Non-Aphasic Speaker Speech Eliciting in Nature
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
Non-Aphasic Speaker Speech Eliciting in Nature
The non-aphasic speaker presents a question or new topic and a response is expected; the turns are speech eliciting in nature.
The speaker with non-fluent aphasia produces a response which results in trouble because of sparse expression.
The non-aphasic speaker co-constructs the utterance supplying a fuller grammatical structure; the turns are interpretative in nature.
The negotiation continues until mutual understanding is satisfactorily reached or attempts thereof are renounced.
In the following, we will illustrate further these different participatory structures within the conversations of fluent vs. non-fluent participants. We will focus on the methods employed by the recipients to address the trouble emerging from expressive linguistic difficulties.
First, we will analyses and compare the family members’ and SLT’s next turn repair actions in the conversations of the participant with fluent aphasia. Second, we will look at the family member’s and SLT’s actions in the conversations of the participant with non-fluent aphasia.
Recipient actions in conversations of the participant with fluent aphasia
As shown earlier, the trouble sources of the fluent speaker proved to be more local. As a consequence, they were solved by relatively uncomplicated next turn repair actions. Example (5) illustrates a paraphasic word search, the most common expressive problem in the conversation between the fluent speaker L and his two grandsons (A and T) (see lines 01–04). T responds to the search with a word candidate (line 05; for a similar practice see e.g. Oelschlaeger & Damico, 2000):
Offering a word candidate.
01 L: Nii. (2.4) .mt joo hh .mt (3.2).mt hh (on hh nä hh) right yeah is ? Right. (2.4) .mt yeah hh .mt (3.2).mt hh (has hh nä hh)
02 (1.5) .mt (1.8) onko se- tuo- (.) hh .mt Ville is-Qhethat 1nameM (1.5) .mt (1.8) has he- that- (.) hh .mt Ville
03 kertonu minkälaista se on (0.5) amer- amerissa- (-) tell-PPC what.sort.of-PAR it is {army}-INE told you what it is like (0.5) in the a- ar- (-)
04 amer[(—) {armeija=army} ar [(—)
778 M. LAAKSO AND S. GODT
In example (5), the fluent speaker L asks a question about a mutual relative (lines 01–04). On lines 03–04 he runs into word finding difficulty in completing his turn and cannot reach the correct form of the word. However, at the end of a grammatical construction his word search is suggestive enough for T, one of the grandsons, to come up with a word candidate, and so on line 05, T joins the search in overlap by offering the word to complete L’s turn.
The close relationship between the participants and the family member’s shared knowledge on the topic may also make it easier to offer a word candidate. The word candidate is approved by L who repeats it (line 06). This example works to exemplify how a linguistic difficulty, a word search, can quite directly and immediately be fixed in order to move forward in the conversation much like what would happen in an ordinary conversation between non-aphasic speakers (cf. Goodwin & Goodwin, 1986).
Besides word candidates, direct other-corrections were common in fluent conversations (see example 6). Here L and his two grandsons (T and A) are talking about the boys’ prospective matriculation examinations. An unmodulated other-correction typical of everyday interaction (cf. Haakana & Kurhila, 2009) occurs on line 03:
In commenting how the boys must prepare themselves for the exams, L unsuccessfully approximates the word prepata ‘prime’ with a cut-off attempt pretend a further form parental (line 01). L is already beginning to move on in making his comment (line 02) when A, the other grandson, corrects (line 03) the paraphasia form in overlap with L who is finishing his turn. Although A’s turn is a direct other-correction, it is not treated as
05→ T: [Armeijassa.= army-INE
[In the army.=
06 L: =Armeijassa. army-INE =In the army.
Other-correcting.
01 L: Teidän pitää- (1.1) nyt sitte- (.) preta- peretal you-PL-GEN must now then {prime} {prime} So you need to-(1.1) now- then- (.) pri- pirem
02 eng[lang- English for Engl-
03 → A: [Prepata. prime-INF
[prime.
04 L: Nii. PRT Right.
05 A: Joo. PRT Yes.
06 T: Ni:i. PRT Right.
CLINICAL LINGUISTICS & PHONETICS 779
problematic by L who confirms it (line 04). The other-correction makes up a minimal insertion sequence (lines 03–04), after which the conversation returns to its progression and L’s comment on lines 01–02 receives its response from both boys (lines 05-06).
The above-mentioned direct problem-handling methods (i.e. word candidates and other-corrections) were characteristic next turn repairs in the conversation between L with fluent aphasia and his grandsons. These frequent other-repairs did not appear to be considered problematic although there is a preference for self-repair in conversation (Schegloff et al., 1977). On the contrary, direct other-repair resolved the trouble effectively and permitted the participants to develop the topic instead of focusing on repair.
However, the participation of the SLT differed from the family members to some extent. In example (7) L and his SLT are talking about the funny name of L’s residential area. Instead of directly correcting, the SLT offers a display of her understanding as a full sentence (lines 05–06):
On lines 01‒03, L comments that if he were better able to talk, he would do something regarding the name. L’s turn includes pauses and attempts at self-repair and the end of the turn (line 03) is hard to understand. The SLT does not readily respond (line 04), after which she first acknowledges L’s turn and then offers her formulation (lines 05–06) of the gist of L’s meaning for L to confirm or reject, resembling rephrasing formulations used in psychotherapy (cf. Weiste & Peräkylä, 2013) which offer the therapist’s version of the client’s description.
The SLT’s formulation is produced as a summarizing sentence, not as a single word as were the word candidates of the grandsons. On line 07, L indicates that the SLT’s formulation is correct by approving it. In contrast to the direct methods of the two grandsons, the SLT’s approach seems more indirect and subtle.
She does not interrupt the turn of L by offering immediate corrections (instead she responds after a pause). Giving time and not instantly assuming the floor may reflect the rehabilitative elements of speech-language therapy. Not taking the floor at the first possible place seems to
Offering candidate understanding.
01 L: °juu,° (1.3) jos minä olisin paremmin (0.6) puhu- yeah if I are-1-CON good-COMP speak °yeah,° (1.3) if I was better (0.6) at speak-
02 puhumaan niin (.) menisin- menisin sinne joskus (.) speak-INF so go-1-CON go-1-CON there sometime speaking (.)I would go- I would go there sometime (.)
03 heh heh (1.2) vähä (käy käy-) (.) Pönttölä. a little fit fit place-name
heh heh (1.2) a little (fit fit-) (.) Pönttölä.
04 (1.3)
05 → SLT-L: Mmm. (.)pyrkisit vaikuttammaan että try-2-CON influence-INF that
Mmm. (.)you would try to influence on
06 → muutetaan nimi. change-PAS DEF name changing the name.
07 L: Niin? (0.8) PRT Yeah? (0.8)
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!!