> 0/ \pJava Excel API v2.6 Ba==h\:#8X@"1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial + ) , * `8DC, 4$titletitle[alternative]title[translated]author[google(nobreakline)] contributor[author(nobreakline)]"contributor[scopusid(nobreakline)]date[issued]relation[journaltitle]identifier[issn] citationsidentifier[major]subject(nobreakline) publisheridentifier[thesisdegree]contributor[advisor]relation[ispartofseries]relation[index(nobreakline)]typeabstractidentifier[govdoc]identifier[uri]identifier[doi(doi)]identifier[isbn]identifier[ismn]
identifier(| \֩\ x@ưt DٳX X1 8ǘ̬YThe Cochlear Implanted Children s Ability to Use Prosody in Ambiguous Sentence Processing2015
Y ŴѼYtTŐYP YDoctor-Doctoral ThesismThis study is to examine cochlear implanted children s ability to use prosody in sentence processing and to investigate relevance related variables. This study compared performance of the comprehension and utterance of the children with cochlear implantation(CI) to normal hearing children(NH) whether the childen can use prosody to determine sentence structure and meaning accordingly in syntactically ambiguous sentences. And it was investigated the relation between relevant variables and cochlear implanted children s ability to use prosody in comprehension and utterance of syntactically ambiguous sentences.
The participants of this study are twenty children with CI who are 7-8years old, received a cochlear implant(CI) before 3 years old, and used more than 4 years. Twenty children with NH as a control group were matched to children with CI for age and gender.
All children individually were tested to 2 tasks using prosody to determine sentence structure and meaning accordingly in syntactically ambiguous sentences. There are comprehension and utterance tasks of syntactically ambiguous sentences pointing or speaking to visually presented pictures. The utterance task of syntactically ambiguous sentences was measured by the perceptual evaluation and the acoustic test. And reading task consisted of reading aloud and comprehension the text was used to measure reading ability as related factors.
The children with CI performed significantly lower than children with NH on the both tasks of syntactically ambiguous sentences that were the comprehension task(p< .05) and utterance task(p< .001). The performance of comprehension and utterance tasks of syntactically ambiguous sentences were correlated to chronological age and comprehension and utterance tasks of syntactically ambiguous sentences to the children with NH, but were correlated to chronological age, age of CI, duration of CI and language variables to the children with CI.
Findings suggested that the cochlear implanted children s ability to use prosody in comprehension and utterance of syntactically ambiguous sentences was poorer than children with NH. Unlikely children with NH the ability to use of prosody in children with CI was affected to age of CI, duration of CI, and language ability. So in the children with CI, not only the intervention for prosody is important to improvement language skill after CI but also age of CI.;l\ XǬ` L Tǔ X Xĳ| Uֈ X0 t, ̐ǔ X| ,t tX0 t йX x ƌ п̹ DȲ| ̈́ ƌD \֩\. 췘, ĳ ` Dٳ@ %X 8\ xt X % <ܴ1t \ ̈́ ƌx ((prosody)D X XՔp $D x(Osberger, 1992; Osberger & Mcgarr, 1982). p0 x@ưt D -l X ɬ| @ x@ưt DٳX й й, Ŵť%@ Dٳ L <\ 0ĳ X̹(Carter et al., 2002; Geers, 2004, 2006; Colletti et al., 2005) Ȉ ( L1 @ %Dٳ Dt \(Uchanski & Geer, 2003; Lenden & Flipsen, 2007; Peng et al, 2008).
L x@ưt DٳX ( ( l@ T ļtǘ (Luo et al., 2007; Hopyan-Misakyan et al., 2009; Cullington & Zeng, 2011; Kristensen et al., 2013), 0(F0) ő, 8, ɍ, й ĳ@ @ (ǹ1(Vogel & Raimy, 2002; Campisi et al., 2005; Hocevar-Boltezar, 2005, 2006; Lenden & Flipson, 2007; Peng et al., 2007; OHalpin, 2010; $ & 1̬, 2012; $ x, 2013) \ D PT. % DٳX (ǥ%@ D 0 Ĭ0 8ǘ̬ йX x, tt ɔ\ 0D Xp D }0 =1(Clark, 1995) }0tt(@ٳ|, 2000)@ @ }0%ĳ ( (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003; Wade-Woolley & Wood, 2006). t@< t (ǥ%t l 8 ɔ\ ƥD X Ǭ `D XՔp Dt x@ưt DٳD <\ ( (l 买 DX.
l 8tt x@ưt DٳX (ǥ%D X ( xX Ĭ| ଐ \. ( Xt ɔ\ X1 8X tt@ | t Y90 x@ưt Dٳ % Dٳ X (%D DPX (% ( xX Ĭ| x@ưt DٳX (ɬX p| Xଐ X.
38 t x@ưt D X Ŵť%t ɴ JŔ x@ưt Dٳ 9 1ļD |X¨ % Dٳ 20) 40t 8X. l(\@, 2009; M`, 2011; ٳ0, 1999; t8, 1996; D, 2006)| 8, X X1 8 | ȑX X1 8 ttե% ͥ%D X. (x<\ }0% \ \T (0\m }00, 0 x, 2015)\ X. X1 8 ttե%@ \8D 0 |0\ X, X1 8 ͥ%@ \8X D йXՌ \ L x @ LǥY \ !X. (x<\ }0% \ \T ) 0| X, X D}0 }0 =1| 5ų }ǌ X X. x@ưt Dٳ % Dٳ X X1 8 ttե% X\ X1 8 ͥ%, }0%D DPX0 t |Ƅ(One-way ANOVA)D X, P X LǥY X\ X1 8 ͥ%D DPX0 t t- D X. ļ\ X1 8 tt ͥ% (xX Ĭ Pearson `Ĭ\ X.
l L . , X1 8 tt % X\ ͥ%@ P Ĭ<\ X\ (t| , x@ưt Dٳ t % Dٳ Dt X. X, X1 8 ͥ%X LǥY | 8t@ ĬL ɍD !\ , P Ĭ<\ X\ (t| x@ưt Dٳ @ XĬ| д |X 8t@ ĬLX ɍt % Dٳ Dt 4 <\ Ь. P P X 0x |X 8tǘ ĬLX ɍ@ Ĭ<\ X\ (t| д JX. K, X1 8 ttե% X\ X1 ͥ% ( xX Ĭ| , X1 8 ttե% % Dٳ @ \9 X1 8 ͥ%̹ Ĭ| xp t, x@ưt Dٳ @ \9 X1 8 ͥ%, (xx x@ưt 9 x@ư 0, Ŵ xx ©ƴ%, l8Xtt%, }0% Ĭ| Ȱ. X1 8 ͥ% % Dٳ @ X1 8 ttե%̹ Ĭ| <ǘ, x@ưt Dٳ @ X1 8 ttե% xĳ Ŵ x l8Xtt% }0 =1, X D}0@ĳ Ĭ| Ȱ.
t@ @ l 0| X1 8X tt@ D t l (%@ x@ưt Dٳ % DٳX (t 䲔 D L . X1 8X tt@ P x@ưt Dٳ X (%@ % Dٳ Dt XXՌ X, % Dٳ t X1 tt@ % x \9̹ Ĭ| xp t, x@ưt Dٳ @ ( x xĳ Ŵ xĳ Ĭ X. t\ Dʹ L, % Dٳ@ (| D |
̀0 Ŵ Ť ݴX ƌ hخ X ٳ<\ ̬tp t x@ưt Dٳ@ (ĳ Ŵ @ hخ ɍx Yյ Xt ݴt| ̬ Xĳx x%D 0|XՔ <\ t` . tǃ@ Y90X x@ưt DٳŌ Ŵť%X YյD hX T X ix T@ T֩ i (| \֩, ̬t|XՔ D ¬ 1D ¬\. 0|, x@ưt DٳX Ŵɬ Ǵ (ǥ%X ( 0x Ĭ ½ (x ɬȵ \ t H.~http://dspace.ewha.ac.kr/handle/2015.oak/213482;
http://dcollection.ewha.ac.kr/jsp/common/DcLoOrgPer.jsp?sItemId=000000116546;"@Ce|(!CPrs BKm~ AJlm 25
8;
dMbP?_*+%" ,,??U
!
"
#
l>@
!"#$%&()*+,-.Root EntryWorkbook>SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8'