Abstract

The present study focuses on the impact of graphic symbols used in Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) on clause construction. It is not yet well-understood to what extent communication produced via graphic symbols differs from verbal production. This study attempts shed light on the impact of the graphic symbol modality on message construction beyond individual differences, language knowledge, and language-specific patterns by providing a direct comparison between children’s verbal and graphic symbol production. Nineteen typically developing Hebrew-speaking children aged 4–5 years were presented with 16 short videos of actions and were asked to express what they saw verbally and by choosing among graphic symbols displayed on an iPad communication board. The 570 clauses produced by the children were coded and analyzed. A significant difference was found in favor of verbal speech across different syntactic structures in terms of utilization of the target lexicon, syntactic complexity, and expected target word order. These results are consistent with the existing literature for English. Implications for AAC practices are discussed, highlighting the notion that using graphic symbols to represent spoken language may not reflect actual linguistic knowledge and that adequate, explicit instruction is necessary for graphic representation of more complex linguistic structures.

Highlights

  • A diverse population uses Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) services, including children and adults with developmental and acquired disabilities whose ability to use natural speech is affected by severe speech or language difficulties (Smith, 1996, 2006; Binger and Light, 2008)

  • AAC is often utilized within the context of multimodal communication, which involves selecting the preferred mode of communication that allows the most efficient self-expression

  • Higher scores were observed for lexicon (M = 59.602, SD = 23.002) and syntactic complexity (M = 61.719, SD = 19.271) than for word order (M = 49.222, SD = 29.872, least significant differences (LSD) = 10.380, SE = 2.494, p = 0.001 and LSD = 12.497, SE = 2.911, p < 0.001, respectively)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

A diverse population uses Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) services, including children and adults with developmental and acquired disabilities whose ability to use natural speech is affected by severe speech or language difficulties (Smith, 1996, 2006; Binger and Light, 2008). AAC is an area of clinical practice that provides tools and techniques to supplement or replace speech, including the use of unaided communication (e.g., gestures, facial expression) and “aided communication” such as graphic symbols displayed on communication devices to represent spoken language (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2020). AAC is often utilized within the context of multimodal communication, which involves selecting the preferred mode of communication (e.g., aided or unaided) that allows the most efficient self-expression. Among those who use AAC and are not yet literate, graphic symbols are the primary communication modality (Von Tetzchner and Grove, 2003). The automatic tendency to use multimodal communication, such as a combination of natural speech along with manual signs and external symbols, has become a principal practice in AAC (Loncke, 2014)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call