SLI
SLI 2001 6
2001 6
,..,,,,.,,...
1. 3. 9 1. 9 2. 12. 12. 13. 13 (1) 13 (2) 14. 16 (1) 16 (2) 16. 16. 17 1. 17. 17. 19 - i -
. 22 2. 24. 24. 24 3. 25. 26. 32 34 A b stract 38 - ii -
1. 200,, 20 1. /, 11 2. 12 3. 15 4. 17 5. 18 6. 200 19 - iii -
7. 21 8. 22 9.,, 23 10. 23 11. 24 12. 24 13. 25 - iv -
SLI. (SLI),. 10 10.,,,... 1.. 2.,.. 3... 4. - 1 -
. 5...... :,,,. - 2 -
S LI < >. (specific lan gu age im pairm ent )...,,. 1), 2 ) 3,4,5,6 )., 7 ) - 3 -
,,,,. 8,9 ),..,.. 4 )..,,.. 10,11 )., 4,12,13 ).,. 12 ),,. 14 ) - 4 -
,. 12 ) (fine - tuning ). 15 ), F urrow Nelson 16 ) Gleitm an 17 ). New port 19 ). 15 ) 18 24 F urrow 19 ) S eit z St ew art 20 ). P aul Elw ood 14 ). Bondurant 18 ).. Snow 2 1) (sem antic contin gency ). 2 2 ). F arrar 23 ) (recast ), (expan sion ), (topic continu ation ). P aul 14 ) 20-34 (im it ation ), (expan sion ), - 5 -
(ex ten sion ), (referen ce to child activity ), (ex pan sion ) (ex t en sion ). S cherer Olsw an g 7 ) (ex pan sion ). Nelson Denning er 24 ) 22 (com plex reca st ) (topic chan ge ) (im it ation ) (sim ple recast s ) (continu ation ).,,. Conti- Ram sden 8 ) 2:3 (com plex recast s ), Conti- Ram sden 11) 1:10-3:1 (sim ple recast ).. La sky Klopp 4 ) W ulbert 13 ),. W hit e W hit e 27 ), Kay e Charn ey 28 ), F urrow 19. M cdon ald P ein 25 ), Olsen - F ulero 26 ),. - 6 -
. Cunin gham 2 9 ),,. Conti- Ram sden F riel- P atti 8 ),,,,. Lasky Klopp 4 ) 27-45.. P aul 14 ),. Sieg el 10 ),,. Conti- Ram sden 2 ),. Rescorla 30 ),..,. 3 ) - 7 -
,,,. (fine - tuning ) (fine- tunin g ),,..,.. 1.? 2.? 3.? 4.? 5.? - 8 -
. 1. 2 6 3 5 10, 8, 2., 3.. Korean Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K - ABC) 3 1). M acun e- Nicolich 32 ) 4-5. 33 ) 6.,, 34 )., Ling 35 ) / a, u, i., s/. 36 ) - 9 -
. 50. 3 7 ) 1 4-2 2 10. Denv er 3 8 ),.. 1. M ann - W hitn ey U (z=- 0.164, p =0.87) (z=- 1.286, p =0.199), (z=- 0.877, p =0.381).(p> 0.05),. - 10 -
1. /, 1 34 32 20 1.1 1 2 3 8 3 5 32 1.2 8 3 34 29 26 1.3 8 4 3 0 26 20 1 5 4 1 29 23 1.04 6 3 2 23 20 1 7 3 0 26 20 1.2 2 8 3 8 23 20 1.0 6 9 3 0 23 20 1.2 3 10 3 0 26 20 1.2 ( ) 33.7 (4.06) 27.2(3.85) 22.1(3.89) 1.15 (0.12) 1 18 29 26 1.1 2 2 1 26 26 1.24 3 18 26 26 1.3 8 4 18 23 20 1 5 1 7 23 20 1 6 16 23 20 1 7 2 1 26 26 1.2 1 8 18 26 26 1.0 6 9 2 6 32 29 1.2 2 10 24 29 29 1.19 ( ) 19.7(3.23) 26.3 (2.9 8) 24.8 (3.52) 1.14 (0.12). 0.25. ( ). - 11 -
2.., 2....,, Denv er. 40. AIW A T P - V S610 SV - H33.,,,,,,,. ( 2). 2. 1.,. 2. /,. 3.. 4.,. - 12 -
. 40 5 5 30. 39 ). 200., 3. 200.. 50..,,. Lun d Du chan 15 ). (1 ), 200. 40 )..,. 200,.,,,. - 13 -
,...,,,.,.. (2 ), 50. 40 ).,..,,. - 14 -
3. 1. 1. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 5. 1. 1) 2), 3) 2. 1) - 15 -
. (1 ) 30% S ackett 4 1). 88.5%. (2 ) 30% S ackett 4 1 ). (MLU ) 87.6%, 84.5%, 88.2%, 91.7%..., 5% M ann - W hitn ey U., M ann - W hitn ey U.,, Spearm an. SP S S 10.0. - 16 -
. 1.., ( 4). 5. 4. z p - v alue 3.04 0.47 1.6 0.38-1.476 0.140 2.74 0.38 1.89 0.45-1.323 0.186. - 17 -
5. 1 1.11 3.46 2.31 2 1.28 2.36 2.46 3 1.38 3.34 2.55 4 1 2.9 2.97 5 1.04 2.75 2.55 6 1 2.92 2.73 7 1.22 3.92 3.51 8 1.06 2.57 2.31 9 1.23 2.83 3.09 10 1.2 3.34 2.9 1.15 3.04 2.74 1 1.1 1.21 2.35 2 1.24 1.22 1.08 3 1.38 1.17 1.96 4 1 1.97 1.9 5 1 1.55 1.71 6 1 1.73 1.92 7 1.21 2.3 2.7 8 1.06 1.25 1.51 9 1.22 1.87 1.6 10 1.19 1.71 2.14 1.14 1.6 1.89. - 18 -
., 0.05 ( 6). 200 19.95%, 75%, 5.05% 12.6%, 81.8%, 5.6% ( 1). 6. 200 z p - v alu e 150 22.35 163.6 12.43-0.870 0.384 39.9 19.67 25.2 11.17-1.972 0.049 10.1 5.30 11.2 3.91-0.683 0.494. - 19 -
1. 200,,. 7. 0.05 ( 8). - 20 -
7. 1 2 2 17 2 5 1 75 3 3 16 72 4 1 0 2 5 15 12 51 6 2 0 39 7 3 2 14 8 0 0 4 9 4 4 43 10 4 3 38 3.9 4 35.5 1 2 0 61 2 0 0 35 3 0 0 6 4 1 0 6 5 2 1 71 6 1 1 26 7 2 0 39 8 1 2 36 9 0 0 16 10 0 0 2 0.9 0.4 29.8. - 21 -
8. z p - v alu e 3.9 4.18 0.9 0.88-2.660 0.008 4 5.51 0.4 0.70-2.229 0.026.,,,...,,, 0.05 ( 9). - 22 -
9.,, z p - v alue 14.1 10.15 12 9.71-0.417 0.676 21.2 11.70 21.1 7.56-0.076 0.939 10 6.45 10.7 7.57-0.076 0.940 45.3 15.76 43.8 15.45-0.038 0.970.,, 0.05 ( 10)..,.,. 10. z p - v alue 9.9 5.71 11.2 5.59-0.304 0.761 24 12.97 23.2 11.23-0.378 0.705. - 23 -
2.. 200. 0.05 ( 11). 11. z p - v alu e 35.5 26.09 29.8 23.40-0.681 0.496.. (p < 0.05) ( 12). 12. z p - v alu e 3.8 5.00 0.9 1.45-1.969 0.049 3.7 5.83 3.3 2.79-0.774 0.439. - 24 -
3.,,,,.,, 0.910(p < 0.01) ( 13). 13. N =20 0.331 0.050 0.910 * * - 0.174 0.624 * * - 0.092 * * p < 0.01-25 -
.,,., (3.04) (1.6) 1.44,, (2,74) (1.89) 0.85... P aul Elw ood 14 ), W hitehur st 4 2 ) MLU.,,. - 26 -
, 1.44,.., ).,..,... H offer Bliss 43 ),,.,. Sieg el 44 ),,,,. - 27 -
.. Rescorla 3 0 ), 20% 80%. Rescorla 30 ),,,,., Rescorla 30 ),.. Conti- Ram sden 2 ).,,.,.. - 28 -
.,,,... Sieg el 44 ).,... Bon durant 18 ), Cunnin gh am 29 )... Ev an s S chmidt 4 5 )..,., Ev an s S chmidt 4 5 ) - 29 -
., Bondurant 18 ). Bondurant 18 ) Murray T rev arthan 46 ). H off- gin sberg 47 ) Yoder 48 )..... Siegel 4 4 ). Siegel 4 4 ) 3-5.,. - 30 -
.,.,,.,....,,. - 31 -
.,,.,.,,...,..,,..,,.. - 32 -
,... - 33 -
1)... 1995;5:147-167 2) Conti- Ram sden G. M atern al recast s an d other contin gent replies t o languag e- im paired children. J Speech H ear Dis 1990;55:262-274 3).,, [ ]: ; 1995 4) Lasky EZ, Klopp K. P arent - child int eraction s in n orm al an d lan gu age- disordered children. J Speech Hear Dis 1982;47:7-18 5) Girolam ett o L, T ann ock R. Correlat es of drectiv en ess in the int eraction s of father s an d m other s of children w ith dev elopm ent al delay s. J Speech H ear Res 1994;37:1178-1192 6) Bedrosian JL, W an ska S K, Sykes KM, Sm ith A J, Dalton BM. Conv ersational turn - t aking vilolation s in m other - child int eraction. J Speech H ear Res 1988;31:81-86 7) S cherer NJ, Olsw ang LB. Role of m oth er s ' ex pan sion s in stim ulatin g children ' s lan gu age production. J Speech H ear Res 1984;27:387-96 8) Conti- Ram sden G, F riel- P atti S. M oth er s ' discour se adju stm ent s t o lnagu age- im paired an d non - languag e- im paired children. J Speech Hear Dis 1983;48:360-67 9) W ilkin son LC, Hiebert E, Rem bold K. P arent s ' an d peer s ' com m unication to t oddlers. J Speech H ear Res 1981;24:383-8 10) Leonard LB. Children w ith specific languag e impairm ent. Lon don : M a ssachu sett s In stitute of T echn ology ; 1998 p.193-210 11) Conti- Ram sden G, Hutch eson GD, Grov e J. Contin gen cy an d break dow n : children w ith SLI and th eir conv er sation s w ith m others and father s. J Speech H ear Res 1995;38:1290-1302 - 34 -
12) F ey M, M arc E. Lan gu age Int erv ention w ith y oun g children. Bost on : College- Hill press, Inc.; 1986 p.292-4 13) W ulbert M, In glis S, Krieg sm ann E, Mills B. Language delay an d as sociat ed m other - child int eraction s. Dev P sy ch ol 1975;11:61-70 14) P aul R, Elw ood T J. M atern al lin guistic input t o t oddler s w ith slow ex pres siv e lan gu ag e dev elopm ent. J Speech H ear Res 1991;34:982-988 15) Lund NJ, Duchan JF. A ssessing children ' s lan gu age in n aturalistic cont ex t s. 3rd ed. En glew ood Cliffs : prentice- H all, Inc.; 1993 p.54-108 16) F urrow D, an d K. N elson. A furth er look at the m otherese hypothesis : a reply t o Gleitm an, New port, and Gleitm an. J Child Lan g 1986;13:163-76 17) Gleitm an L, New port E, Gleitm an H. T h e current St atu s of the m oth erese hypothesis. J Child Lan g 1984;11:43-79 18) Bon durant J, Rom eo D, Kret schm er R. Language b ehavior s of m others of children w ith n orm al and delay ed lan gu age. Languag e, Speech, and H earin g S ervices in S ch ools 1983;14:233-42 19) F urrow D, Nelson K, Ben edict H. M others ' speech t o children an d synt actic dev elopm ent : som e sim ple r elation ship. J Child Lan g 1979;6:423-42 20) S eit z S, Stew art C. Ex pandin g on ex pan sion s and relat ed aspect s of m oth er - child com m unication. Dev P sy chol 1975;11:763-9 21) Snow C. M other s ' speech research : from input to int eraction, in talking t o children : lan gu ag e input an d acquisition, eds. New York : Cam bridge Univ er sity Press ; 1977 p.31-49 22) Snow C. T he dev elopm ent of conv er sation s bet w een m other s and b abies. J Child Lang 1977;4:1-22 23) F arrar M. Discour se an d the acquisition of gram m atical m orph em es. J Child Lang 1990;17:107-24 24) Nelson KE., Bonvillian JD., Denning er M S., Kaplan BJ., Baker ND., - 35 -
M at ern al input adju stm ent s and n on - adju stm ent s a s related t o children ' s lin guistic adv an ces an d to lan gu ag e acquisition theories. In : P ellegrini AD., Yaw ki T D. edit or. T he dev elopm ent of oral and w ritten lan gu age in social cont ex t s Norw ood, NJ : Ablex ; 1984 p.31-56 25) M cdon ald L, P ein D. M oth er conv er sation al b ehavior as a fun ction of int eractional int ent. J Child Lan g 1982;9:337-58 26) Olsen - F ulero L. Style an d st ability in m oth er conv ersational behavior : a stu dy of indiv idual differen ces. J Child Lang 1982;9:543-64 27) W hit e S, W hit e R. T he deaf im perativ e: charact eristics of m atern al input t o h earin g impaired children. T op Lang Dis 1984;4:38-49 28) Kay e K, Charn ey R. Conv er sational asymm etry bet w een m others an d children J Child Lan g 1981;8:35-50 29) Cunin gh am C, Siegel L, v an der Spuy H, Clark M, Bow S. T h e behavioral an d linguistic int eraction s of specifically lan gu age - delay ed an d norm al b oy s w ith th eir m other s. Child Dev 1985;56:174-80 30) Rescorla L, F echn ay T. M oth er - child synchrony and com m unicativ e reciprocity in lat e- t alking toddler s. J Speech Hear Res 1996;39:200-208 31),. Korean Kaufm an A sses sm ent Batt ery for Children. : ; 1997 32) M acune- Nicolich L, Carroll S. Dev elopm ent of sym bolic play : implication s for the languag e specialist. T op Lang Dis 1981;2:1-12 33).. : ; 2000 34) W in dsor J., H w ang M. T estin g th e Gen eralized slow in g hypoth esis in specific languag e im pairm ent. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1999;42:1205-1218 35) Ling D, Ling AH. Aural habilit ation. W ashin gt on DC: A G. Bell A s sociation for the Deaf; 1978 36),.. : ; 1998 37).. - 1998:130-6 - 36 -
38). Denv er dev elopm ent al screening test. : ; 1996 39),,,,,.. 1998;3:5-18 40). 2-4. 1997;2:5-26 41) S ackett CP. Ob servin g b ehavior V ol.2 Baltim ore : Univ er sity P ark Press 1978:79-98 42) W hit ehur st G, F alco F, Lonigan C, F ischel J, Debary sh e B, V aldez- M en chaca M et al. An aly sis of int entional com m unication of n orm al children from the prelinguistic t o the m ultiw ord st ag e. Dev P sy chol 1988;24:552-559 43) H offer P, Bliss L. M atern al v erbal respon siv enes s w ith languag e- im paired, stag e- m at ched, and age - m at ch ed n orm al children. J Appl Dev P sy chol 1990;11:305-319 44) Sieg el L, Cunningham C, v an der Spuy H. Int eraction s of lan gu age delay ed an d n orm al presch ool children w ith their m oth er s. P aper presented at th e M eeting of th e S ociety for Research in Child Dev elopm ent ; 1979 45) Ev an s MA, S chmidt F. Repeat ed book readin g w ith tw o children : Lan gu age - n orm al and lan gu ag e- im paired. F ir st Lan g 1991;11:269-287 46) M array L, T rev arthan C. T h e infant ' s role in m oth er - infant com m unication s. J Child Lan g. 1986;13:15-29 47) H off- Gin sberg E. F un ction an d structure in m atern al speech : T h eir relation t o the child ' s dev elopm ent of synt ax. Dev P sy chol 1986;22:155-163 48) Yoder P. M at ernal question u se predict s lat er lan gu ag e dev elopm ent in specific languag e disordered children. J Speech H ear Dis 1989;54:347-355 - 37 -
Abs trac t Co mpa ris o n betwee n mo the rs ' s ty le s of co nve rs atio n w ith S LI and no rma l c hildre n Eu n-mi Pa rk Graduate P rog ram in Sp eech P athology, Y ons ei Univers ity (Directed by Professor Eun - Sook P ark ) M atern al lin guistic input play s an im portant r ole in child ' s lan guag e aquisition an d dev elopm ent. But SLI(specific lan guag e im pairm ent ) children ' s delayed language developm ent can lead to m other s ' inappropriate conv er sation style, w hich m ight also influ en ce the lan guag e dev elopm ent of the children. From the per spective of this view, it can be as sum ed that the comm unicative behavior s of SLI children ' s m others m ay be different from m others of norm al children. T he purpose of our study is that SLI children w ere com pared with norm ally developing children similar in MLU, and it w as inv estigated whether m others of SLI children differed from m other s of norm ally developing children in comm unicative features like MLU, sem antic contingency and directiv e m ode. It w as also ex am ined whether SLI children differed from MLU - m atched norm al children in frequency of utterances and sem antic contingency. T he results w ere a s follow s - 38 -
1. T here w ere no significant group differences on m other s ' MLU. Also, th ere w er e n o statistical significan ce in the m oth er - child M LU differ ence. 2. SLI children ' s m other s utterances w ere m ore noncontingent to childr en ' s utt eran ces, b ehav ior s an d focu s of play. An d they pr odu ced significantly few er responses to children ' s utterances. 3. T here w as no differences betw een tw o m other s ' groups in any item s of dir ectiv e m ode. A nd th e fr equen cy of t ot al question s an d inform ation - seeking question s is not significantly differed betw een tw o m others ' groups. 4. W hen children ' s comm unicative features w ere compared, SLI children show ed m ore noncontingent utterances than norm al children. 5. T here w as a high correlation betw een m others ' noncontingent utterances and children ' s noncontingent utterances. And there w as a high correlation betw een m other s ' no respon ses and children ' s noncontingent utterances. F rom these results, SLI children ' s m other s show ed m ore m other - lead comm unicative features than norm al children ' s m other s. How ever, SLI children ' s utterances also w ere m ore noncontingent than norm ally developing children. T herefore the comm unication betw een m other s and children m ay be in a reciprocity not in one- w ay. M ajor clinical application of this study is in the education for m others aft er ob servin g the inter action s b etw een m oth er s and children. S ur ely it can lead t o better pr ognosis. A nd a str on g point of this study is th at SLI childr en and n orm ally dev elopin g childr en ar e not ag e- m atch ed but language- m atched, that m akes possible to interpret m ore ex actly. - 39 -
F inally, further studies should control the siblings w hose language m ight affect s SLI children ' s langua ge dev elopm ent. M or e con cret e an aly sis of contingent utterances is needed, and the m ean tim e of play of the m others and the children in a day should be further investigated. k ey w ord s : SLI(specific language im pairm ent ), m others ' inappropriate conv er sation style, s em antic contin g ency, recipr ocity. - 40 -