口语中词汇凝聚的手段:因先天性心脏病而接受手术的青少年与表面健康的同龄人相比

V. Kameneva, N. Rabkina, A. Rumyanceva
{"title":"口语中词汇凝聚的手段:因先天性心脏病而接受手术的青少年与表面健康的同龄人相比","authors":"V. Kameneva, N. Rabkina, A. Rumyanceva","doi":"10.21603/2542-1840-2024-8-1-33-40","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cognitive development and speech activity of children operated for congenital heart disease (CHD) remain understudied both from the point of view of psychology and linguistics. The aim was to identify differences in the means of lexical cohesion these groups of teenagers use to create oral texts. This article describes, classifies, and compares the means of lexical coherence in oral texts created by teenagers (13–15 y.o.) with congenital heart disease (focus group, 28 respondents) and their apparently healthy peers (control group, 28 respondents). The material was collected using the diagnostic method introduced by of T. A. Fotekova and T. V. Akhutina: the respondents were asked to talk about their hometown. The statements were analyzed for means of lexical cohesion. The analysis was complicated by the fact that most focus group respondents actually failed to produce a monologue: on average, one response involved 8.5 motivating and encouraging remarks from the interviewer (3.5 in the control group). As a result, cases of lexical cohesion between the interviewer’s questions and the respondent’s answers were not taken into account. The results showed an imbalance of lexical repetition: 64 cases in the focus group vs. 100 cases in the comparison group, 12 cases of synonymous repetition vs. 7, and 11 cases of antonymic repetition vs. 6, respectively. Hyper-hyponymous repetition was poorly represented: only 3 cases in the focus group vs. 6 in the control group. Although lexical repetition was the main means of cohesion, the teenagers with congenital disorders resorted to this method much less often than their apparently healthy peers.","PeriodicalId":512949,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. Series: Humanities and Social Sciences","volume":"96 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Means of Lexical Cohesion in Oral Speech: Teenagers Operated for Congenital Heart Disease vs. Apparently Healthy Peers\",\"authors\":\"V. Kameneva, N. Rabkina, A. Rumyanceva\",\"doi\":\"10.21603/2542-1840-2024-8-1-33-40\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Cognitive development and speech activity of children operated for congenital heart disease (CHD) remain understudied both from the point of view of psychology and linguistics. The aim was to identify differences in the means of lexical cohesion these groups of teenagers use to create oral texts. This article describes, classifies, and compares the means of lexical coherence in oral texts created by teenagers (13–15 y.o.) with congenital heart disease (focus group, 28 respondents) and their apparently healthy peers (control group, 28 respondents). The material was collected using the diagnostic method introduced by of T. A. Fotekova and T. V. Akhutina: the respondents were asked to talk about their hometown. The statements were analyzed for means of lexical cohesion. The analysis was complicated by the fact that most focus group respondents actually failed to produce a monologue: on average, one response involved 8.5 motivating and encouraging remarks from the interviewer (3.5 in the control group). As a result, cases of lexical cohesion between the interviewer’s questions and the respondent’s answers were not taken into account. The results showed an imbalance of lexical repetition: 64 cases in the focus group vs. 100 cases in the comparison group, 12 cases of synonymous repetition vs. 7, and 11 cases of antonymic repetition vs. 6, respectively. Hyper-hyponymous repetition was poorly represented: only 3 cases in the focus group vs. 6 in the control group. Although lexical repetition was the main means of cohesion, the teenagers with congenital disorders resorted to this method much less often than their apparently healthy peers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":512949,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. Series: Humanities and Social Sciences\",\"volume\":\"96 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. Series: Humanities and Social Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21603/2542-1840-2024-8-1-33-40\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. Series: Humanities and Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21603/2542-1840-2024-8-1-33-40","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

从心理学和语言学的角度来看,对因先天性心脏病(CHD)而接受手术的儿童的认知发展和言语活动的研究仍然不足。本文的目的是找出这些青少年群体在创作口头文本时所使用的词汇连贯手段的差异。本文对患有先天性心脏病的青少年(13-15 岁)(焦点小组,28 名受访者)和他们表面上健康的同龄人(对照组,28 名受访者)所创作的口头文章中的词汇连贯手段进行了描述、分类和比较。材料收集采用了 T. A. Fotekova 和 T. V. Akhutina 提出的诊断方法:要求受访者谈论自己的家乡。对这些陈述进行了词汇连贯分析。由于大多数焦点小组受访者实际上没有独白,分析工作变得复杂:平均而言,一个回答涉及 8.5 句来自访谈者的激励和鼓励性话语(对照组为 3.5 句)。因此,访谈者的问题与受访者的回答之间的词汇连贯情况没有考虑在内。结果显示,词汇重复的情况并不平衡:焦点组有 64 例,对比组有 100 例;同义重复有 12 例,对比组有 7 例;反义重复有 11 例,对比组有 6 例。超同义重复的情况很少:重点组只有 3 例,对照组有 6 例。虽然词性重复是凝聚力的主要手段,但患有先天性障碍的青少年使用这种方法的频率远远低于表面上健康的同龄人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Means of Lexical Cohesion in Oral Speech: Teenagers Operated for Congenital Heart Disease vs. Apparently Healthy Peers
Cognitive development and speech activity of children operated for congenital heart disease (CHD) remain understudied both from the point of view of psychology and linguistics. The aim was to identify differences in the means of lexical cohesion these groups of teenagers use to create oral texts. This article describes, classifies, and compares the means of lexical coherence in oral texts created by teenagers (13–15 y.o.) with congenital heart disease (focus group, 28 respondents) and their apparently healthy peers (control group, 28 respondents). The material was collected using the diagnostic method introduced by of T. A. Fotekova and T. V. Akhutina: the respondents were asked to talk about their hometown. The statements were analyzed for means of lexical cohesion. The analysis was complicated by the fact that most focus group respondents actually failed to produce a monologue: on average, one response involved 8.5 motivating and encouraging remarks from the interviewer (3.5 in the control group). As a result, cases of lexical cohesion between the interviewer’s questions and the respondent’s answers were not taken into account. The results showed an imbalance of lexical repetition: 64 cases in the focus group vs. 100 cases in the comparison group, 12 cases of synonymous repetition vs. 7, and 11 cases of antonymic repetition vs. 6, respectively. Hyper-hyponymous repetition was poorly represented: only 3 cases in the focus group vs. 6 in the control group. Although lexical repetition was the main means of cohesion, the teenagers with congenital disorders resorted to this method much less often than their apparently healthy peers.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信