The language performance of hearing aid and cochlear implant adult users: A pragmatic approach
Issue: Vol 6 No. 2 (2015) .
Journal: Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders
Subject Areas: Linguistics
Abstract:
This study aimed to describe the pragmatic behaviours of persons with adult-onset hearing loss (AHL) and to compare the behaviours underlying conversational abilities of hearing aid (HA) users to those of cochlear implant (CI) recipients using the Pragmatic Protocol described by Prutting and Kirchner (1987). The Pragmatic Protocol comprises 30 parameters that are organized in three aspects: verbal, paralinguistic and non-verbal dimensions. Thirty-five hearing aid users and 25 cochlear implant recipients were videotaped in a naturalistic setting during conversation with a partner. Fourteen (41%) of the HA users displayed normative pragmatic behaviour, in contrast to the CI recipients, among whom only 4 (16%) showed normative pragmatic behaviour, a significant difference (t=2.25, df=57, p =0.014. 1-tailed). When comparison was restricted to participants that displayed pragmatic inappropriateness, the two groups showed a similar pattern of inappropriate behaviour. Inappropriateness was observed in Vocal intensity (49%), Repair/revision (37%), Vocal quality (31%), intelligibility (27%), Feedback to speaker (25%), Pause time (24%) and Interruption/overlap (20%).
Although the HA and the CI groups showed a similar pragmatic profile, there were quantitative and some qualitative differences between the two groups. Pragmatic behaviour was more appropriate in the HA group than in the CI user group. The pragmatic profile indicated that the adults with AHL show a wide variety of appropriate pragmatic behaviours and a specific profile of inappropriate pragmatic behaviours. The profile was centred on the paralinguistic and interactive pragmatic parameters, while the verbal and nonverbal aspects were found appropriate.
Author: Sara Meilijson, Jaclyn B Spitzer
References :
Austin, J. (1962). How to do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ball, M. J. (2000) Problems in pragmatic profiling. In Müller, N. (Ed.) Pragmatics and Clinical Applications, 89–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/sspcl.7.06bal
Collison, E. A., Munson, B. and Earley Carney, A. (2004). Relations among linguistic and cognitive skills and spoken word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 47 (3), 496–508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2004/039)
Dowel, R. C., Clark, G. M., Seligman, P. M. and Brown, A. M. (1986). Perception of connected speech without lipreading, using a multi-channel hearing prosthesis. Acta Otolaryngologica 102 (1–2), 7–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/00016488609108639
Fryauf-Bertschy , H., Tyler, R. S., Kelsay, D. M. R., Gantz, B. J. and Woodwarth, G. G. (1997). Cochlear implant use by prelingually deafened children: the influence of age at implant use and length of device use. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 40 (1), 183–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4001.183
Johnson, C. E. and Pichora-Fuller, M. K. (1994). How communication goals may alter handicap. Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology 18 (4), 235–242.
Leder, S. B. and Spitzer, J. B. (1990). Longitudinal effects of single-channel cochlear implantation of voice quality. Laryngoscope 100 (4), 395–398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1288/00005537-199004000-00012
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lind, C. (2014). Communication partnership therapy as audiologic rehabilitation. In J. J. Montano, and J.B. Spitzer (Eds) Adult Audiologic Rehabilitation, 237–256. San Diego, CA: Plural.
Lind, C., Hickson, L., and Erber, N. P. (2004). Conversation repair and acquired hearing impairment: A preliminary quantitative clinical study. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Audiology 26 (1), 40–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1375/audi.26.1.40.55987
Lind, C., Hickson, L., and Erber, N. P. (2006). Conversational repair and adult cochlear implantation: A qualitative case study. Cochlear implants International 7 (1), 33–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/cim.2006.7.1.33
Meilijson, S. R., Kasher, A. and Elizur, A. (2004). Language performance in chronic schizophrenia: A pragmatic approach. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing 47 (3), 695–713. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2004/053)
Munson, B., Donaldson, G. Allen, S., Collison, E. and Nelson, D. (2003). Patterns of phoneme misperceptions by listeners with cochlear implants varying in overall speech perception ability. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113 (2), 925–935. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.1536630
Most, T., Shina-August, E., and Meilijson, S. (2010), Pragmatic abilities of children with hearing loss using cochlear implants or hearing aids compared to hearing children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 15(4), 422–437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enq032
Penn, C. (1988). The profiling of syntax and pragmatics in aphasia. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 2 (3), 179–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699208808985255
Prutting, C. and Kirchner, D. (1987). A clinical appraisal of the pragmatic aspects of language. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 52 (2), 105–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/jshd.5202.105
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438
Stephens, D., Jaworski, A., Lewis, P. and Aslan, S. (1999). An analysis of the communication tactics used by hearing impaired adults. British Journal of Audiology 33 (1), 17–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/03005364000000097
Waltzman, S. B., Cohen, N. L., Gomolin, R. L., Green, J. E. Shapiro, W. H., Hoffman, R. A. et al. (1997). Open-set speech perception in congenitally deaf children using cochlear implants. The American Journal of Otology 18 (3), 342–349.
Wilson J., Hickson, L., and Worrall, L. (1998). Use of communication strategies by adults with hearing impairment, Asia Pacific Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing 3 (1), 29–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/136132898805577250