A Childs Ability to Communicate - Report Example

Running Head: A Child’s Ability to Communicate               Institution:               Instructor:           Course:           Date:       Introduction             Research reveals that monitored communication between or among children will reflect some degree of language impairment. This may be in part due to partial development of communication skills or in some instances, a symptom of a semantic disorder of some sort, which is a common occurrence in young children. In some cases, children may be found to have abnormal flow in their speech owing to these reasons. Advanced studies indicate that inappropriacy in communication decreased with the increase in the child’s age (McTEAR, 1985). In addition, age is used as a factor to distinguish between children with language impairment disorder, a condition known as semantic pragmatic disorder, from those who do not. Some studies conducted indicate that a wide array of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic oddities were relates to a sequence of language inappropriacy in children. At the same time, some cases of lingual inappropriacy were related to cognitive difficulties other than those of a linguistic nature which were made definite with the advancement of the children’s ages (Bishop, 1989).             For this study, a five year old child is selected to be evaluated based on his communications ability and to relate his kills to the factors that affect his adequacy in communication. Language impairment will be judged through characteristics such as comprehension, expression of meaning and the different forms of expression applied by the subject. An acknowledgment is paid to the fact that children may express themselves in an odd way despite their conversations not flowing smoothly as a result of unexpected utterances. The following experimental study done from carrying out a recorded and transcribed conversation with a five year old boy named Matt reflects his language and communication skills that will be used to judge his skills as appropriate or not.   Me: Hi Matt  Matt: Hi Me: What are you doing? Matt: Uuuh... Am playing Me: What game are you playing? Matt: Toys Me: Okay. That sounds fun. Matt: Yea Me: Don’t you want to play with your brother? Or maybe your friends? Matt: I play with Lee. Lee is sick. Me: Am sorry. Who is Lee? Matt: My brother Me: What happened to Lee? Matt: We went on holiday and he had to fall sick out of the window!! (Adverbial error) Matt: So we could not go everywhere for a while (Here, Matt means anywhere hence a pronoun error) Me: Did he throw up through the window? Matt: Yea. He had temperature Me: Ooh I am sorry to hear that. He must have had a fever. Where did you go on holiday? Matt: In September Me: Did you go to a new country? Matt: Spain! All of a sudden I went to hospital with him Me: Why did you go to the doctor yet Lee was the one who was sick? Matt: I also used to have headaches (Matt means he had a headache aside from Lee falling sick. This shows underdevelopment of his oral communication skills) Me: Oh is that so am sorry to hear that. Did you have fun in Spain? Matt: Yes. We had a party cos cos of my birthday  (Connective error) Me: Oh really? Did you have the party after coming from hospital? Matt: Doctor gave us medicine then all of a sudden my dad drove to the park and we all ate some picnic. The party was in the night (There is a significant odd use of “all of a sudden” in the conversation. He seems to use ‘all of a sudden in place of then”) Subsequent questioning reveals the link of Matt’s conversation. As a result, adequate conversation is achieved through asking additional questioning. In this study, the questions reported here adopt a complementary kind of approach. As opposed to looking for occurrences that are specific in conversational behavior that is well defined in advance, the study starts by identifying utterances that are considered inappropriate. Later on, an examination of the extent of inappropriacy of speech and their characteristics are weighed. The meaning the child is attempting to make In the conversation, Matt tries to explain what he is doing when the interviewer is talking to him. Am added quest into what he has done in the past and what he has enjoyed doing in the recent past reveals that both him and his brother Lee fell sick during a holiday to Spain. As a result, the family was unable to travel to all the places they intended to visit during their trip. Continued probe reveals that he had a party to celebrate his birthday. Matt’s development of oral language             Matt has showcased an inadequate development of language from the conversation held. This may be due to his age or other sources as research reveals. Different children’s ability to communicate adequately is measured upon different ways they convey their information depending on attitude, age, development of their oral skill and other factors. In the conversation, Matt’s use of words has been analyzed to evaluate his communication abilities. Analysis and Preliminary Evaluation of Inappropriacy levels in Matt’s Speech Utterances are not in all cases regarded as inappropriate to rules of speech just because they are simplified or maybe grammatically underperformed. Alternatively, there is need to create a sense of oddness or/and to the normal flow of conversational. Additionally, judging inappropriacy in conversation should to be done based on the first impressions of the listener to the utterance. Quite often children say things which give an initial sense of oddity. However, when careful thought is put into these words, the listener could be able to make sense of what was what message the child intends to put across (Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, 2010).  In the conversation, Matt goes against rules of speech such as poor subject verb relation. This is seen when he first introduces the idea of suddenly going to Hospital with his brother Lee. He also mentions that Lee fell sick out of the window. Further questioning reveals that his sickness caused him to vomit through the window of the car they were riding in. While judging the child for speech capabilities, a background check of the child's language status and age should be carefully made. Most of the utterances by Matt are rated as inappropriate, either completely in meaning or in part. According to Matt’s parents, he has no history of psychological or speech problems that he has been diagnosed to have. To validate this claim, a retest is highly suggested so as to confirm Matt’s communication inappropriacy relative to his age. This is because underdeveloped language skills could as well be a valid course for his low communication ability. It is evident that a significant correlation between age and the percentage of language inappropriacy in utterances.  Studies conducted with an age restriction of between 8 and 12 years reveal an inverse relationship between age and the height of language inappropriacy. Although most language impaired children will show good performance during testing for abilities, substantial differences can be witnessed. High levels of inappropriacy are witnessed more in subtype language impairments that are rare with the occurrences of inconsistencies. Owing to this factor, some individuals who are characterized as ‘semantic pragmatic’ may be are seen to maintain high inappropriacy scores (Bishop, 1989).  As a result, Matt’s condition should be clearly defined with his increase in age. Categorizing Inappropriate Utterances In categorizing the degree and nature of inappropriacy in utterances, a scheme needs to be developed in order to measure the inappropriacy levels. These were based on the different communication mistakes children make in their speech. The functions the child is using the language In the conversation, Matt is seen to use language for a basic function of communication between him and the interviewer. He expressed his sadness for not being able to play with his brother Lee in the tone of his voice. He also expresses disappointment for not touring many places and having to visit the doctor after him and his brother fell ill. In addition, he expresses excitement due to the party that he had for his birthday. Problems in Expressing Syntax/Semantics This category is used for utterances that make the sense of inappropriacy arise due to unusual syntax or/and semantics. In numerous cases, children appear to demonstrate selection of a wrong lexical item belonging to the correct form of class or even closely related to, while not precisely corresponding to the sense he or she intended to convey. In this case, the utterance may seem oddly expressed. According to Bishop (1989), in judging inappropriacy of this kind, one should consider whether the utterance has the possibility of being made more appropriate as a result of substituting a word or create a similar construction. A single utterance can reveal more than one problem of language inappropriacy Features of the Adult’s Language that help in improving Matt’s Meaning             The interviewer in this case refrains from correcting every grammatical mistake Matt makes. This is because, despite his language inappropriacy, Matt’s message is well driven home. In situations where he is unclear, the interviewer reviews the question to get a clear answer from being able to ensure that Matt clearly understands what kind of answer is expected of him. The interviewer also clarifies his questions by repeating them in way to make them clear. When he asks Matt where they went for the holiday and he answers September, he asks him if he visited a new country. This directs Matt’s mind to understand the answer he should give should be about a place. Clarity is added by the interviewer from repeating his questions and also helping Matt’s speech through contributing words that encourage his conversation towards a particular direction.  How the interaction has extended the child’s thinking Matt’s form of language inappropriacy is monitored in most cases when a child gives a response that is not appropriate to the specific question he/she has been asked. Due to this, the child is more likely to misinterpret the question. He/she may also be in apposition to grasp the meaning of a particular item of the function of a word in a question but fail to understand it all together (Bishop, 1989). As the interviewer assists him to understand the question better, his communication skills may be improved. As a result Matt will in a better position to comprehend literal meaning in a better way in future (Allen & Rapin, 1983). Although it is not easy to judge a child’s ability to misunderstand, it is necessary for the Matt to keep on answering the question asked hence it will be easier to detect the understanding level of the child. This is why the interviewer allows Matt to tackle the questions on his own in most of the cases unless necessary. In the case of Matt, he answers September to the question “Where did you go for your holiday.” In the case where the child may opt to deviate from the course of discussion and move on to a whole new topic of discussion, such as Matt’s case, the interviewer redirects the course of discussion back to track (Bishop, 1989). Matt’s use of Context Bishop (1989) explains that some children may show sufficient understanding of the plain meaning of a certain utterance but fail to capture the intended meaning of the adult’s contest. This may be influenced by the environmental, social or linguistic content not beingtaken into account. As a result a likelihood of an extended literal interpretation may be witnessed. This is judged more accurately by preceding conversation turns in order to judge the child’s language as either sufficient or inappropriate. Matt seems to be preoccupied with his game and also the idea of playing alone due to his brothers sickness. This may be a contributing factor to his poor language adequacy. This claim will however be proven in future with his advancement in age and better or even medical evaluation. General problems in children’s speech include little or insufficient information being offered by the child who has been asked the question (Johnston, 1985). This may take the form of one word answers, or very short answers that do not qualify as answers. In another instance, logical steps may be omitted from the child’s dialogue. The effect is a bizarre flow of communication. This does not allow the listener to gather crucial parts of the conversation so as to gather the needed information. In a parallel condition, the child may give too much information. This may lead to the intended information not being gathered or the occurrence of miscommunication (Bishop, 1989). As a result, the evaluation on Matt should be done later to determine whether the findings were due to general childhood communication characteristics or a particular language deficiency on his part. Conclusion It is clear that more work needs to be done so as to be able to specify and define different forms of  conversational challenges in children that lead to the notion of conversational inappropriacy. The attempts that have already been made have proved beyond doubt that there is sound reason to improve them.               Reference: ALLEN, D. & RAPIN, I. (1983). Developmental Language Disorders: Nosologic considerations. Neuropsychology: Language Reading and Spelling. New York: Academic Press. Bishop D, V., M. (1989). Conversational Characteristics of Children with Semantic Pragmatic Disorders. What features Lead to a Judgment of Inappropriacy? The College of Speech Therapists, London. Retrieved on 18th August 2010 from: JOHNSTON, J. (1985). The Discourse Symptoms of Developmental Disorders. Handbook of Discourse Analysis Vol. III London: Academic Press. McTEAR, M. (1985). Pragmatic disorders: A Case Study of Conversational disability. British Journal of Disorders of Communication, Vol. 20 pp.119-128.  Hospital, C. C. (2010). Communication Disorders. Speech Conditions and Diagnoses . Retrieved on 19th August 2010 from: Read More