Localization Duration of Illness Diagnosis Aphasia
Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages Description/Paper 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
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper. GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
CLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow
Also, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.us/orders/ordernow
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME]and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!