Measuring pragmatic competence of discourse output among Chinese-speaking individuals with traumatic brain injury.

IF 0.3 4区 社会学 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Ecology Law Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-01-05 DOI:10.1017/BrImp.2022.36
Anthony Pak-Hin Kong, Dustin Kai-Yan Lau, Daisy Ho-Ying Lai
{"title":"Measuring pragmatic competence of discourse output among Chinese-speaking individuals with traumatic brain injury.","authors":"Anthony Pak-Hin Kong, Dustin Kai-Yan Lau, Daisy Ho-Ying Lai","doi":"10.1017/BrImp.2022.36","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Discourse analysis is one of the clinical methods commonly used to assess the language ability of individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, the majority of published analytic frameworks are not geared for highlighting the pragmatic aspect of discourse deficits in acquired language disorders, except for those designed for quantifying conversational samples. This study aimed to examine how pragmatic competence is impaired and reflected in spoken monologues in Chinese speakers with TBI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Discourse samples of five tasks (personal narrative, storytelling, procedural, single- and sequential picture description) were elicited from ten TBI survivors and their controls. Each discourse sample was measured using 16 indices (e.g., number of informative words, percentage of local/global coherence errors, repeated words or phrases) that corresponded to the four Gricean maxims. Twenty-five naïve Chinese speakers were also recruited to perform perceptual rating of the quality of all 50 TBI audio files (five discourse samples per TBI participant), in terms of erroneous/inaccurate information, adequacy of amount of information given, as well as degree of organization and clarity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The maxim of quantity best predicted TBI's pragmatic impairments. Naïve listeners' perception of pragmatics deficits correlated to measures on total and informative words, as well as number and length of terminable units. Clinically, personal narrative and storytelling tasks could better elicit violations in pragmatics.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Applying Gricean maxims in monologic oral narratives could capture the hallmark underlying pragmatic problems in TBI. This may help provide an additional approach of clinically assessing social communications in and subsequent management of TBI.</p>","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":"24 1","pages":"660-678"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecology Law Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/BrImp.2022.36","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Discourse analysis is one of the clinical methods commonly used to assess the language ability of individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, the majority of published analytic frameworks are not geared for highlighting the pragmatic aspect of discourse deficits in acquired language disorders, except for those designed for quantifying conversational samples. This study aimed to examine how pragmatic competence is impaired and reflected in spoken monologues in Chinese speakers with TBI.

Methods: Discourse samples of five tasks (personal narrative, storytelling, procedural, single- and sequential picture description) were elicited from ten TBI survivors and their controls. Each discourse sample was measured using 16 indices (e.g., number of informative words, percentage of local/global coherence errors, repeated words or phrases) that corresponded to the four Gricean maxims. Twenty-five naïve Chinese speakers were also recruited to perform perceptual rating of the quality of all 50 TBI audio files (five discourse samples per TBI participant), in terms of erroneous/inaccurate information, adequacy of amount of information given, as well as degree of organization and clarity.

Results: The maxim of quantity best predicted TBI's pragmatic impairments. Naïve listeners' perception of pragmatics deficits correlated to measures on total and informative words, as well as number and length of terminable units. Clinically, personal narrative and storytelling tasks could better elicit violations in pragmatics.

Conclusion: Applying Gricean maxims in monologic oral narratives could capture the hallmark underlying pragmatic problems in TBI. This may help provide an additional approach of clinically assessing social communications in and subsequent management of TBI.

测量说中文的脑外伤患者话语输出的语用能力。
目的:语篇分析是评估创伤性脑损伤(TBI)患者语言能力的常用临床方法之一。然而,除了那些为量化会话样本而设计的分析框架外,大多数已发表的分析框架都不是为了突出获得性语言障碍中话语缺陷的语用方面。本研究旨在探讨语用能力是如何在患有创伤性脑损伤的中国人的口语独白中受损和反映出来的:方法:研究人员从十名创伤性脑损伤幸存者及其对照组中抽取了五个任务(个人叙述、讲故事、程序性、单幅和连续图片描述)的话语样本。每个语篇样本都使用 16 个指标(如信息词的数量、局部/整体连贯错误的百分比、重复词或短语)进行测量,这些指标与格里森的四个格言相对应。我们还招募了 25 位天真汉语使用者,对所有 50 个 TBI 音频文件(每位 TBI 参与者 5 个话语样本)的质量进行感知评分,评分内容包括错误/不准确信息、信息量是否充足、组织程度和清晰度:结果:信息量的最大值最能预测 TBI 的语用障碍。新听者对语用缺陷的感知与总词数和信息词数以及可终止单元的数量和长度相关。在临床上,个人叙述和讲故事任务能更好地引起语用障碍:结论:在单语口头叙述中应用格利森格言可以捕捉到创伤性脑损伤语用问题的基本特征。这可能有助于为临床评估创伤性脑损伤的社会沟通和后续管理提供一种新的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Ecology Law Quarterly"s primary function is to produce two high quality journals: a quarterly print version and a more frequent, cutting-edge online journal, Ecology Law Currents. UC Berkeley School of Law students manage every aspect of ELQ, from communicating with authors to editing articles to publishing the journals. In addition to featuring work by leading environmental law scholars, ELQ encourages student writing and publishes student pieces.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信