Speech Analysis Essay Research Paper Speech AnalysisThe
Address Analysis Essay, Research Paper
The linguistic communication sample that was analyzed was taken from a kid 4 old ages and 11 months old. The entering took topographic point in the kid s sleeping room, and I was the lone other individual present. The sample analysis is based on about 15 proceedingss of address or 50 vocalizations.
After transcribing the sample, I foremost calculated the Type Token Ratio ( TTR ) . The Type Token Ratio measures the kid s lexical diverseness. It is calculated by spliting the entire figure of different words by the entire figure of words. Your consequence is so compared to normative informations. The Type Token Ratio of my linguistic communication sample was.424, ensuing from the entire figure of 135 different words divided by the entire figure of 318 words. Comparing my consequence to the norm of a kid about the same age, there is a difference of.03. This means that the Type Token Ratio of my linguistic communication sample is non significantly under the mean. The kid has about the same lexical diverseness as most kids her age.
The 2nd analysis was a step of the kid s grammatical or syntactic development. This was determined by happening the Mean Length Utterance ( MLU ) . The Mean Length Utterance can be found by first adding up the entire figure of morphemes ( basic unit of intending ) in the sample and so spliting it by the entire figure of vocalizations, which was 50 in this instance. The entire figure of morphemes in the sample was 379. This resulted in a MLU of 7.58. Besides comparing this consequence to the scope of kids within one standard divergence of the predicted MLU, it can be seen that the kid is over the normal scope of 4.44-6.82. This could intend that the kid is somewhat in front in syntactic development for her age, but it besides must be taken into a count that this was merely calculated from 50 vocalizations, which is a little representation of the kid s address and development.
The syntactic analysis was used to find different phases of lingual development based on the Production Characteristics of Linguistic Development Organized by Brown s Stages in the countries of negation, yes/no inquiries, wh- inquiries, and complex sentences. For negation, the most frequent and besides most advanced phase was Late V, which is the highest phase of negation recorded on the chart. Merely one yes/no inquiry vocalization was recorded in the linguistic communication sample and that fell into Stage III, which marks a yes/no inquiry with lifting modulation. Accor
donging to the chart, Stage III develops between 31 to 41 months old. Besides merely one wh- inquiry vocalization was recorded and that fell into the Late I/Early II Stage. This phase of development comes between 23 to 31 months. The kid exhibited the most frequent degree of complex sentences at Early IV, nevertheless, the most advanced was Late V. Although at first glimpse it may be thought that the kid is behind because the highest degree is non ever the most frequent, that is non the instance. Even though the kid may non utilize her most advanced degree often, the fact that she has used it at some point in the linguistic communication sample proves that she has to some extent mastered that degree. Harmonizing to this sample, the kid seems to be developing usually since there are no important failings.
The concluding portion of the analysis concerned the kid s matter-of-fact development. After looking at each vocalization and sorting them harmonizing to Dore s Conversational Acts, a few things can be observed. There was a close to equal sum of description and statement vocalizations, a few less response to bespeak vocalizations, and the least sum of petition vocalizations. This indicates that in this sample, the kid was largely depicting yesteryear and present facts and saying facts. The kid appears to hold alot to state the hearer about her personal experiences. She seldom made petitions to the hearer and is happy merely speaking about things that she wants to portion. The 2nd portion of the matter-of-fact analysis had to make with bend taking. 82 % of the vocalizations were responses, go forthing merely 18 % to be initiating vocalizations. The kid largely responded to inquiries and so elaborated on them by adding more item. The kid is cognizant to some point of bend taking regulations, and merely one initiating vocalization could be marked as an break. The kid is really chatty.
From this analysis was can larn about the kid s morphological, semantic, syntactic, and matter-of-fact linguistic communication development. All of the decisions drawn are merely for this kid at the clip the sample was taken and merely for 50 vocalizations. The kid is somewhat above norm in syntactic development, somewhat below norm in morphological development, and exhibits marks of mean semantic development. The matter-of-fact analysis was merely descriptive and can non be compared to any norms. Through these analyses we can see that the kid is following a normal form of development with no important strengths or failings.