the original transcription (in italics).
When of analytic interest, the talk of each person is depicted in three lines consisting of the original Finnish, an English word- by-word gloss (see glossing symbols in the Appendix), and an English translation. In the gloss line, unintelligible word forms are marked with question marks and, if possible, targets of these word forms in curly brackets (see line 02 in example 1):
The results were obtained through CA paying special attention to repair organisation (Sacks, 1992; Schegloff et al, 1977). First, all instances where any of the speakers oriented to a section of a conversation as problematic were identified. These problem handling instances were divided into sequences by topical organisation. Out of these topical sequences a total of 72 sequences were such where the non-aphasic interlocutors, i.e. the recipients of the PWAs’ talk, indicated the previous turns of the PWAs as problematic. These were referred to as negotiation sequences.
During this preliminary analysis, it was observable that the negotiation sequences in conversations involving the two men were different. The conversations of the fluent speaker allowed for a turn-by-turn analysis of repair organisation while in the conversations of the non-fluent speaker separate repair sequences were not easily identifiable. Thus, the initial 27 negotiation sequences of the fluent speaker were further analysed for local repair phenomena, and altogether 65 repair sequences of two or more turns during which the problem was dealt with were identified (see Table 3).
In connection with non-fluent aphasia, problem handling manifested in almost all conversational turns of the participants without clearly identifiable repair sequences, and could only be investigated at a broader topical sequential level. Thus, forcing the 45 topical negotiation sequences of the non-fluent speaker into more concise repair sequences was not appropriate. The sequences analysed accordingly consisted of 110 problem-handling sequences in total (see Table 3).
Results
The nature of expressive linguistic problems in conversations of participants with fluent vs. non-fluent aphasia
The trouble sources of the speaker with fluent aphasia were identified either as word search (see example 2; cf. also Goodwin & Goodwin 1986) or as a problem of general intelligibility (see example 3, cf. also Damico et al., 2008), when a clear word search was not present but
Example of the transcription, glossing and translation of data extracts.
01 L: onko se- tuo- (.) hh .mt Ville kertonu is-Q he that 1nameM tell-PPC has he- that- (.) hh .mt Ville told you
02 minkälaista se on (0.5) amer- amerissa- (-) what.sort.of-PAR it is {army}-INE what it is like (0.5) in the a- ar- (-)
774 M. LAAKSO AND S. GODT
something in the turn was unintelligible enough to stop the flow of conversation, and led to a subsequent repair initiation in the next turn by the interlocutor. In the following example (2), a word search occurs (lines 01–05). The fluent speaker L is talking with his two grandsons (A and T) about global politics. On line 01, L starts a new topic and ends up trying to produce a place name in Africa:
L’s utterance on lines 01–05 includes many search markers such as pauses (three of them extending to one second, see lines 02, 04, 05), comments on his own knowledge or ability to find the word: ‘I don’t know what it is’, (line 01) and attempts at approximating the phonemic structure of the target words (lines 02–05).
On line 06 his grandson A offers his suggestion for the searched word, Eritrea. It is noteworthy that A’s suggestion phonemically resembles L’s last attempt at the word. Due to the nature of his aphasia L is able to produce expression referring to a place (‘there’, line 03) and phonemic approximations of the place name (lines 04–05), which may make it easier for the recipient to offer a
Table 3. Analysed problem handling (repair and negotiation) sequences. Conversation Sequences
Conversation 1 29 repair sequences (L, grandsons)
Conversation 2 36 repair sequences (L, SLT)
Conversation 3 29 negotiation sequences (K, wife, cameraman)
Conversation 4 16 negotiation sequences (K, SLT)
Total 110
Word search. (The possible targets of erroneous or cut-off word forms are in curly brackets in the gloss line. If no target can be traced the word is marked with a question mark on the gloss line.)
01 L: Mmm se:(.) en tiiä- (.) en tiiä hh mikä se on it NEG-1 know-INF NEG-1 know-INF what it is
Mmm it:(.)I don’t know-(.)I don’t know hh what it is
02 e- e- e: e::len kaks (a: h eutrah (1.3) {eilen=yesterday} two ? e- e- e: {yesterday} two (a: h eutrah (1.3)
03 epron hh)(0.7).HH sielä hh ö: (0.5).mt lasa hh ? there ?
epron hh)(0.7).HH there hh uh: (0.5).mt lasa hh
04 lasarin hhh (1.0).hhh apessiina (.) apessiina hh ? {Abessiinia=Abyssinia} {Abyssinia}
lasarin hhh (1.0).hhh {Abyssinia} (.){Abyssinia}hh
05 (1.0) vedutrea hh {Eritrea}
{vedutrea} hh
06 A: Eritrea niinkö. Eritrea PRT-Q (appr. you mean) you mean Eritrea.
07 L: Nii. PRT Right.
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow
Localization Duration of Illness Diagnosis Aphasia |
Localization Duration of Illness Diagnosis Aphasia