94 13 209 235 209 12 1 2 3 4 5
210 narration storytelling Riessman1993 Tager-Flusberg, 1995 pragmatics Pridham, 2001 Tager- Flusberg 1995 50 Lord & Paul Botting, 2002Capp, Losh & Thurber, 2000 1997 Losh, Capps, 2003Loveland, McEvoy, Tunali & Kelly, 1990Solomon, 2004Tager- Flusberg, 1995Tager-Flusbrg & Sullivan, 1995 1928 Botting 2002Kelly 1997Pridham 2001Renkema 1993 Vladimir Propp 1968 Propp Loveland McEvoy Tunali Kelly1990
211 2000Losh & Capps, 2003Loveland, McEvoy, Tunali & Kelly, 1990Tager-Flusberg, 1995 Tager-Flusberg & Sullivan, 1995 Capp Losh Thurber2000 Tager-Flusberg 1995 Feagans & Applebaum, 1986 Soloman2004 Labov Waletzky1976 Botting 2002 o r i e n t a t i o n complication evaluation solution coda M a n dl e r Johnson1977 Tager-Flusberg1995 92 93 Botting, 2000Norbury & Bishop, 2003 Loveland & Tunali, 1993 Capps, Losh & Thurber,
212 reference Tager-Flusberg1995 Tager- Flusberg Sullivan1995 proposition Tager-Flusberg argument Sullivan1995 Tager-Flusberg1995 Norbury Bishop2003 global structure local structure evaluation Losh Capps2003 hierarchical representation 2000 frames of mind character speech hedges negative comments causal connective Norbury Bishop Tager- Flusberg Capps Losh Thurber2000
213 Tager-Flusberg1995 Baron-Cohen 1986 Loveland1990 10 9 15 10 Autistic Spec- 13 7 6 trum Disorder ASD 8 6 8 69 73 Frogwhere are you? 1920 1980 Loveland McEvoy Tunali Kelley proposition 1990 16 Tager-Flusberg Baron-Cohen 1986 Love- land 1990
214 Tager-Flusberg Sullivan1995 6 Tager-Flusberg Sullivan1995 27 9 Tager-Flusberg1995 Frog, On His Own. Mayer, 1973 Frog, where are you? Mayer, 1969 Sullivan1995 Tager-Flusberg Sullivan 1995 Capps Losh Thurber2000 Tager-Flusberg Sullivan1995 Tager-Flusberg1995 Tager-Flusberg Loveland 1990 Tager-Flusberg Losh Capps2003 28 Sullivan1995 13 22 11 85116
215 1 2 3 Tager-Flusberg1995 Tager-Flusberg Sullivan1995 Capps Losh Thurber 4 2000 60 80 6 13 20 5 LoshCapps2003 Tager-Flusberg1995 Loveland 1990 Tager-Flusberg Norbury Bishop2003 17 1995 specific language disorder 21 pragmatic disorder 12 18
216 Ilse & Ina 2005 14 14 4 10 6 8 70 12 5 7 1 75 1 8 4 12 12 4 1 5 6 4 3 7 6 76 78 77 75 PPVT-R 77-124 97-124 77-124 83-133 95.38 115 101.92 109.5 28 1984 28 20 5 7
217 27 4 90 9 9 7 7 101.92 4 7 6 109.5 T 4 1. 2. 3. Peabody 4. Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised Lloyd M. Dunn 1959 1981 LeotaM. Dunn 1. 1993 2..84 3. 6.61 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. SCHUBI 1. 1997 27 2. 612 3. 4.
218 argument 92.5 100 82.5 100 85 92 87.5 924 92 6 PPVT-R 93 12
219 Labov Waletzky1976 Tager-Flusberg1995 1. a. b. c. d. 2. 3. a. b. c. d. 4. referential device H ar l ey 2001
220 1. 2. nominal thematic anapho- ric mixed 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 60 2 192.92 29.75 6.57 35.92 251.42 32.42 7.7 21. a f f e c t i v e 33 enhancer
221 4 8 2 N M SD t P A 12 192.92 90.72-1.41.186 R 12 251.42 11.59 A 12 29.75 12.61-0.56.587 R 12 32.42 2.95 A 12 6.57 1.19-3.29.007 R 12 7.70.47 A 12 35.92 14.67.29.368 R 12 21.33 10.38 A R p.01 3 4 4 5 3 A04 A01 8 6 A08 A10 A07 A09 5
222 3 N M SD t P A 12 5.83 2.17-2.59 025 R 12 7.58.67 A 12.83.83-1.84.094 R 12 1.75 1.29 A 12.50.52-3.00.012 R 12 1.25.75 A 12 2.67 1.83-4.64.001 R 12 6.17 1.59 A R P.05 p.01 4 t A 12 4.67 2.42-4.57.001 R 12 8.83 1.80 A 12.67.89.27.795 R 12.58.79 A 12 1.25 1.36-1.15.275 R 12 2.25 2.34 A 12 4.08 2.11-3.16.01 R 12 6.58 1.16 A R P.05 p.01 5 t A 12 2.46 2.58-5.38.000 R 12 4.19 2.98 A 12 3.50 2.20-5.96.000 R 12 8.92 1.98 A 12 2.67 2.47-4.34.000 R 12 4.56 3.69 A 12 1.00 1.04-4.90.000 R 12 3.00.85 A R p.001 12 8
223 A04 2 A10 4 8 4 6 12 6 t A 12 1.5 1.45 2.25.046 R 12.5.67 A 12 1.0.95 1.88.087 R 12.3.65 A 12.3.49 1.39.191 R 12.08.29 A 12 1.17 1.34-4.10.002 R 12 3.08.90 A R p.05 p.01 A08 A09
224 7 6 7 N M SD t P A 12.17.39.46.676 R 12.33 1.15 A 12 1.33 1.23-1.89.569 R 12 2.83 2.69 A 12 1.0 1.28-1.85.087 R 12 2.33 2.90 A R 8 t A 12 3.50 4.66 3.34.007 R 12 9.33 5.33 A R p.01 8
225 Tager-Flusberg1995 Tager- Flusberg Sullivan1995 Tager-Flusberg1995 Capps, Losh, Thurber2000 Capps 2000 T a n g e r - F l u s b e r g Sullivan1995 Capps Losh Thurber 2000 Capps Losh2003 Tager-Flusberg 1995 Losh Capps2003 - -- 10 7 6
226 93 92 24 63-84 Tager-Flusberg, 1995Labov Waletzky, 1976
227 Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1986). Mechanical, behavioral and intentional understanding of picture stories in autistic children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 4, 113-125. Botting, N. (2002)Narrative as a clinical tool for the assessment of linguistic and pragmatic impairments. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 18, 1-22. Capps, L., Losh, M., & Thurber, C. (2000). The frog ate the bug and made his mouth sad : narrative competence in children with autism. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28(2), 193-204. Feagans, L. & Applebaum, M. I. (1986). Validation of language subtypes in learning disabled children. Journal of Education Psychology, 78, 358-364. Harley, T. 2001. The Psychology og Language. UKPsychology Press. Ilse, N. & Ina, B. 2005. Captured by details: sense-making, language and communication in autism. Journal of Communication Disabilities, 38, 123-141. Lord, C. & Paul, R. (1997). Language and communication in autism. In D. J. Cohen & F. R. Volkmar (1997). Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders(2 nd ). Canada: John Wiley & Sons. Losh, M., & Capps, L.(2003). Narrative ability in high-functioning children with autism or Aspergers syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33(3), 239-251. Loveland, K. A., McEvoy, R. E., Tunali, B. & Kelley, M. L. (1990). Narrative stories telling in autism and Down s syndrome. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 185-202. Norbury, C. F., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2003). Narrative skills of children with communication impairments. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 38(3), 287-313. Pridham, F.(2001). Features of spoken language and oral narratives. In F. Pridham (Eds.) The Language of Conversation. London: Routledge. 9-22. Renkema, J. (1993). Narration. In J. Renkema (1993). Discourse studies: an introductory textbook. Philadelphia : John Benjamins.118-127. Soloman, O. (2004). Narrative introductions: discourse competence of children with autistic spectrum disorders. Discourse Studies, 6(2), 253-276. Tager-Flusberg, H. (1995). Once upon a rabbit : stories narrated by autistic
228 children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13, 45-59. Tager-Flusberg, H. & Sullivan, K. (1995). Attributing mental states to story characters: a comparison of narratives produces by autistic and mental retarded individuals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 16, 241-256.
229 61 8 61 8 7.62 1 8 8 2 0 2 0 1 0 2 2 4 2 3 2 1
230 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 S.+V.+C.
231 SSPS
232 MLU 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 coherence 2 3 coherence 2 3 coherence 2 3 coherence 2 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 4 2 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
233
234 The Narrative ability of the 1 st and 2 nd grade Elementary School Pupils with High Function Autism Kuan-Hsing Chen Wuxing Elementary School, Taipei City Cheng-Fen Chang National Taiwan Normal University Students with high function autism display pragmatic disorder when they communicate with others. The aim of this paper is to investigate the capability for grade1 and grade 2 elementary school pupils with high function autism to perform their oral narration. The research used the following experimental methods in this study made two groups of students. Experimental group had 12 low-grade elementary school pupils with high function autism and the other consisted of a large number of pupils not showing any symptoms of the disease. All students were given the same language material and had to tell four stories. Their performance in story length, story structure, referential device, affective enhancer and story syntax was compared in order to identify the difference in language application capability by the two groups of students. The results indicate that, there is no significant difference in the story length with regard to the total number of sentences. However, there is a substantial variation in the mean length of utterances used by the two groups. The lengths of utterance used by the pupils without the autism are longer than those by the autistic pupils. Regarding the story structure, there is a remarkable difference between the two groups in orientation, complication, evaluation, evaluation, solution. This shows that the pupils with high function autism have a poor capability of language application in the area of narration, when compared to the other group of students. Therefore this area will need to be improved. There is significant difference between the two groups regarding referential device in nominal referential device and mixed referential device. The level of reference used by the pupils with high function autism is to that of the normal upils. Comparing the affective enhancer, there is no noticeable between the two groups. Although both groups use the same type of sentence(subject verb object), there is an difference in the utterance repairs, when the performance in story syntax is analyzed. The frequencies of utterance-repair of the
235 normal pupils are less than those of the high function autism pupils. At the end of the paper, the researchers make an insight discussion according to the investigation results. Key words: autism, pragmatic disorder, narrative, story structure