학령전기 말더듬 아동의 화용언어특성

Abstract

ABSTRACT Characteristics of Pragmatic Language Development in Preschool Children Who Do and Do Not Stutter Park MinA Advisor: Prof. Shin Moonja, Ph.D. Department of Speech and Language Pathology Graduate School of Chosun University

Preschool-age period is an important time in the interpersonal development, speech-language development and communication through fluent speech-language has a positive influence on interpersonal development. However, The current consensus is that the onset on stuttering typically occurs just before 3, and most onsets occur between ages 2 and 5 years. When Initial assessment of preschool-age, speech-language pathologists(SLP) have to make two difficult and important decisions. The first decision is to distinguish between stuttering and normal disfluency that appear in the language development process. The second decision is to predict whether or not to recover from the stuttering made in the first decision. The SLP says that the second decision is harder than the first decision. In order to predict whether or not to recover from the stuttering, the SLP should confirm the fact that co-occurring speech-language disorders and a communication attitude for CWS(children who do stutter). Therefore, the SLP should proceed with detaill speech-language assessment in the initial assessment process of speech-language ability. When evaluating disfluency of verbal language, the overall evaluation needs to be done. In other words, it is important to consider communication attitude, etc. the internal aspect of CWS as well as overt characteristics, such as the type of disfluency and frequency of disfluency. Thus, this study investigated the pragmatic language ability in CWS. This study used a Children Pragamatic Language checklist-Preshool(CPLC-P) to examine the pragmatic language ability of each children. The CPLC-P consists of a total of 36 questions, and each child's mother will be able to evaluate her child's communication behavior in everyday with a rickert scale between 0 and 3. The mother who wrote the CPLC-P must to have no experience stuttering and negative perception of stuttering. The purpose of this study was (1) to compare the total score of the CPLC-P significant difference between preshool-age CWS and CWNS(children who do nor stutter) (2) to compare the score by categories of CPLC-P(discourse management, situational variations, communicative intentions, non-verbal communication) significant difference between preshool-age CWS and CWNS, and (3) to seek relation about the total score of CPLC-P and the score of Kiddy-Communication Attitude Test(KiddyCAT) in each group. This study participants were 15 preshool-age CWS and 15 CWNS(matched with age and sex). To measure the overt stuttering of the groups, this researcher examined and verified the 300 syllables shown in the play. The CWS showed AD(abnormalities disfluency) that more than three in the three consecutive 100 syllables(300 syllables), and the CWNS was numbered less than two times every three consecutive 100 syllables(300 syllables). And the communication attitude was examined through the KiddyCAT. This study results (1) significant group differences were found in the total score of CPLC-P. CWS scored significantly lower than CWNS(p=.000). And (2) significant group differences were found in the score by categories of CPLC-P. CWS scored significantly lower than CWNS(discourse management p=.000, situational variations p=.000, communicative intentions p=.003, non-verbal communication p=.000). (3) Both groups had no significant correlation among the total score of CPLC-P and the score of KiddyCAT(CWS group r=-.055, CWNS group r=.226 ). The results suggest that the pragmatic language in CWS is evaluated detailedly in the initial assessment process. It is important to look at it in detail. For example, the pragmatic language be classified discourse management, situational variations, communicative intentions and non-verbal communication. The assessment of pragmatic language and the assessment communication attitude should be made individually. SLP should not try to predict a pragmatic language ability with communication attitude scores.