1230 Devika S

NARRATIVE DISCOURSE SKILLS OF CHILDREN WITH LEARNING
DISABILITY
Devika, S.
Register Number: 15SLP011
A Dissertation Submitted in Part Fulfilment of Degree of Master of Science
(Speech-Language Pathology)
University Of Mysore
Mysore
ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF SPEECH AND HEARING
MANASAGANGOTHRI, MYSORE-570 006
May, 2017
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Narrative discourse skills of
children with Learning Disability is the bonafide work submitted in part fulfillment for
the degree of Master of Science (Speech-Language Pathology) of the student
(Registration No. 15SLP011). This has been carried out under the guidance of a faculty
of this institute and has not been submitted earlier to any other University for the award
of any other Diploma or Degree.
Mysore Dr. S. R. Savithri

Director
May, 2017
All India Institute of Speech and Hearing
Manasagangothri, Mysuru-570006
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Narrative discourse skills of
children with Learning Disability has been prepared under my supervision and
guidance. It is also certified that this has not been submitted earlier in any other
University for the award of any Diploma or Degree.
Dr. Hema. N
Mysore
Lecturer in Speech Sciences
May, 2017
Department of Speech-Language Sciences
All India Institute of Speech and Hearing
Manasagangothri, Mysuru.
DECLARATION
This is to certify that this dissertation entitled Narrative discourse skills of
children with Learning Disability is the result of my own study under the guidance of
Dr. Hema. N, Department of Speech-Language Sciences, All India Institute of Speech
and Hearing, Mysore and has not been submitted earlier in any other University for the
award of any Diploma or Degree.
Mysore Register No: 15SLP011

May , 2017
Dedicated to God
Almighty and to
My Acha, Amma and
Shals
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all I would like to solemnly express my deep gratitude towards my guide, Hema Ma’am
for all your help and guidance. Thanks for answering my never ending series of questions. Your
constant remarks, suggestions and criticisms have taught me many valuable lessons which I can
never forget!
I also express my gratitude to director Ma’am, Dr.S.R.Savithri for all support.
My sincere thanks to Mrs & Mr Prajin Babu and Meenakshy Ma’am of Travancore National
School,Tvm and also Dr.Sreeja of Kalyan School, Tvm for allowing me to do data collection.
Thank you to each one of you for your cooperation. My heartfelt gratitude to the smart
participants who participated in the study. My heartfelt thanks to the sweet participants and
their parents at RBI staff quarters, Thamalam,Tvm for taking part in my study with full
cooperation.
A loving thanks and salute to all my teachers of Holy Angels ISC school, NISH, and AIISH for
their patience, hardwork and dedication towards their profession. Undoubtedly, you all have
shaped me into a better person.
I extend my words of gratitude towards Vasanthalakshmi Ma’am and Santosha sir for helping
me with the statistics of the study.

Acha and Amma, love you both so much. Thanks for always supporting me and encouraging me
throughout all these years. You both are the best and I am proud to be your daughter. Shals,
words are not enough to say how much I love and care for you. We have had our own share of
fights,tears, fun, and laughter. Lots of love and hugs to you for being such a wonderful sister.
And Kp chetta, a big thankyou to you as well for being such a sweet brother.Thanks to my
lovely grandparents for all their prayers.
Thankyou Dr.Asha and family, for all your prayers and best wishes. Your calmness and patience
inspired me. Thanks for treating me like one amongst your family. Despite your busy schedule as
a doctor, you still found time to sincerely wish and motivate me in all my endeavours. You are an
angel!
Nishika, you have genuinely helped me always.Years have passed by but our friendship is still
strong. Love you so much and thank you for helping me throughout my study!!You are a gem
Nishu.Anooja and Hisana, bushes:D…you two have helped me so much during my study.
Hugs, hugs and more hugs for all your kindness, love and help.
My dearest Rini...edi edi…thankyou for all your prayers and help. You have stood by me in times
of happiness and sorrow. You’ve helped me in every possible way. A true friend indeed! Love you
so much. May our friendship last forever!!
To all my sweet buddies, Haritha, Merin, Indu and Vacca(veena acca). Thanks a lot for offering
help whenever I needed. Multitasker Meri, dedicated Hari, allrounder Vacca and filmie
Indu....lots of wonderful memories with you all. Thanks a ton for being such sweet friends!!
Irfana chechi thank you for all your valuable suggestions. It helped me so much during my
study. Thankyou Anjana Ma’am for your valuable help and suggestions. Akshaya ‘dhi’:D..
thankyou so much for your immense help and suggestions during the final phase of dissertation.
Shilpa chech, thank you for providing me all possible help and support.
My dissertation buddie, Chaya!!Thanks a lot for always supporting me .Together we discovered
a common hobby(eating fruits):D ..two years have fled so soon but I had a nice experience with
you. Kane..ippo Kan..:D ..my travel guide, song and dance partner, sound effects artist, PPT
expert, Hikku ….I can never forget your giggles and your unique dance steps:D. I enjoyed
everything from our long walks to our weekend trips to city, to daily menu discussion and the list
goes on. You have always been a cute little kothuk..hoping to see you chubby some day:D. You
have helped me plenty of times throughout these two years. Thankyou Bincy kane…;)
Lots of love to my DBC soulmates….Maggie and Anju BThomas. You have been my true DBC
partners, helped me so much during dissertation and really been such great friends. Thanks to
both of you kto!!Sarga, AnjuVA and AnuRose(Sonu-Monu), Jeena…you all are so lively and
full of energy. The moment you all talk to me, I forget all my tensions and worries. I cherish
every moment spent with you all. Thankyou dears for all your help, love and kindness!!Thanks to
all my classmates who made my memories at AIISH even more colorful.
Special thanks to Vanthanaa, who was like a little sister to me. Your innocent remarks and cute
expressions have always made me happy. Thanks for being so sweet to me:D.
To my secret keeper and big time friend, talented artist, RJ…thanks for always being there for
me. You have helped me so many times that I can’t ever thank you enough. You are more than
just a friend to me:D Thank you da!!You have been one pavam, understanding,sweet and caring
person!Glad I met you!!kukki makku

Last but not the least a big thank you to you, my GOD, for helping me complete this study, for
always showering your choicest blessings upon me and for helping me to face every situation
with strength. Thank you so much God!

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter no Contents Page no.
I INTRODUCTION 1-7
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 8-23
III METHOD 24-32
IV RESULTS 33-48
V DISCUSSION 49-56
VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 57-62
REFERENCE 63-73
APPENDIX A i
APPENDIX B ii-xvii
APPENDIX C xviii-xxi
APPENDIX D xxii-xxv
APPENDIX E xxvi-xxxiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Title of the Table
No. No.
1 Demographic details of clinical group 26
2 Demographic details of control group 27
Mean, SD and Median for the propositional of narrative discourse of LD

3 group (n=10) and TDC group (n=10) on qualitative analysis 36
Mean, SD and Median for the Non propositional parameters of narrative

4 discourse of LD group (n=10) and TDC group (n=10) on qualitative
37
analysis.
Mean, SD and Median for Discourse quotient of narrative discourse of LD

5 group (n=10) and TDC group (n=10) on qualitative analysis. 38
Results of Mann-Whitney Test for the propositional & non-propositional

6 40
aspects of DAS of narration task in Malayalam language
Results of descriptive statistics for the parameters of T-unit based analysis

7 of narrative discourse of LD group (n=10) and TDC group (n=10) on
41
quantitative analysis.
Between group comparisons on quantitative analysis of oral narrative

8 discourse 43
9 Correlation between qualitative and quantitative parameters irrespective of

groups 44
Correlation between qualitative and quantitative parameters within LD

10 45
group
Correlation between qualitative and quantitative parameters within TDC

11 group 46
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title of Figure Page

No. No.
1 Mean scores of the propositional discourse parameters of qualitative 37

analysis of narrative discourse of LD group (n=10) and TDC group (n=10).
2 Mean scores of the propositional discourse parameters of qualitative 38

3 Mean scores of discourse quotient of qualitative analysis of narrative 39

discourse of LD group (n=10) and TDC group (n=10).
4 Performance of LD group (n=10) and TDC group (n=10) on quantitative 42

analysis of oral narrative discourse
Introduction
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Learning disability/ disorders are neurobiological in origin and lead to problems
with reading, writing, math or a combination of these three skills in children with
average or above average intelligence. Dyslexia is a specific learning disability in
which the child exhibits difficulties with word recognition along with poor spelling and
decoding abilities. However, in majority of children with learning disability, the
reception and expression of spoken language seems to be compromised, particularly in
childhood. Studies on children with dyslexia and preschool children at risk of dyslexia
have shown that vocabulary development and morphosyntactic skill is quite delayed
when compared with typical children (Van Alphen et al., 2004; Joannisse, Manis,
Keating, & Seidenberg, 2000: Koster, Been, Krikhaar, & Zwarts, 2005; McArthur,
Hogben, Edwards, Heath & Mengler, 2000: Rispens, Roeleven, & Koster, 2003;
Scarborough, 1990). Therefore, they exhibit some deficits at the linguistic aspect of
communication.
Language is a human communication system that makes use of a set of arbitrary
symbols. Since several decades, language has always been defined with reference to
content (semantics) and form (syntax, morphology) with little emphasis on use
(pragmatics). However, recent research is aiming to understand the pragmatic aspects
of language. Pragmatic analysis is essential as it can provide details on the dynamic
aspects of everyday communication faced by an individual.
1
Introduction
Pragmatics includes the study of discourse production and it forms an essential
part of communication. With reference to linguistics, discourse implies units of
language which are longer than a sentence. Thus, discourse analysis refers to the study
of relationship between spoken or written sentences. Discourse may be spoken, written
or multimodal forms of communication, and is not found only in “non-fictional” or
verbal materials (Coelho, 2002). Discourse is socially conditioned and will have a
communicative aim, whether in the form of spoken or written text, or monologue or
dialogues between individuals. Thus, there are several types of discourse like
procedural (describes the procedure in performing an activity), expository (information
on a single topic by one speaker), conversational (sharing information between listeners
and speakers) and narrative (vivid description of events). The characteristic way of
organization and content of each discourse type places varying cognitive- linguistic
demands on the communicator (Ulatowska & Chapman, 1989).
There are various discourse types and one among them is narrative discourse.
Narrative discourse comprises of an account of events, generally in the past, by using
different verbs of speech, motion, and action in order to vividly describe a series of
events. These series of events are typically related to one another, and that is centered
on one or more doers of actions. Narrative task needs skill in manipulating language,
whether telling a fictional story, or providing a narration of past experiences or story
retelling (Paul& Smith, 1993). Narrative skills therefore, reflect the communicative
competence of children and when assessed provides the much needed information on
pragmatic, cognitive and linguistic functioning in the child. More focus is being shed
upon oral narrative discourse for the past three decades. There exists a strong relation
2
Introduction
between children’s oral narrative skills and academic performance. Cain (2003)
conducted a longitudinal study in primary school children in the age range of 7-9 years
old. The study aimed to find out if there exists any relation between higher level
language skills (inference, story structure) and reading skills. One main task in this
study included arranging a set of jumbled pictures in the correct order and generate a
logical sequential story. Better narration skills strongly correlated with higher reading
comprehension level, even after other measures of verbal ability and language skill had
been taken into account. This knowledge facilitates memory and understanding through
organizing and relating events in the text. This study outlines the link between oral
narration and academic performance in young school going children.
However, routine assessments of Learning disability typically check the
performance in reading, writing and arithmetic skills with a greater emphasis on
phoneme grapheme correspondence skills. During these assessments, narrative
language is often overlooked and not assessed thoroughly. From previous studies it can
be inferred that narration needs to be assessed in children with learning disability.
Hence narrative discourse can be used along with other standardized tests for LD, to
screen children at risk of learning disability. LD cases exhibit deficiency at the
narrative discourse level along with the phoneme grapheme level of linguistic aspects.
As LD can be diagnosed based on the PGC tests, the narrative discourse is another task
which can be used to assess learning disability or symptoms of LD.
To be more specific, narrative analysis is very useful in pinpointing even subtle
discourse deficiencies. In any narrative task, in order to produce a coherent narrative,
an individual speaker must plan and generate the linguistic content into an acceptable
3
Introduction
form while identifying the social rules that are built in into the narratives. Thus,
narrative discourse needs more advanced linguistic knowledge when compared to a
conversation task. Hence, narration skills need to be tapped upon during clinical
assessments to get an idea of the child’s overall language abilities (Westerveld, Gillon,
& Miller, 2004). According to McCabe (1991), narrative discourse involves recalling a
series of events in a sequential manner. In order to narrate, the child must possess the
ability to understand and produce large chunks of text well organized according to
listener perception, topic and also convey meaning (Ewing-Cobbs, Brookshire, Scott, &
Fletcher, 1998).
Story generation and story retelling are the commonly used oral narration
elicitation tasks (Pearce, 2003; Justice, Bowles, Kaderavek, Ukrainetz, Eisenberg, &
Gillam, 2006). Crovetti (1998) studied narrative discourse skills in children with
learning disability, both in terms of comprehension and narrative production. On a task
of story retelling, the children with learning disability exhibited fewer clauses, lesser
usage of core propositions and inferences reflecting the content of the stories. Literature
has also revealed that children with Learning Disability have poor performance on
narration of stories with a new topic (Rourke, 1989, 1995). Other studies have claimed
that children with learning disability produce less cohesive narratives than typical
peers, especially with differences in the usage of pronouns during story generation
(Strong & Shaver, 1991; Liles, Duffy, Merritt & Purcell, 1995).
These differences in oral narration performance across different contexts could
probably be explained by a limited capacity working memory model (Baddeley, 2003).
Majority of learning-disabled poor readers have the abilities needed to retrieve
4
Introduction
necessary information from long-term memory, and to correctly represent and elaborate
ongoing syntactic and semantic schemas (Catts & Kamhi, 2005). Indeed, evidence
suggests that poor readers with ‘classic’ dyslexic profiles (poor reading ability and at
least average reasoning skills) are likely to draw from exactly those intellectual
resources and stored information sources in LTM to compensate for difficulties in
verbal STM (Jackson & Doellinger, 2002; Nation & Snowling, 1998).In order to
narrate well, a child should get a story content schema activated, organize the content
sequentially and logically, and use complex syntactic linguistic units to convey the
intended meaning (Westby, 2005). However, most studies on oral narrative language
skills of children with language and/or reading impairment have used fictional story
retelling (Fey, Catts, Proctor- Williams, Tomblin, & Zhang, 2004; Paul, Hernandez,
Taylor, & Johnson, 1996; Snyder & Downey, 1991). In another study, oral narrative
discourse in children with learning disability was studied using personal narratives
(Westerveld, Gillon, & Miller, 2004). All these studies have studied oral discourse
deficits at macrostructure level. Westerveld and Gillon (2008) conducted a study on
narrative production in children with learning disability and found that they have
deficits in discourse at microstructure level also, especially with reference to
grammatical complexity and usage of different semantic vocabularies.
Thus, it can be highlighted that oral discourse has the potential to predict
language and cognitive functioning of a child. Literature on narrative skills of
monolingual children with LD revealed significant differences in oral narrative
production and comprehension, producing fewer clauses and reduced content upon
story retelling task (Wright & Newhoff, 2001; Westerveld et al, 2008). Mohana and
5
Introduction
Chengappa (2010) studied the spoken discourse aspects in Tamil- English bilingual
children with learning disability on conversation, picture description and story narration
tasks. Their results indicated significant differences in propositional and non
propositional discourse across groups and across languages for tasks of picture
description and story narration. Studies clearly pinpoint that discourse deficit is one of
the persisting subclinical features in children with learning disability.
Previous literature has highlighted that oral discourse has the potential to predict
language and cognitive functioning of a child. Literature on narrative skills of
monolingual children with LD revealed significant differences in oral narrative
production and comprehension, producing fewer clauses and reduced content upon
story retelling task (Wright & Newhoff, 2001; Westerveld et al, 2008). Mohana and
Chengappa (2010) studied the spoken discourse aspects in Tamil- English bilingual
description and story narration. Studies clearly pinpoint that discourse deficit is one of
the persisting subclinical features in children with learning disability.
Oral narrative discourse has been widely studied in several clinical population.
Narrating a story requires the ability to plan, sequence and generate sentences with
cohesion. Hence story generation task can be used as a measure to elicit spoken
narratives. In literature, there is a dearth of studies done on oral discourse skills in
native languages, especially in LD population. Hence, the current study is an attempt to
6
Introduction
understand the oral narrative discourse production in native Malayalam speaking
children with learning disability.
7
Review
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Learning disability (LD) can be defined as “a disorder in one or more of the
basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken
or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read,
write, spell, or do mathematical calculations including conditions such as perceptual
disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia and developmental
aphasia. “Learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor
disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance or of environmental,
cultural, or economic disadvantage” do not include learning disabilities (IDEA, 2006).
According to Hallahan and Kauffman(1994), the prevalence of LD is 4-5% in
children within 6-17 years of age. There is a higher prevalence of LD in males than in
females, with males being twice as likely to get the disorder. In India the prevalence is
estimated to be between 3-10% (Ramaa, 2000). Among the several distinct learning
disabilities, dyslexia is one type. It is a specific, language–based disorder of
constitutional origin characterized by difficulties in single word decoding, usually
reflecting insufficient phonological abilities (Orton Dyslexia Society Research
Committee, 1994)
The direct etiology of learning disability is still unclear. Some theories attribute
the differences in brain structure as the reason behind the learning deficits, whereas
other theories attempt to explain learning disability in terms of genetic predisposition. It
has been found that persons with LD have structural differences in planum temporale. It
8
Review
is larger in the left temporal lobe in typical individuals whereas this asymmetry is
absent in persons with LD. Familial studies also indicate that genetic predisposition is
strongly linked with Learning Disability.
2.1 Characteristic features of LD
Learning disability is a broad term that encompasses several forms of problems
with reading, writing, spelling, arithmetic or a combination of these three skills in
children with average or above average intelligence. Learning disability/ disorders are
neurobiological in origin. The most evident deficits in LD as outlined in literature hints
at problems in phonemic awareness, single word decoding, reading fluency and
spelling. Difficulties in reading comprehension and writing may arise as a secondary
consequence. Often learning disability is not identified until the child starts exhibiting
lot of difficulties in academic setup. Dyslexia is a specific learning disability in which
the child exhibits difficulties with word recognition and poor spelling and decoding
abilities.
Of all the children with learning disability around 80% have problems with
reading. Children with dyslexia have deficits mainly with phoneme awareness and in
phoneme- grapheme correspondence. These aspects have been well studied in past
literature. Usually all aspects of language, spoken and written are affected to an extent
in children with learning disability (Wallach & Butler, 1994). Studies on children with
dyslexia and preschool children at risk of dyslexia have shown that vocabulary
development and morphosyntactic skill is quite delayed when compared with typical
children (Scarborough, 1990; Joannisse, Manis, Keating, & Seidenberg, 2000;
9
Review
McArthur, Hogben, Edwards, Heath & Mengler, 2000; Rispens, Roeleven, & Koster,
2003; Van Alphen et al., 2004; Koster, Been, Krikhaar, & Zwarts, 2005; ).
It has been well established that good mastery over oral language underpins
development of literacy skills (Bishop & Snowling, 2004). Several reports in the
literature have suggested that reading comprehension skills are associated with good
oral and/or written narratives because all of these tasks involve the same underlying
cognitive processes (Berninger et al., 2006). Similar to the above mentioned oral
language production tasks, studies examine the written discourse abilities in children
with learning disability in the past (Puranik, Lombardino & Altmann, 2007; Chung, Lo,
Ho, Xiao & Chan, 2014). However, studies on oral narrative discourse in this
population are limited. Since there is a strong link between academic achievements and
oral language skills, oral language needs to be examined as well.
2.2 Narrative development in typical children
Children typically master language from parents and siblings, especially in the
first three years of life, before they are surrounded by peers (Hart & Risley, 1995; Apel
& Masterson, 2001).Hart and Risley (1995) found that children have established
patterns in the amount they talk, the amount their vocabulary grows, and their style of
interaction by 3 years of age; all of which parallel the child’s parents in these areas.
Once conversational patterns are established, children are successful communication
partners with adults, learning new vocabulary, grammar and using the learnt ones in
conversation (Apel & Masterson, 2001).
10
Review
Developmentally, narratives are the first form of language use that urges a
person to produce a monologue rather than a conversation or dialogue (Simon, 1985).
When children start storytelling, they often retell natural incidents centered around
their everyday life and hence the listener is quite familiar with the content and context
of the story (Owens, 2005). Similarly, when children begin reading books with their
parents or cargivers, they are able to use ambiguous terms since combined reading by
adult and child supplies the contextual meaning (Simon, 1985). Identification of
participants or settings of the story is unnecessary at this stage. This informational
requirement changes sequentially as children begin attending daycare, play groups, and
school. As they grow older, children develop the skills to recognize key parts of stories
and describe events orally (Owens, 2005; Simon, 1985). Around the age of four,
children are able to accurately recount events sequentially because of their growing
ability to manage linguistic complexity (Owens, 2005). Eventually, children begin to
visualize stories from listener’s perspective and then narrate (Simon, 1985). By the time
children begin school, they have mastered the skill to include the major elements of a
narrative, enhancing the foundation for conversational skills as they grow. These
elements of narrative discourse continue to become more refined (Owens, 2005). Hence
by around 7-8 years of age, a typical child will be able to narrate a story in a sequential
and logical manner. Their ability in terms of planning organinising, formulating
episodes, and theme of the story improves with age. A complex episode level that
involves elaboration of a complete episode, by including multiple plans and trials, or
consequences within an episode as well as an obstacle to the attainment of a goal is
attainable by eleven years. Further development of narratives include embedded
episodes (one episode is included in another) or interactive episodes ( narratives which

11
Review
have two perspectives). These types of story narration are also developed by11- 12
years(Hughes, 1997)
Clear developmental patterns have been shown in terms of narrative length
(Reilly, Losh, Bellugi & Wulfeck, 2004;Tilstra& McMaster,2007) meaning that as
children grow older, they are able to narrate longer stories. Lexical diversity also
improves with age with older children using more specific vocabulary and better
organized episodes during narration. Besides, accuracy and complexity of utterances
and cohesion (with respect of frequency and diversity of cohesive markers) have been
found to improve with age.
2.3 Relation between oral language and reading comprehension
The relationship between the academic achievements in terms of reading
comprehension could be studied in relation to the story comprehension and production
ability using a narrative task. For example, the Constructionist theories of reading
comprehension highlights the links between story comprehension and storytelling
ability and reading comprehension performance. As per constructionist theories of
reading comprehension, during text comprehension the reader comprehends the
meaning of the read text by constructing knowledge based inferences (Kintsch, 1988).
These knowledge-based inferences get activated based on background knowledge
structures in long-term memory. Vocabulary, morpho-syntactic knowledge, story
structure knowledge, and more general world knowledge constitute background
knowledge structures. In other words, proficient readers utilise their linguistic
knowledge at word- and sentence-level, in combination with their knowledge of the
story structure to create a mental model of a fictional story. Story structure knowledge
12
Review
acts as a foundation for building a mental model, by providing means to segregate and
relate the events in a story which thereby aids in better understanding and retention of
the story. Besides comprehension of written and spoken stories, mental models of
stories also facilitate story retelling abilities. When they have a mental model which is
quite stable, children get quick access to the desired content and structural outline need
for story retelling, which influences the overall quality of the story the child produces.
However, story telling also taps on the linguistic skills of the child (such as morpho-
syntactic and semantic skills) at word-, sentence-, and text-level. The same principal
holds good for the narration task consisting a sequences of pictures as stimulus.
2.4 Narrative macrostructure and microstructure
Narration is an oral language skill, which is often assessed at discourse level.
Discourse can also be broadly defined as language use “in the large”, or as extended
activities that are carried out via language (Clark, 1994). Discourse comprehension and
production in various disorders have been studied widely. Discourse can be examined
in written text or in oral productions. Under comprehension or expression level it can
be differentiated into microstructure and macrostructure levels for conversational
discourse, narrative discourse and for picture description task (Ulatowska, North, &
Macaluso-Haynes, 1981; Glosser & Deser, 1990; Cannizzaro & Coelho, 2002).
Macrostructure deals with the maintenance of conceptual, semantic, and
pragmatic organization at the suprasentential level. There are many approaches to
narrative macrostructure analysis of narration; most widely used being Story Grammar
(SG) analysis developed by Stein and Glenn(1979). According to SG model, a story
contains both setting statements and episodes. The setting statements include the
13
Review
introduction of main characters, and description of the social/temporal context of the
story. Episode involves an account of an influencing event, character’s response to
event, plan to solve the occurred event, consequence and reaction. Adults and
children’s stories do not always include episodes due to varying reasons. Some
components may be omitted due to poor story narration abilities or the meaning must
be inferred from embedded statements in the narrated story or through the listeners
world knowledge (Hughes & McCarthy,1998). A simple story contains one
episode;complex stories often contain two or more episodes which are related to each
other.SG model applies mainly to fictional narratives.
Another approach to narrative macrostructure analysis is High Point Analysis
given by Labov and Waletzky (1967, 1997). This approach is used mainly for analyzing
personal narratives. In this approach, narration should consist of: opening appendage,
orientation, complicating action, evaluation, resolution and closing appendage. The
evaluation is of prime importance in this form of analysis as it conveys information on
why the narrative was told, the main goal of the narrative, and how the person or event
should be assessed by the receiver. These evaluations may be conveyed through the
usage of repetitions, stress, metaphors, negatives, causal explanations, dialogue,
subjective and objective judgments etc (Ukrainetz & Gillam, 2009).
Narrative microstructure refers to smaller units within the text. This typically
includes word level indices such as lexical diversity, lexical richness, language style
(Fey, Catts,Procter-Williams, Tomblin &Zhang,2004). Grammaticality (mainly mean
length of utterance, types of conjunctions, complex utterances) are also often assessed
in microstructure. Cohesive ties often reflect the person’s skill in storytelling as these
14
Review
help in “sticking” units of the story into a whole connected one. Traditional
categorization of cohesive markers as given by Halliday and Hasan (1976) includes
reference, conjunction, lexical cohesion, substitution and ellipsis. Other common
measures of narrative microstructure includes indices of productivity in terms of total
number of words, clauses, words per clause etc (Norbury & Bishop, 2003; Pearce,
McCormack &James, 2003; Tilstra & McMaster,2007). Such measures are generally
studied using T-Unit analysis.
Relatively less studies have been done to analyze the relation between narrative
macrostructure and microstructure. A good narration should have good narrative
microstructure and macrostructure, and hence a complete narrative analysis including
both macro and microstructure aspects can provide better insight on the narrative ability
of an individual. Narrative structure analysis has been shown to be an excellent tool for
examining linguistic and cognitive abilities (Hudson & Shapiro, 1991; Norbury &
Bishop, 2003). This is because it makes use of both language and cognition to produce
a narrative wherein temporal sequencing and causal relationships are well organized.
Thus, at macrolinguistic level or the microlinguistic level, the narrative discourse may
therefore be used to understand the oral language skills of any individual,even for
children.
2.4.1 Tasks for eliciting oral narrative discourse
In children, the linguistic discourse ability is assessed with reference to
three major discourse genres like conversation, narration and picture
description. Among these three, narrative analysis is very useful in pinpointing
even subtle discourse deficiencies because, in order to produce a coherent

15
Review
narrative, the speaker must plan and generate the linguistic content into an
acceptable form while also identifying the social rules that are built in into the
narratives. Thus, narrative discourse needs more advanced linguistic knowledge
in comparison to conversational discourse. Hence, narration skills need to be
tapped upon during clinical assessments to get an idea of the overall language
ability of the child (Westerveld, Gillon, & Miller, 2004).
Studies reveal that children with LD have some amount of deficits in
spoken language, primarily with respect to grammatical complexity besides
deficits in phonology (Snowling, Gallagher & Firth, 2003).Narrative discourse
involves recalling a series of events in a sequential manner (McCabe, 1991). In
order to narrate, the child must possess the ability to understand and produce
large chunks of text well organized according to listener perception, topic and
also convey meaning (Ewing-Cobbs, Brookshire, Scott, & Fletcher, 1998).
Gilmore, Klecan-Aker and Owen (1999) has studied the relation between
storytelling ability to reading comprehension in children with learning
disability, between 5- 10 years old. An oral fictional narrative was obtained
using story generation task, then subjected to T-unit analysis and was assigned a
developmental level of complexity based on the number and organization of
grammar components in the story. Reading comprehension was assessed using
formal, standardized passage. Results of this study indicated that for the LD
group, developmental level of story was significantly related to and predicted
performance on the passage comprehension task. Fictional narratives however,
may not fetch and adequate number of words for analysis. Wordless picture
16
Review
books can be used for eliciting narration especially among children. This helps
examiners to get an adequate discourse sample as child would narrate for each
and every picture given in the book. It also provides visual support unlike in
fictional story telling. Thus children would feel more at ease to narrate.
2.4.2 Oral narrative discourse in LD population
Paul (2001) describes three narrative features that are typically limited
for children with LD when compared with their typically developing peers: (1)
maturity of the narrative, characterized by organization and type of story
grammar; (2) use of pronouns, prepositions, and articles, all of which tie the
narrative into a cohesive structure; and (3) use of vocabulary, language style,
and story structure. Story generation and story retelling are the commonly used
oral narration elicitation tasks, according to Pearce (2003) and Justice, Bowles,
Kaderavek, Ukrainetz, Eisenberg and Gillam (2006). Literature has revealed
that children with Learning Disability have poor performance on narration of
stories with a new topic (Rourke, 1989, 1995). Other studies have claimed that
children with learning disability produce less cohesive narratives than typical
peers, especially with differences in the usage of pronouns during story
generation (Strong & Shaver, 1991; Liles, Duffy, Merritt & Purcell, 1995).
Using story retelling task, Crovetti (1998) studied narrative discourse skills in
children with learning disability, both in terms of comprehension and narrative
production. The children with learning disability exhibited fewer clauses, lesser
usage of core propositions and inferences reflecting the content of the stories.
These differences in micro-linguistic and macro-linguistic aspects of oral
17
Review
narration performance across different contexts could probably be explained by
a limited capacity working memory model (Baddeley, 2003). In order to narrate
well, a child should get a story content schema activated, plan and organize the
contents in a logical and sequential manner, and use complex syntactic
linguistic units to convey the intended meaning of the story. In both story
generation and retelling activities, children with LD showed a basic, but not
fully developed, idea of narrative prose and a less efficient usage of story
grammar than their typically developing peers (Montague, Maddux, and
Dereshiwsky, 1990).
Merritt and Liles (1989) stated that children may find it easier to access
their story content schema knowledge during story retelling, as evidenced by the
longer samples in the story retelling condition, because of the structural support
the model story provides. Hence they opined that fictional story can be
considered a better measure of spoken narratives than story retelling. This was
due to the fact that the formulation of a fictional story may be cognitively more
loaded than the retelling of a fictional story or a personal experience. Less
complex language use and lower grammatical accuracy would arise due to
limited available resources for word choice and syntactic structures. However in
few studies, oral narrative discourse in children with learning disability was
studied using personal narratives (Celinska, 2004; Westerveld, Gillon, & Miller,
2004). The results revealed that the children with typical reading development
performed significantly better on microstructural aspects of oral narrative
discourse than the group of children with reading disability, with significant
18
Review
differences in measures of verbal productivity, number of different words, and
percent complex sentences. Westerveld and Gillon (2008) conducted another
study on narrative production in children with learning disability and found that
they have deficits in discourse at microstructure level also, especially with
reference to grammatical complexity and usage of different semantic
vocabularies. They carried out a longitudinal investigation on oral narrative
ability in a group of children with mixed reading disability. Their study revealed
that children with mixed reading disability had inferior oral narratives on story
narration and story retelling tasks when compared to normal counterparts.
Narrative skills of monolingual children with LD revealed significant
differences in oral narrative production and comprehension, producing fewer
clauses and reduced content upon story retelling task (Wright & Newhoff, 2001;
Westerveld et al, 2008). In addition, these studies explored how, when telling
narratives, bilingual individuals express verbal notions through the use of the
tense, aspect, and voice forms available in each of their two languages. For
instance, the present tense/past continuous tense is often used in script
narratives, specifying the typical series of events taking place in a particular
activity such as going to a restaurant or going to a birthday party.
In picture-book narrations, if the task is viewed as a narrative
activity (i.e., recounting of events spatially as well as temporally distant
from the speaker), the past tense may be predominantly used. And the
past tense is often used in oral narratives, specifying the typical series of
events taking place in a particular sequence such as going on a trip or
19
Review
journey to a place. In this, the narrator ensures tenses are used in a systematic
manner whenever he or she refers to the events and temporally relates them to
one another. These tenses convey the narrator’s attitude towards the event.
2.5 Need for the study
From the detailed review, it is important to consider certain aspects related to
the narrative discourse in LD. They are as follows: (1) The narrative skill being
enhanced by the foundation of good conversational skill, (2) The strong relationship
between oral language and reading comprehension (3) Narrative discourse being
assessed at microstructural and macrostructural level, (4) Importance of various
narrative tasks and (5) Justification of narrative discourse being affected in LD. Thus,
narration draws on some of the most sophisticated language skills in a person’s
repertoire like the use of an array of temporal, spatial and logical relationships;
the use of complex linguistic elements to refer to objects, characters and
situations already mentioned or new in the story; and the use of varied linguistic
mechanisms revealing the narrator’s personal point of view (Labov, 1972;
Hickman, 1990; Bamberg & Damrad-Frye, 1991). Narrative discourse also lends itself
well to the study of the ways in which subjects use the formal linguistic devices in their
repertoire to serve specific functions in communication (Karmiloff-Smith, 1981;
Hickman, 1990, 1991; Berman, 1993).
With reference to qualitative analysis of narrative discourse, Mohana and
Chengappa (2010) studied the spoken narrative skills of 30 bilingual children with
dyslexia. The authors studied the spoken discourse aspects in bilingual (Tamil- English)
20
Review
description and story narration. These studies clearly pinpoint that discourse deficit is
one of the persisting subclinical features in children with learning disability. From all
these studies it can be inferred that deficits in narrative discourse are present across
children with Learning disability, in both monolingual and bilingual population.
In most of these studies, one main area of narrative called the syntactic
complexity was examined. The basic unit for segmenting the data is the T-unit, which
is characteristically defined as one independent clause along with the dependent
modifiers of that clause (Hunt, 1970). A part of a sentence is referred to as clause.
Clauses are of two types: independent (main clause) and dependent clause (subordinate
clause). An independent clause is a complete sentence, containing a subject and a verb
and conveys a defined meaning (e. g., the police said). Independent clauses when joined
by coordinating conjunction form complex or compound sentences. A dependent
(subordinate) clause is part of a sentence, containing a subject and a verb but does not
convey a meaning in entirety. They are dependent on the rest of the sentence for
conveying meaning (e. g., to the one that can do it). Various measures can be analyzed
using T-unit analysis such as number of T-units (NTU), number of words per T-unit
(NWPTU), number of clauses (NC) and so on. This is called the T-unit analysis or the
quantitative analysis in discourse studies.
Roth and Spekman (1989) assessed syntactic complexity of children with
learning disabilities and typical peers in age group of 8-11 years, using T-unit analysis.
The results revealed almost identical rates of correct usage and extremely similar
21
Review
patterns of usage between the LD and typical subjects on all measures. However there
was a greater performance on correct usage of complex sentences by typical peer group
than the group with LD. In this study, T-unit analysis did not reveal any significant
difference between LD group and typical peers. Green and Aker (2012) reported
efficacy of a group intervention for children with learning disability. They reported
significant changes in narrative skills, pre and post intervention, mainly with reference
to number of T-Units.
Shenoy (2015) used oral narrative task and Clinical Evaluation of Language
Fundamentals (CELF-5) screening test to identify bilingual (Kannada-English) children
who are at risk of learning disability. Stimulus used in the study was “Frog story”
(Mayer, 1969) and the task given was story retelling. The same story retelling samples
of 104 participants in grades 2-5 were recorded and analyzed for various parameters
including introduction, character development, referencing, cohesion and conclusion.
The narratives were scored using Narrative Scoring Scheme. Based on the narrative
ratings, narratives of all the participants were rated. Of these, seven participants had
“emerging” narrative skills and one participant had minimal narrative skills, but none of
them were identified as “at risk” by their teachers or by CELF 5 screening test. These
findings clearly indicated that narrative assessment is a good predictor of students at
risk of LD. Even if basic language screening tests miss out such students, a detailed
analysis of their narration at discourse level as an extended linguistic analysis can help
to identify children with LD.
Thus, studies exploring discourse deficits in children with learning disabilities
are scarce. The same in Indian context is very much limited. Hence the present study is
22
Review
to investigate and document the oral narrative discourse in children with LD both
quantitatively as well as qualitatively and compare it with typical peers.
23
Method
CHAPTER 3
METHOD
Aim
The present study aimed to investigate the narrative discourse abilities in
children with learning disability and typically developing children in the native
language (Malayalam).
Objectives of the study
The objectives of the study were,
1. To investigate and compare the narrative discourse parameters of children with
learning disability and typically developing children qualitatively in Malayalam
language.
2. To investigate and compare the narrative discourse parameters in children with
learning disability and typically developing children quantitatively in
Malayalam language.
Hypothesis
There is no significant difference in the narrative discourse performance of
typically developing children and children with learning disability qualitatively and
quantitatively in Malayalam language (L1).
24
Method
Research Design
A standard two group comparison research design was employed to compare
clinical group (consisting of children with LD) and control group (typically developing
children) and it followed 2x2 research design
3.1 Participants
The participants chosen for the study were ten children with the
diagnosis of learning disability and ten typically developing children, both
within the age range of 8-12 years. A total of twenty participants who were
native speakers of Malayalam language participated in the study. The children
with learning disability constituted the clinical group and the typically
developing children constituted the non-clinical/normal/control group. All the
participants from the clinical group were chosen from two integrated schools
having a dedicated unit for children with learning disability in Trivandrum
district, Kerala. The participants from the typically developing group were
drawn from a residential area, in Trivandrum district, Kerala.
Inclusion criteria for the clinical group
Participants were selected from units within mainstream schools that
support children with learning disability. Only those participants diagnosed as
LD on evaluation by Psychologist/Speech Language Pathologist using tests like
Early Reading Skills (Gwaeneth Rae & Thomas Potter, 1981) or Dyslexia
Screening Test-Junior- Indian version (Anand, 2012) were included in this
group. Only those participants with no history of obvious oral language issues
were selected. None of the participants had any history of oral language training
25
Method
at the time of study. All selected participants were exposed to English as
medium of instruction at school with no change in medium of instruction.
Participants with normal visual and hearing acuity with right handedness,
irrespective of socio economic status (SES) were considered. Table 1 depicts
the demographic details of clinical group; mean age of participants in the
group=10.08 years
Table 1
Demographic details of clinical group
Sl. No Age(years) Gender Grade Diagnosis
1. 8 Male III LD
2. 8.5 Male III LD
3. 9 Male III Dyslexia
4. 9.5 Female IV LD
5. 10 Male IV LD
6. 10.6 Male V Dyslexia
7. 10.6 Female V Dyslexia
8. 11 Female VI LD
9. 11.5 Female VI LD
10. 12 Male VI LD
Inclusion criteria for the control group
The participants of control group had to be free of any neurological
(such as seizure disorder, oromotor weakness etc) or psychological illness (such
as, depression, anxiety disorders etc) and were ruled out for all other sensory
motor/communication deficits by using ICF-CY checklist (WHO version,
26
Method
2004). The demographic details of control group have been listed in Table 2;
mean age of participants = 10.07 years
Table 2
Demographic details of control group
Sl. No Age(years) Gender Grade
1. 8 Male III
2. 8.5 Male III
3. 9 Male III
4. 9.5 Female IV
5. 10 Male IV
6. 10.6 Male V
7. 10.6 Female V
8. 11 Female VI
9. 11.6 Female VI
10. 12 Male VI
3.2 Procedure
3.2.1 Data collection
Informed consent form
Informed consent proposed by AIISH (All India Institute of
Speech and Hearing) Ethical committee (2009) was used to obtain
consent from each of the participants (Appendix A).
27
Method
General information sheet
General history included name, age/sex, address and contact,
languages known, handedness, education grade, information about
hearing and vision, history of neurological/psychological illness,
presenting illness, and address and contact number. Detailed medical
history (if any) which included presenting symptoms, details of medical
and non-medical treatments etc were noted. The ICF-CY checklist
(WHO version, 2004) was also administrated for all the participants of
normal group.
3.2.2 Material
The material used was picture stimuli of ‘Frog, where are you?
Story’ (Mayer, 1969) (Appendix B). The pictures were printed in sheets
of 8.27 × 11.69 inches (A4 size) and made into a picture book and child
was asked to generate a story according to the picture sequence.
3.2.3 Recording
All the participants were provided prior notice that their narration
will be audio recorded. Initially, 4 to 5 minutes of casual interaction was
carried out with all the individuals that aimed to improve interaction and
build rapport between the investigator and the participants.
This was followed by recording of discourse samples of all the
participants, the recordings were done in one or two sessions according
to the convenience of the participants. The participants showed less
28
Method
inhibition in their discourse, since they became quite accustomed to the
investigator. All the recordings were carried out in a quiet room, with no
distraction during the recordings done at school/ other institutes or
residential places of the participants. In some instances, neutral prompts
like ‘okay/yes’ and ‘what happened next’ was used during the narration
task. An audio recording software Wavesurfer (1.5.7 version) was used
along with headphones with mic to audio record each session. This
narrative task was recorded for a duration of about 15-20 minutes
allowing as much time as required to collect at least 400-600 words of
narration from each participant using the specific instructions as
mentioned below. The instructions were given in the native language.
Thus, narrative discourse sample was collected from the participants in
Malayalam language.
3.2.4 Instructions
All the participants were instructed in native language. The
instruction was “I will be presenting the wordless picture book, a story
about a boy, a dog and a frog (experimenter pointing at the protagonists
on the first page). First, I want you to look at all the pictures, and then I
want you to tell me the story as you look through them in a sequence.”
3.3 Scoring and Analysis of narrative discourse
The recorded discourse samples of narration were then transcribed
verbatim. Discourse involving the story narration of each participant in both the
29
Method
groups was transcribed (Appendix C & D). The discourse samples in the native
language were then analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively for the narration
task. Qualitative rating of discourse was done using Discourse Analysis Scale
for narration task (Hema & Shyamala, 2008) and quantitative T-unit based
analysis was employed for the same.
3.3.1 Qualitative analysis of discourse samples:
Discourse Analysis Scale (Hema & Shyamala, 2008) was used
for the present study (Appendix E). This is a perceptual rating scale
developed on the basis of the standardized Clinical Discourse Analysis,
Damico (1985) and Cooperative Principles for conversation, Grice
(1975). The scale has separate ratings for conversation, narration and
picture description. For the present study the narrative scale alone was
used. The major measures are propositional and non-propositional
aspects of discourse samples obtained for narration task. The
propositional aspects of discourse includes discourse structure,
communication intent, coherence, information adequacy, information
content, message accuracy, temporal and causal relationship, topic
management, vocabulary specificity, linguistic fluency, speech styles,
intonation, gaze efficiency (through live monitoring) and response time.
The non-propositional aspect of communication includes revision
behaviors and repair strategy. These parameters have been described and
statements are framed to rate them. The (three point perceptual) rating
scale consisted of uniform rating of 0, 1 and 2 where '0' represented the

30
Method
behaviors that are poor, '1' represented behaviors that are fair (at least
50% of the time there is positive response) and ‘2’ when the behaviors
are good. This same rating scale will be used for scoring. Thus, total
scores of the Discourse Analysis Scale (DAS) for narration could be
obtained. The total score included scores of both propositional and non-
propositional discourse.
3.3.2 Quantitative analysis using T-unit based analysis:
For the T-unit based analysis the audio recorded data was
transcribed verbatim, with verification for accuracy. The basic unit for
segmenting the data was T-unit, which is characteristically defined as
one independent clause along with the dependent modifiers of that
clause (Hunt, 1970). A part of a sentence is referred to as clause. Clauses
are of two types: independent (main clause) and dependent clause
(subordinate clause). An independent clause is a complete sentence,
containing a subject and a verb and conveys a defined meaning (e. g.,
the police said). Independent clauses when joined by coordinating
conjunction form complex or compound sentences. A dependent
(subordinate) clause is part of a sentence, containing a subject and a verb
but does not convey a meaning in entirety. They are dependent on the
rest of the sentence for conveying meaning (e. g., to the one that can do
it). The narrative discourse tasks in the study was analyzed using T-unit
analysis in terms of number of T-units (NTU), number of words per T-
31
Method
unit (NWPTU), number of clauses (NC) and number of words per clause
(NWPC).
The obtained data was analyzed using appropriate statistical measures in
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software package (Version
20.0). Descriptive statistics was done to compute mean, median and standard
deviation (SD). Non parametric test, Mann Whitney U test was done for
comparison of qualitative and quantitative parameters across the two groups
(LD and TDC). Spearman’s correlation analysis was done to find correlation
between qualitative and quantitative parameters across group and for within
group comparison.
32
Results
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The aim of the present study is to investigate the narrative discourse abilities in children
with learning disability and typically developing children in the native language
(Malayalam).
1. To compare the narrative discourse parameters of children with learning
disability and typically developing children qualitatively in Malayalam

2. To compare the narrative discourse parameters in children with learning
disability and typically developing children quantitatively in Malayalam
The data was statistically analysed to compare the performance of LD (Learning
Disability) group across qualitative and quantitative measures and also to compare their
performance with TDC (Typically Developing Children) group. The qualitative
parameters were obtained based on Discourse Analysis Scale; the quantitative
parameters considered are total number of T-units, Number of Words per T-Unit
(NWTU), Number of clause (NC) and number of words per clause (NWC).
The results are discussed under the following headings:
4.1 Inter Judge Reliability Measures Using Cronbach’s Alpha Co-Efficient for
Qualitative and Quantitative Data
4.2 Results on Qualitative analysis of Oral Narrative Discourse among learning
disability individuals and controls.
33
Results
4.3 Results on Quantitative analysis of Oral Narrative Discourse among learning
4.4 Correlation analysis- Qualitative Analysis and Quantitative Analysis.
4.1 Inter Judge Reliability Measures Using Cronbach’s Alpha Co-Efficient for
Qualitative and Quantitative Data
There were three judges including the researcher who participated for the
qualitative rating of the discourse samples. These judges were speech language
pathologists. All the three judges rated 10% of the samples. The qualitative ratings
obtained from the three judges were subjected to inter judge reliability tests using
Cronbach's Alpha Reliability, tests were performed separately for individuals with
Learning Disability and typically developing individuals. Under quantitative analysis,
initially the complete discourse samples were verbatim transcribed and later the T-unit
based division was performed by the researcher and 10% of the data was re-checked for
correct transcription and re-divided for T-unit based analysis by a linguist. The
judgments on the division of number of T-unit (NTU), number of words per T-unit
(NWPTU), number of clauses (NC) and number of words per clauses (NWPC) were
performed by three judges (clinical linguist and two speech language pathologists) and
the entire data was subjected to inter-judge reliability measures using Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient. Thus, the reliability measures were carried out using Cronbach’s alpha co-
efficient for the qualitative and quantitative analysis of the discourse samples. All the
parameters showed >0.7 scores on these reliability measures. This suggested that, the
data was reliable for the qualitative analysis. Hence for qualitative the majority rating
by the three judges was subjected to further statistical analyses. Similarly, the results of
34
Results
Cronbach’s Alpha co-efficient for parameters related to T-unit based analysis showed
>0.7 scores on these reliability measures suggesting that the data was reliable for the
quantitative analysis. Hence for quantitative analysis the average of the judges was
considered for further statistical analysis.
4.2 Results on Qualitative analysis of Oral Narrative Discourse among learning
4.2.1. Mean, median and standard deviation of propositional and non-
propositional parameters of narrative discourse of children with Learning
Disability (LD) and typically developing children (TDC).
The statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS (PASW) Version 20. The
mean, median, standard deviation and quartile deviation of propositional and non-
propositional parameters of children with Learning Disability and typically
developing children on narration task in Malayalam language were calculated as
shown in Table 3. Since ratings were considered, median was also given. This
suggested lower mean and median for children with Learning Disability compared
to typically developing children.
35
Results
Table 3
Mean, SD and Median for the propositional of narrative discourse of LD group (n=10)
and TDC group (n=10) on qualitative analysis.
LD group TDC group
Parameters N Mean SD Median QD N Mean SD Median QD
DS 10 1.93 0.51 2.0 0.50 10 2.50 1.00 2.0 0.75
CI 10 3.66 1.03 4.0 0.75 10 3.85 0.50 4.0 0.75
COH 10 2.16 0.41 2.0 1.0 10 2.75 0.50 3.0 0.75
TM 10 7.33 1.75 8.0 1.0 10 9.25 0.95 9.50 1.75
IA 10 1.16 0.41 1.0 0.12 10 1.75 0.50 2.0 0.75
IC 10 1.33 0.51 1.0 0.50 10 1.50 0.57 1.50 0.5
MA 10 1.25 0.54 1.5 0.50 10 1.50 0.50 1.0 0.37
TCR 10 1.50 0.57 1.5 0.50 10 1.83 0.41 2.0 0.12
VS 10 1.75 0.50 2.0 0.37 10 1.9 0.41 2.0 0.12
LF 10 1.75 0.50 2.0 0.37 10 2.0 0.00 2.0 0.00
SS 10 1.83 0.41 2.0 0.12 10 1.75 0.50 2.0 0.37
INT 10 2.0 0.00 2.0 0.00 10 2.0 0.00 2.0 0
PROPSCORE 10 29.0 3.34 28.50 2.38 10 31.50 2.38 30.5 2
Note: Discourse Structure(DS),Communication Intent(CI), Coherence(COH), Topic Management(TM), Information Adequacy(IA),

IC- Information content, MA- Message accuracy, TCR- Temporal causal relation, VS- Vocabulary specificity, LF- Linguistic
fluency, SS- Speech style, INT- Intonation, Propositional score (PROPSCORE)
From Table 3 it is clear that TDC group has slightly better scores for the
parameters of propositional discourse such as Discourse Structure (mean=2.50;
SD=1.0), Coherence (mean=2.75; SD=0.50) and Topic Management (mean=9.25;
SD=0.95) when compared to LD group. The same has been depicted in Figure 1.
36
Results
Figure 1. Mean scores of the propositional discourse parameters of qualitative analysis

of narrative discourse of LD group (n=10) and TDC group (n=10).
Table 4
Mean, SD and Median for the Non propositional parameters of narrative discourse of
LD group (n=10) and TDC group (n=10) on qualitative analysis
LD group TDC group
Parameters N Mean SD Median QD N Mean SD Median QD
REVISION 10 1.91 0.20 2 0.06 10 1.62 0.52 1.63 0.44
REPAIR 10 5.66 1.75 5.5 1.69 10 6.45 0.73 6.45 0.69
The Table 4 depicts that LD group has higher scores for Revision behaviors
(mean= 1.91, SD= 0.20) and TDC group has higher mean scores for Repair
strategies (mean= 6.45, SD= 0.73). The same has been depicted graphically in
Figure2.
37
Results
Figure 2. Mean scores of non propositional discourse parameters of qualitative

Table 5
Mean, SD and Median for Discourse quotient of narrative discourse of LD group
(n=10) and TDC group (n=10) on qualitative analysis.
LD group TDC group
PARAMETER N Mean SD Median QD N Mean SD Median QD
DQ 10 73.40 6.45 74.03 4.75 10 86.76 4.85 86.76 4.44
Note: Discourse quotient (DQ), Standard Deviation (SD), Quartile Deviation (QD)
The overall Discourse Quotient was also noted to be of higher value for
TDC group (mean=86.75, SD=4.85) as shown in Table 5. The graphical
representation is shown in Figure 3.
38
Results
Figure 3. Mean scores of discourse quotient of qualitative analysis of narrative

discourse of LD group (n=10) and TDC group (n=10).
4.2.2 Comparison between the children with Learning Disability and

typically developing children for propositional and non-propositional
aspects.
Mann-Whitney U test was administered to examine the difference in
narrative discourse sample between the children with Learning Disability and
typically developing children. The results of propositional and non-propositional
aspects of narrative discourse are represented in Table 6. There was a significant
difference between the groups for the sub parameter ‘discourse structure’,
‘coherence’, ‘topic management’, ‘information content’, ‘propositional total’
and ‘discourse quotient’. There was also significant difference with reference to
Discourse Quotient.
39
Results
Table 6
Results of Mann-Whitney Test for the propositional & non-propositional aspects
of DAS of narration task in Malayalam language.
Parameters /Z/ p value
(2-tailed)
Discourse structure 3.086 0.002*

Communication intent 1.509 0.131
Coherence 3.894 0.000*
Topic management 2.866 0.004*
Information accuracy 1.314 0.189
Information content 2.285 0.022*
Message accuracy 1.314 0.189
Vocabulary specificity 0.610 0.542
Temporal causal relation 0.457 0.648
Linguistic fluency 1.510 0.131
Speech style 0.503 0.615
Intonation 1.000 0.317
Propositional score 3.416 0.001*
Revision 1.510 0.131
Repair 1.219 0.223
Non propositional score 0.897 0.370
Discourse quotient 3.297 0.001*
Note. * p < 0.05
4.3 Results on Quantitative analysis of Oral Narrative Discourse among learning
4.3.1. Mean and standard deviation for the parameters of T-unit based
analysis for narrative discourse of the Learning Disability Group and
Typically Developing Children Group.
The parameters of T-unit based analysis includes number of T-units
(NTU), number of words per T-unit (NWPTU), number of clauses (NC) and
number of words per clause (NWPC). Table 7, illustrates the results of
descriptive statistics of the Learning Disability Group and Typically Developing
Children Group in Malayalam language for the parameters (NWPTU, NC,

40
Results
NWPC and NTU) of T-unit based analysis. This Table 7 shows the mean and
standard deviation for the parameters of T-unit based analysis for narration task.
Table 7
Results of descriptive statistics for the parameters of T-unit based analysis of
narrative discourse of LD group (n=10) and TDC group (n=10) on quantitative
analysis.
Parameters of T-units LD Group TDC Group
Mean Median SD Mean Median SD
NTU 50.21 50.5 2.34 45 45 1.90
NWTU 7.22 7.19 1.29 9.99 9.90 1.22
NC 67.50 68 7.17 71.91 72.75 4.32
NWC 5.44 5.43 0.49 5.59 5.54 0.58
Note. Number of T-Units (NTU), Number of Words per T-unit (NWTU), Number of Clause
(NC), Number of Words per Clause (NWC).
From the Table 7, the results revealed that LD group had greater mean
value for the parameter number of T-units, than TDC group. Whereas, with
reference to the parameter number of words per T-unit, number of clauses,
number of words per clauses the typically developing children had higher mean
values when compared to Children with Learning Disability.
The Figure 4 illustrates the performance of the two groups on
quantitative analysis of narrative discourse with reference to the descriptive
statistics of each parameter of T-unit analysis of Malayalam language. The
figure shows lower mean value for the parameter number of words per clauses
followed by number of words per T-unit, number of T-unit and number of
clauses for children with Learning Disability group and Typically Developing
41
Results
Children. Figure 4 illustrates the performance on quantitative analysis of
narrative discourse of both the groups.
Note: Number of T-Units (NTU), Number of Words per T-unit (NWTU), Number of Clause (NC),
Number of Words per Clause (NWC)
Figure 4. Performance of LD group (n=10) and TDC group (n=10) on quantitative

analysis of oral narrative discourse
4.3.2 Comparison between the children with Learning Disability and
typically developing children for the parameters of T-unit analysis.
Mann-Whitney U test was administered to examine the difference in
narrative discourse sample between the children with Learning Disability and
typically developing children. The results of the parameter of T-unit analysis of
narrative discourse are represented in Table 8. There was significant difference
for the parameter Number of T-unit and number of words per T-unit only.
Table 8
42
Results
Between group comparisons on quantitative analysis of oral narrative discourse

Parameters of T-unit /Z/ p value
(2-tailed)
NTU 3.463 *0.001
NWTU 2.306 *0.021
NC 1.401 0.161
NWC 0.416 0.677
*p<0.05
Note. NTU-number of T-units, NWTU- number of words per T-unit, NC- number of clauses,
NWPC- number of words per clauses
4.4 Correlation analysis- Qualitative Analysis and Quantitative Analysis.
Spearman correlation analysis was done to find correlation between Discourse
Quotient of qualitative analysis and number of T-units (NTU), number of words per T-
unit (NWPTU), number of clauses (NC) and number of words per clause (NWPC) of
quantitative analysis of oral narrative discourse across (1) Irrespective of the group
Learning Disability (LD) Group and Typically Developing Children (TDC) Group and
(2) Within LD group and (3) Within TDC group.
4.4.1 Correlation irrespective of the group- Learning Disability (LD) Group
and Typically Developing Children (TDC) Group
The results of non- parametric correlation analysis in Table 9 reveal that
Number of T-units (NTU) has significant negative correlation with NWTU and
DQ. The parameter NWTU had significant positive correlation with NC, NWC,
and DQ; negative correlation with NTU. The parameter NC had significant
positive correlation with NWTU, NWC, and DQ. The parameter NWC had
significant positive correlation had with NWTC, NWC, and DQ. The parameter
DQ had significant positive correlation with NWTU and NC; negative
43
Results
correlation with NTU. The same which is significant at the 0.01 level and 0.05
levels is represented in Table 9.
Table 9
Correlation between qualitative and quantitative parameters irrespective of
groups
p value
Parameters N Ρ (2-
tailed)
NTU NTU 20 1.000 0.000

NWTU 20 -0.481* 0.032
NC 20 -0.228 0.334
NWC 20 -0.123 0.604
DQ 20 -0.701** 0.001
NWTU NTU 20 -0.481* 0.032
NWTU 20 1.000 0.000
NC 20 0.845** 0.000
NWC 20 0.722** 0.000
DQ 20 0.899** 0.000
NC NTU 20 -0.228 0.334
NWTU 20 0.845** 0.000
NC 20 1.000 0.000
NWC 20 0.510* 0.022
DQ 20 0.746** 0.000
NWC NTU 20 -0.123 0.604
NWTU 20 0.722** 0.000
NC 20 0.510* 0.022
NWC 20 1.000 0.000
DQ 20 0.502* 0.024
DQ NTU 20 -0.677** 0.001
NWTU 20 0.899** 0.000
NC 20 0.746** 0.000
NWC 20 0.502 0.024
DQ 20 1.00 0.000
Note: **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Note: Number of T-Units (NTU), Number of Words per T-unit (NWTU), Number of Clause
(NC), Number of Words per Clause (NWC), Discourse Quotient (DQ)
4.4.2 Correlation within Learning Disability (LD) Group
The results of non- parametric correlation analysis in Table 10 reveal
that Number of T-units (NTU) did not show any significant positive correlation
44
Results
with the any other parameters of quantitative analysis and the discourse quotient
of qualitative analysis. The parameter NWTU had significant positive
correlation with NC, NWC, and DQ. The parameter NC had significant positive
correlation with NWTU, NWC and DQ. The parameter NWC significant
positive correlation had with NWTU, NC, DQ. The parameter DQ had
significant positive correlation with NWTU, NC, NWC. The same which is
significant at p value= 0.01 and p=0.05 is represented in Table 10.
Table 10
Correlation between qualitative and quantitative parameters within LD group
p value
Parameters N ρ (2-
tailed)
NTU NTU 10 1.000 0.000
NWTU 10 -0.448 0.194
NC 10 -0.215 0.551
NWC 10 -0.423 0.223
DQ 10 -0.371 0.292
NWTU NTU 10 - 0.448 0.194
NWTU 10 1.000 0.000
NC 10 0.927 **
0.000
NWC 10 0.818** 0.004
DQ 10 0.868 **
0.001
NC NTU 10 -0.215 0.551
NWTU 10 0.927 **
0.000
NC 10 1.000 0.000
NWC 10 0.709* 0.022
DQ 10 0.843 **
0.002
NWC NTU 10 -0.423 0.223
NWTU 10 0.818 **
0.004
NC 10 0.709* 0.022
NWC 10 1.000 0.000
DQ 10 0.714 *
0.020
DQ NTU 10 -0.371 0.292
NWTU 10 0.868 **
0.001
NC 10 0.843** 0.002
NWC 10 0.714 *
0.020
DQ 10 1.000 0.000
Note: **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
45
Results
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
(NC), Number of Words per Clause (NWC), Discourse Quotient (DQ)
4.4.3 Correlation within Typically Developing Children (TDC) Group
The results of non- parametric correlation analysis in Table 11 reveal
that Number of T-units (NTU) did not show any significant positive correlation
with the any other parameters of quantitative analysis and the discourse quotient
of qualitative analysis. The parameter NWTU had significant positive
correlation with NC, NWC, and DQ. The parameter NC had significant positive
correlation with NWTU and DQ. The parameter NWC significant positive
correlation had with NWTU and DQ. The parameter DQ had significant positive
correlation with NWTU, NC, NWC. The same which is significant at the 0.01
level and 0.05 levels is represented in Table 11.
Table 11
Correlation between qualitative and quantitative parameters within TDC group
p value
Parameters N ρ (2-tailed)
NTU NTU 10 1.000 0.000
NWTU 10 0.098 0.787
NC 10 0.312 0.381
NWC 10 0.406 0.244
DQ 10 0.000 1.000
NWTU NTU 10 0.098 0.787
NWTU 10 1.000 0.000
NC 10 0.657* 0.039
NWC 10 0.770** 0.009
DQ 10 0.924** 0.000
NC NTU 10 0.312 0.381
NWTU 10 0.657* 0.039
NC 10 1.000 0.000
NWC 10 0.237 0.510
DQ 10 0.655* 0.040
NWC NTU 10 0.406 0.244
NWTU 10 0.770** 0.009
NC 10 0.237 0.510
NWC 10 1.000 0.000
DQ 10 0.657* 0.039
DQ NTU 10 0.000 1.000
46
Results
NWTU 10 0.924** 0.000

NC 10 0.655* 0.040
NWC 10 0.657* 0.039
DQ 10 1.000 0.000
Note: **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
(2-tailed).
(NC), Number of Words per Clause (NWC)
Also, Mann Whitney U-test was done for gender comparisons, but results
revealed no significant differences across gender in both the groups.
Summary:
Thus overall it can be stated that among the qualitative narrative discourse
parameters, higher scores were obtained in TDC group for parameters such as
Discourse structure, Coherence, Topic Management, Information content and Discourse
quotient. There were no significant differences observed in non-propositional discourse.
Among quantitative parameters Number of T-units and Number of words per T-unit
were found to be significantly different across groups. The results of non- parametric
correlation analysis irrespective of groups, reveals that Number of T-units (NTU) has
significant negative correlation with NWTU and DQ. The parameter NWTU had
significant positive correlation with NC, NWC, and DQ; negative correlation with
NTU. The parameter NC had significant positive correlation with NWTU, NWC, and
DQ. The parameter NWC had significant positive correlation had with NWTC, NWC,
and DQ. The parameter DQ had significant positive correlation with NWTU, NC;
negative correlation with NTU. For correlation within parameters in LD group, the
results of non- parametric correlation analysis reveal that Number of T-units (NTU) did
not show any significant positive correlation with the any other parameters of
47
Results
quantitative analysis and the discourse quotient of qualitative analysis. The parameter
NWTU had significant positive correlation with NC, NWC, and DQ. The parameter NC
had significant positive correlation with NWTU, NWC and DQ. The parameter NWC
significant positive correlation had with NWTU, NC, DQ. The parameter DQ had
significant positive correlation with NWTU, NC, NWC. For parameters within TDC
group, the results of non- parametric correlation analysis reveal that Number of T-units
(NTU) did not show any significant positive correlation with the any other parameters
of quantitative analysis and the discourse quotient of qualitative analysis. The
parameter NWTU had significant positive correlation with NC, NWC, and DQ. The
parameter NC had significant positive correlation with NWTU and DQ. The parameter
NWC significant positive correlation had with NWTU and DQ. The parameter DQ had
significant positive correlation with NWTU, NC, NWC.
48
Discussion
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
The results of the present study are discussed under qualitative, quantitative and
the correlation between qualitative and quantitative analysis.
5.1 Qualitative analysis of oral narrative discourse
5.2 Quantitative analysis of oral narrative discourse
5.3 Correlation between qualitative and quantitative analysis
5.1 Qualitative analysis of oral narrative discourse
The qualitative analysis of oral narrative discourse was carried out using Discourse
Analysis Scale in order to study the performance of Learning Disability (LD) group and
Typically Developing Children (TDC) group and thus compared across the group. The
parameters called ‘Discourse Structure’, ‘Coherence’, ‘Topic Management’,
‘Information content’ and ‘Discourse Quotient’ were found to have significant
difference between the two groups (p<0.05). With reference to the mean score the LD
group had poorer scores when compared to TDC group on the above mentioned
parameters.
These limitations in narrative production of LD children can be attributed to
several different underlying mechanisms as reported by Kornev and Aleksander’s study
(2015) on children with dyslexia (9-10 years old). One of them is inefficient
formulation of temporal causal relations in a story (Kornev & Aleksander, 2015).
Another reason is their difficulties in structuring an episode description. The episode is
49
Discussion
the central unit in majority of story grammar models (e.g., Stein, Glenn 1979,
Thorndyke & Yakovitch, 1980). Episode components are defined as statements
portraying about some characters’ goal, their attempts to solve the problem, and
subsequent consequences (Liles et al. 1989). The production, organization and
connectivity in story telling are thought to involve processes that are not solely
linguistic (Coelho et al. 1994). As per the resource deficit hypothesis, the core
limitations in dyslexics are caused by non-linguistic factors, namely by a cognitive
resource deficit than any other linguistic factor (Van der Schoot, Licht, Horsley &
Sergeant, 2000; Kibby et al. 2004). Theoretically, limitations in oral narration among
dyslexics might be a consequence of their low reasoning capacity. This explains the
poorer performance of LD group on parameters like Discourse Structure (DS), Topic
Management (TM) and Coherence (COH), which require good reasoning and thinking
abilities to plan and organize contents logically.
Kornev and Aleksander (2015) have also reported that children with dyslexia
did not differ from TDC group in their performance on a task of story retelling. This is
because retelling task probably activates a cerebral network underlying the story
production process and enables structural composition much easily. This effect was
extremely evident when the more complex picture sequence was presented for retelling
initial sessions and followed by narration of the less complex story. Hence story
generation task was chosen over retelling to check for discourse deficits in spoken
narratives.
Another difficulty faced by dyslexics is at the level of topic management.
Following van Dijk and Kintsch (1983), they have recognized episodes in narratives, as
50
Discussion
macro-propositions that form the plot. While narrating a story, children have to
recognize each of the propositions, to relate them into a logical sequence, and to
verbalize the sequence. The results of the current study indicated that children with
dyslexia generally attempted to produce more structurally incomplete episodes in
narration when compared to their TD peers. This explains their poorer scores in topic
management. These studies suggest that story generation is a more sensitive measure to
tap discourse deficits in LD population rather than story retelling.
Swets, Jacovina and Gerrig (2014) reported that more cognitive resources are
utilized when longer utterances are explored while discourse planning. Consequently,
the cognitive resource deficit explains the production of simple and short phrases as
well as structurally less complex oral narratives in LD group, due to their limitations in
cognitive resources. Apart from these, there could also be some subtle underlying
linguistic limitations which add on to their discourse deficits. This explains why the LD
group had poor score on the parameter information content of narrative discourse. On
observation it was noticed that, the children with LD would complete the picture
description with smaller phrases and shorter sentences than typically developing
counterparts.
Thus, for the parameter ‘Information content’ (IC) there was difference between
LD and TDC group, with LD group having poorer scores. It was interesting to note that
participants of TDC group described even slight differences in setting/background in
the story with the use of appropriate modifiers and conjunctions. Children with LD
however failed to notice such details and focused mainly on stating the main events in
the story. The same is shown in Appendix C. Coherence was also affected in the LD
51
Discussion
group. Coherence in terms of global and local coherence were affected. Due to the
reduced usage of conjunctions and the poor organization of sentences, local coherence
was affected. Thereby global coherence was also affected but to a much lesser extent
as the major story outline was preserved by all the LD participants.
When children do not narrate adequately during conversation, they are
perceived as being less effectual, both academically and socially (Bloome et al., 2003).
A cognitive view is widely accepted in understanding the reasons for apparent deficits
in narration. Accordingly, these children do not actually lack the abilities to produce
narrative accounts but rather, lack the strategies for planning, organizing and delivering
narratives. Most of these children with LD possess deficient strategies or exhibit poor
use of strategies for accomplishing many tasks including academic tasks (Deshler &
Schumaker, 1993). Wiig (1993) has attempted to relate metacognition and narration,
stating that limitations in language describing past events is due to lack of strategies for
recall of these events. Fivush (1993) also suggested that children’s narratives are often
impoverished due to limited strategies for attention, retrieval, and retention of event
facts. In summation, children with learning disabilities often lack appropriate cognitive
strategies and thereby experience difficulty evolving into competent academic
individuals.
5.2 Quantitative analysis of oral narrative discourse
The quantitative analysis of oral narrative discourse was carried out using T-unit
based analysis in order to study the performance of Learning Disability (LD) group and
Typically Developing Children (TDC) group and thus compared across the group. The
parameters ‘Number of T-units’ (NTU) and ‘Number of words per T-Unit’ (NWTU)
52
Discussion
were found to have significant difference between the groups (p<0.05). LD group
produced more number of T-units but with lesser words per T-unit, when compared to
TDC group. On the contrary, TDC group produced lesser number of T-unit, but with
more number of words per T-unit.
Typically written discourse is analyzed using T-units and spoken discourse is
analyzed using C-units (Communication units). Most literature on spoken discourse
have made use of quantitative parameters linked to C-units. C-units are synonymous to
T-units. However, T-units can also be used to study oral as well as written discourse.
Davenport et al. (1986) compared the spoken narratives of thirty dyslexics with typical
peers and analyzed the sample quantitatively using C-unit analysis. The dyslexics used
shorter communication units (independent clauses with all their modifiers), and a
higher percentage of their words were non communications (words which are
extraneous to the speaker's intended meaning). Similar findings have been reported by
Westerveld and Gillon (2008) wherein C-unit analysis revealed oral narratives of the
children with learning disability, being characterized by relatively short, but
grammatically correct sentences. Shorter C-units indirectly mean lesser words per
utterance. In the current study also LD group had lesser words per utterance.
In a study by Roth, Spekman and Fye (1995), LD children demonstrated greater
difficulty with cohesive ties and their stories were significantly shorter than that of
typical peers (i.e., T-units per story: 24 for LD; 36 for typical peers). In the current
study, however LD group produced more number of T-units (mean=50.21) when
compared to typical peers (mean=45). This could be because, they produced shorter
stories but with more number of shorter sentences. Hence they have more Number of T-
53
Discussion
Units (NTU). These sentences however lacked appropriate usage of conjunctions
thereby resulting in lesser Number of words per T-Unit (NWTU). On the other hand,
the TDC group produced longer stories with longer sentences linked by appropriate
conjunctions. Every independent clause with all its modifiers and dependent clauses
would constitute one T-Unit. Most often conjunctions like ‘and’,’ ‘so’ lead to two
independent clauses connected by the conjunction. Hence it would be counted as two
T-Units. Conjunctions like ‘because’ often result in a dependent clause after the
conjunction. Hence the entire sentence would be considered as one T-Unit. In
Malayalam, conjunctions like ‘karanam=because’, ‘enaalum=still’, ‘shesham=after’,
were used frequently used by participants of TDC group along with other conjunctions
like‘um=and’, ‘pinne=then’. All these conjunctions, when used in an utterance, often
lead to production of dependent clauses after the conjunction. Thus, more number of
dependent clauses in turn led to lesser NTU with more NWTU in TDC group. On the
contrary, conjunctions like ‘um=and’, ‘pakshe=but’, and ‘apol=then’ were
predominantly used by LD group which lead to independent clauses after the
conjunction. More number of independent clauses in LD narration sample explains the
higher NTU and lack of appropriate terms led to lesser NWTU.
According to a study by Plaza (2000), children with dyslexia used significantly
lesser conjunction types and lesser number of conjunctions than typical peers. They
associated propositions by juxtaposing subject-verb-complement sentences or through
usage of specific commonly used conjunction like ‘and’. These findings also indirectly
support the present study and thus explain the reason for shorter length of utterance
among children with LD.
54
Discussion
Thus, oral discourse deficits are present in LD population and the overall
differences in propositional discourse in LD population can be attributed to resource
deficit hypothesis. Their inability to use appropriate strategies to plan and organize their
utterance with appropriate cohesive ties and conjunctions lead to poor cohesion.
Differences in quantitative analysis in LD population can be attributed to differences in
production of clauses. Children with LD tend to produce more independent clauses
without using appropriate conjunctions. Hence, differences in number of T-units and
number of words per T-unit can be explained. It is therefore essential to also monitor
oral discourse apart from written discourse, as the children with LD have deficits in
both the domains.
5.3 Correlation between qualitative and quantitative analysis
There was a strong correlation between certain parameters in qualitative and
quantitative analysis of oral discourse. Differences in oral narrative performance
within LD groups or within TDC groups were not very evident. However, differences
in performance for oral narrative discourse task existed between the two groups. The
differences existed mainly for propositional discourse. It was found that the qualitative
parameter, Discourse Quotient (DQ) was having strong positive correlation with
quantitative parameters of T-units such as Number of words per T-unit (NWTU),
Number of Clauses (NC) and Number of Words per Clause (NWC). This indicates that
qualitative ratings have good association with quantitative aspects of discourse.
Qualitative ratings were based on measures of coherence, information content, message
accuracy, discourse structure etc. All of these parameters are indirectly scored on the
basis of utterance length and content. Hence when a T-unit analysis is performed on the
55
Discussion
narration of each participant, it would correlate with these ratings based on the same
participants’ narration.
Literature investigating qualitative and quantitative discourse simultaneously in
LD population is scarce. From the current study it can be inferred that a combination of
both qualitative and quantitative analysis of oral narrations is much more sensitive to
identifying children with LD and is in support to each other. Within group correlation
the results showed significant correlations only for few parameters. However,
correlation irrespective of groups revealed that significant correlation was present
between most quantitative and qualitative parameters of discourse. Thus overall it can
be stated that a combination of qualitative and quantitative analysis hold good for
comparison of discourse performance of any individuals.
To summarize, the differences in discourse of LD population qualitatively and
quantitatively have to be documented separately. In view of children with LD, some
oral narrative discourse deficits, which might go undetected during routine qualitative
assessments, may be traced objectively in the quantitative assessment. Such findings
are obtained in the current study which recommends the need to carry out qualitative
and the quantitative analysis of discourse of individuals with learning disability. Thus,
discourse analysis should be done to strengthen the existing diagnostic assessment
procedures and subsequent intervention for this clinical group.
56
Summary & Conclusion
CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The present study was aimed at investigating the narrative discourse abilities in
children with learning disability and typically developing children in the native
language (Malayalam). There were certain objectives considered for the present study.
 To compare the narrative discourse parameters of children with learning
disability and typically developing children qualitatively in Malayalam language.
 To compare the narrative discourse parameters in children with learning
disability and typically developing children quantitatively in Malayalam
language.
Studies related to children with learning disability in Western and Indian
scenario concentrated on measuring specific characteristics of oral discourse. There are
very few studies which profile the narrative discourse abilities in children with learning
disability. Understanding the linguistic impairments in children with learning disability
is necessary to develop new approaches to diagnose and plan appropriate management
strategies to help and maintain their narrative discourse abilities despite their academic
difficulties. The current study focused on the profiling the narrative discourse abilities
in L1 (Malayalam) language of children with learning disability and was compared
with typically developing individuals.
A standard group comparison was made by considering children with learning
disability and typically developing children (8-12 years) as participants. A total of 20
children participated in the study which comprised of 10 children with learning

57
disability (LD) and 10 typically developing children (TDC). All the participants had
English language as medium of instruction in school. They also had vision and hearing
acuity within normal limits and the handedness was right according to their self report.
The clinical and non-clinical group participants were separated based on a set of
criteria. General histories with demographic details were taken from all the participants
along with the consent for agreeing to participate in the study.
The data collection involved two phases: Phase-I to build rapport and Phase-II
to obtain narrative discourse samples of all the participants using “Frog Where are you”
as the stimulus. A standard group comparison with two by two research design was
used for the study. Audio recorded narrative discourse genres were transcribed
verbatim. The results obtain from discourse samples were subjected to the statistical
analysis. The discourse samples were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively.
Qualitative and quantitative analyses of the narrative discourse sample were performed
using Discourse Analysis Scale (DAS) by Hema and Shyamala (2008) and T-unit
analysis respectively. Each sample was rated by three judges including the
experimenter. Inter-judge reliability was measured for qualitative and quantitative
analysis using Cronbach’s Apha co-efficient. An experienced statistician conducted the
analysis using SPSS 20 (Statistical Package for Social Science, 20th version).
The significant findings of the present study are discussed under three sections
qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis and correlation between the qualitative and
quantitative analysis. Qualitative analysis of oral discourse between LD and TDC group
revealed significant differences in parameters such as Discourse Structure (DS),
Coherence (COH), Topic Management (TM), Information content (IC) and Discourse
58
Quotient (DQ). The TDC group also showed higher scores for overall propositional
discourse and non propositional discourse. The total Discourse quotient (DQ) was also
noted to be greater for TDC group, indicating that the TDC group produced more
coherent, connected and organized oral narration at discourse level when compared to
LD group. There was significant difference across the two groups primarily on
propositional discourse. No significant differences were noted for non propositional
discourse across groups.
Quantitative analysis of oral discourse between LD and TDC group revealed
Number of T-units (NTU) and Number of words per T-Unit (NWTU) having
significant difference across both the groups. The results revealed that LD group had
greater number of T-units with lesser NWTU, than TDC group. However, NWTU was
greater in TDC group indicating that participants in TDC group produced longer
sentences during discourse with appropriate usage of conjunctions and connecting
words, thereby producing more number of words per T-unit. This also suggests that
even though LD group produced more NTU .i.e., more sentences; their utterances were
probably short and therefore led to decrease NWTU. The TDC group produced more
Number of Clauses (NC) during narrative discourse compared to LD group. For NWC,
no significant differences were observed between TDC group and LD group. Thus
quantitative and qualitative analysis of oral narration clearly hints at the discourse
deficits in LD population.
Oral narrative skills form the foundation for subsequent academic learning.
Traditional assessments of Learning Disability often do not assess their narrative skills
at discourse level. Narrative analysis at both microstructure and macrostructure analysis
59
may be used to improve the assessment and intervention for children with LD. Rahmani
(2011) mentioned the significant role of narrative therapy to reduce reading errors in
dyslexics. This kind of Narrative therapy (storytelling with felt material), by using the
multi-sensory approach may facilitate better reading skills in children with LD.
Therefore, through narrative intervention their narrative discourse deficits and reading
errors can be tackled simultaneously.
The present study aimed to investigate the narrative discourse abilities in
children with learning disability in the native language (Malayalam) qualitatively and
quantitatively. It can therefore be concluded that a combination of qualitative and
quantitative analysis of oral discourse can provide information about narration skills in
LD population, in terms of narrative microstructure as well as macrostructure. Oral
discourse in terms of cohesion, sequencing, temporal causal relations often go
undetected during routine formal assessments of LD. Detailed assessments of oral
narrative discourse can be very useful during assessment and intervention for such
children.
Implications of the study
 The current study will provide an understanding of oral narrative discourse in
children with LD when compared to typical peers in Malayalam language.
 Since the present study includes combination of qualitative and quantitative
discourse analysis, it may shed light on which form of discourse analysis is a
more sensitive tool for assessing narration in LD population.
60
 The present study could also contribute to an understanding of language specific
discourse deficits (Malayalam) and whether oral discourse could be considered
as an essential part of assessment to confirm reading/writing problems in
children.
 Besides this, deficits in oral narrative production if identified at an early age can
be considered during intervention, thereby improving the overall spoken
narrative ability. Oral narrative discourse intervened in this manner, may
enhance written discourse skills in children with LD. Henceforth, their overall
social and academic well being can be ensured.
Limitations of the study
 The present study was limited to a small sample size of clinical participants
which probably restricts the generalization of the findings.
 Study incorporated narrative discourse assessed in only one task (story
generation task)
 Qualitative and quantitative analysis done in the study were both subjective in
nature.
 Narration was checked only in the native language(Malayalam), even though
the children were bilingual
Future directions
 Larger sample size can be considered in future studies
 Future studies can compare oral and written discourse in children with LD
61
 Differences in discourse across tasks can be studied (story retelling vs
narration).
 The study could be replicated using other methods of discourse analysis such as
Computerized Language Analysis Program (CLAN), Systematic Analysis of
Language Transcript (SALT), cohesion analysis, critical discourse analysis,
socio-cognitive discourse analysis, etc.
 Further research investigating the way L1 and L2 of bilinguals’ affects their
linguistic performance in relation with the academic performance.
62
REFERENCE
Apel, K., & Masterson, J. J. (2001). Theory-Guided Spelling Assessment and
InterventionA Case Study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 32(3), 182-195.
Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: an overview. Journal of
Communication Disorders, 36(3), 189-208.
Bamberg, M., & Damrad-Frye, R. (1991). On the ability to provide evaluative
comments: Further explorations of children's narrative competencies. Journal of
Child Language, 18(03), 689-710.
Bishop, D. V., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Developmental dyslexia and specific
language impairment: Same or different?. Psychological bulletin, 130(6), 858.
Cain, K. (2003). Text comprehension and its relation to coherence and cohesion in
children's fictional narratives. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21,
335-351.
Cannizzaro, M. S., & Coelho, C. A. (2002). Treatment of story grammar following
traumatic brain injury: A pilot study. Brain Injury, 16(12), 1065-1073.
Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. G. (Eds.). (2005). The connections between language and
reading disabilities. Psychology Press.
Celinska, D. K. (2004). Personal narratives of students with and without learning
disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19(2), 83-98.
63
Chung, K. K., Lo, J. C., Ho, C. S. H., Xiao, X., & Chan, D. W. (2014). Syntactic and
discourse skills in Chinese adolescent readers with dyslexia: a profiling
study. Annals of dyslexia, 64(3), 222-247.
Clark, H. H. (1994). Discourse in production.10-18.
Coelho, C. (2002). Story Narratives of adults with closed head injury and non-brain
injured adults: Influence of socioeconomic status, elicitation task, and executive
functioning. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 1232–
1248.
Craggs, J. G., Sanchez, J., Kibby, M. Y., Gilger, J. W., & Hynd, G. W. (2006). Brain
morphology and neuropsychological profiles in a family displaying dyslexia and
superior nonverbal intelligence. Cortex, 42(8), 1107-1118.
Crovetti, A. B. (1998). Nonverbal learning disability and discourse comprehension:
Factors related to level of understanding (Doctoral dissertation, University of
California, Berkeley, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 199.
Davenport, L., Yingling, C. D., Fein, G., Galin, D., & Johnstone, J. (1986). Narrative
speech deficits in dyslexics. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology, 8(4), 347-361.
Ewing-Cobbs, L., Brookshire, B., Scott, M. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (1998). Children's
Narratives Following Traumatic Brain Injury: Linguistic Structure, Cohesion,
and Thematic Recall. Brain and Language, 61(3), 395-419
64
Fey, M. E., Catts, H. W., Proctor-Williams, K., Tomblin, J. B., & Zhang, X. (2004).
Oral and Written Story Composition Skills of Children With Language
Impairment. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 47(6), 1301.
Gilmore, S. E., Klecan-Aker, J. S., & Owen, W. L. (1999). The relationship of
storytelling ability to reading comprehension in children with learning
disability. Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 23(3), 142-
151.
Glosser, G., & Deser, T. (1991). Patterns of discourse production among neurological
patients with fluent language disorders. Brain and language, 40(1), 67-88.
Green, L. B., & Klecan-Aker, J. S. (2012). Teaching story grammar components to
increase oral narrative ability: A group intervention study. Child Language
Teaching and Therapy, 28(3), 263-276.
Halliday, M. A., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in. English, Longman, London.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of
young American children. Paul H Brookes Publishing.
Hallahan D. P., Kauffman J. M. (1994). Toward a culture of disability in the aftermath
of Deno and Dunn. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 496–508.
Hema, N., & Shyamala, K. C. (2008). A study of discourse analysis in traumatic brain
injury (TBI): left hemisphere damage vs right hemisphere damage. Unpublished
Dissertation, University of Mysore, Mysore.
65
Hickman, M. (1990). The development of discourse cohesion: Coding Manual.
Nijmegen, TheNetherlands: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
Hudson, J. A., Shapiro, L. R., McCabe, A., & Peterson, C. (1991). From knowing to
telling: The development of children’s scripts, stories, and personal
narratives. Developing narrative structure, 89-136.
Hughes, R., & McCarthy, M. (1998). From sentence to discourse: Discourse grammar
and English language teaching. Tesol Quarterly, 32(2), 263-287.
Hunt, K. W. (1970). Syntactic maturity in schoolchildren and adults. Monographs of
the society for research in child development, 35(1), iii-67.
Jackson, N. E., & Doellinger, H. L. (2002). Resilient readers? University students who
are poor recoders but sometimes good text comprehenders. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 94(1), 64.
Joanisse, M. F., Manis, F. R., Keating, P., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2000). Language
deficits in dyslexic children: speech perception, phonology, and morphology.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77, 30-60.
Justice, L. M., Bowles, R. P., Kaderavek, J. N., Ukrainetz, T. A., Eisenberg, S. L., &
Gillam, R. (2006). The index of narrative microstructure: A clinical tool for
analyzing school-age children’s narrative performance. American Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology, 15, 177–191.
66
Kornev, A. N., & Balciunienė, I. (2015). Narrative production weakness in Russian
dyslexics: Linguistic or procedural limitations? Eesti Rakenduslingvistika
Ühingu aastaraamat Estonian Papers in Applied Linguistics, 11, 141.
Koster, C., Been, P. H., Krikhaar, E.M., & Zwarts, F. (2005). Differences at 17 months:
productive language patterns in infants at familial risk for dyslexia and typically
developing infants. Journal of speech, language, and Hearing Research 48,
426-438
Labov, W., & Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis. In Helm J. (Ed.), Essays on the
verbal and visual arts, (pp. 12–44). Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Liles, B. Z., Duffy, R. J., Merritt, D. D., & Purcell, S. L. (1995). Measurement of
Narrative Discourse Ability in Children with Language Disorders. Journal of
Speech Language and Hearing Research, 38(2), 415.
Maccini, P., & Hughes, C. A. (1997). Mathematics interventions for adolescents with
learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12(3), 168-
76.
Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, Where are You? New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.
McArthur, G. M., Hogben, J. H., Edwards, V. T., Heath, S. M., & Mengler, E. D.
(2000). On the “specifics” of specific reading disability and specific language
impairment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(7), 869-874.
McCabe, A. & Peterson, C. (1991). Developing narrative structure. Hillsdale NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
67
McNaughton, D., Hughes, C. A., & Clark, K. (1994). Spelling instruction for students
with learning disabilities: Implications for research and practice. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 17(3), 169-185.
Mohana,P.(2010).Spoken language proficiency(discourse level) in bilingual children
with learning disability.(unpublished Master’s dissertation)University of
Mysore, Mysore
Montague, M., Maddux, C. D., & Dereshiwsky, M. I. (1990). Story grammar and
comprehension and production of narrative prose by students with learning
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(3), 190-197.
Nagy, W., Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (2006). Contributions of morphology
beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle-school
students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 134.
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1998). Semantic processing and the development of
word-recognition skills: Evidence from children with reading comprehension
difficulties. Journal of memory and language, 39(1), 85-101.
Norbury, C. F., & Bishop, D. V. (2003). Narrative skills of children with
communication impairments. International Journal of Language &
Communication Disorders, 38(3), 287-313.
Paul, R., & Smith, R. (1993). Narrative skills in 4 year olds with normal, impaired and
late developing language. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 592-
598.
68
Paul, R., Hernandez, R., Taylor, L., & Johnson, K. (1996). Narrative Development in
Late Talkers. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 39(6), 1295.
Puranik, C. S., Lombardino, L. J., & Altmann, L. J. (2007). Writing through retellings:
An exploratory study of language-impaired and dyslexic populations. Reading
and Writing, 20(3), 251-272.
Pearce, W. M. (2003). Does the choice of stimulus affect the complexity of children's
oral narratives? Advances in Speech Language Pathology, 5(2), 95-103.
Plaza, M. (2000). Reference and evaluation in narrative speech of a group of French-
speaking children. In Psycholinguistics on the Threshold of the Year 2000:
Proceedings of the 5th International Congress of the International Society of
Applied Psycholinguistics (pp. 665-668).
Rahmani, P. (2011). The efficacy of narrative therapy and storytelling in reducing
reading errors of dyslexic children. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 29, 780-785.
Ramaa,S.(2000).Two decades of research on learning disabilities in
India. Dyslexia, 6(4), 268-283.
Reilly, J., Losh, M., Bellugi, U., & Wulfeck, B. (2004). “Frog, where are you?”
Narratives in children with specific language impairment, early focal brain
injury, and Williams syndrome. Brain and language, 88(2), 229-247.
69
Rispens, J., Roeleven, S., Koster, C. (2003). Sensitivity to subject-verb agreement in
spoken language in children with developmental dyslexia. Journal of
Neurolinguistics, 17.
Roth, F. P., & Spekman, N. J. (1989). The Oral Syntactic Proficiency of Learning
Disabled StudentsA Spontaneous Story Sampling Analysis. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 32(1), 67-77.
Roth, F. P., Spekman, N. J., & Fye, E. C. (1995). Reference cohesion in the oral
narratives of students with learning disabilities and normally achieving
students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18(1), 25-40.
Rourke, B. P. (1989). Nonverbal learning disabilities. The syndrome and the model.
New York: Guilford Press.
Rourke, B. P. (Ed.). (1995). Syndrome of nonverbal learning disabilities:
Neurodevelopmental manifestations. New York, NY: Guilford.
Scarborough, H. S. (1990). Very Early Language Deficits in Dyslexic Children. Child
Development, 61(6), 1728- 1743.
Shenoy, S. (2015). Assessing English language learners in L1 Kannada and L2 English
to identify students who are at risk for language learning disabilities.
Snowling, M. J., Gallagher, A., & Frith, U. (2003). Family risk of dyslexia is
continuous: Individual differences in the precursors of reading skill. Child
development, 74(2), 358-373.
70
Snyder, L. S., & Downey, D. M. (1991). The Language-Reading Relationship in
Normal and Reading-Disabled Children. Journal of Speech Language and
Hearing Research, 34(1), 129.
Strong, C. J., & Shaver, J. P. (1991). Stability of cohesion in the spoken narratives of
language-impaired and normally developing school-aged children. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Research, 34(1), 95–111.
Swets, B., Jacovina, M. E., & Gerrig, R. J. (2014). Language and Cognition.
Tilstra, J., & McMaster, K. (2007). Productivity, fluency, and grammaticality measures
from narratives potential indicators of language proficiency?. Communication
Disorders Quarterly, 29(1), 43-53.
Ukrainetz, T. A., & Gillam, R. B. (2009). The expressive elaboration of imaginative
narratives by children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 52(4), 883-898.
Ulatowska, H. K., North, A. J., & Haynes, S. M. (1981). Production of discourse and
communicative competence in aphasia. In Clinical Aphasiology: Proceedings of
the Conference 1981 (pp. 75-82). BRK Publishers.
Ulatowska, H.K & Chapman, S.B. (1989). Discourse considerations for aphasia
management. Seminars in Speech and Language, 10, 293–314
Van Alphen, P., De Bree, E., Gerrits, E., De Jong, J., Wilsenach, C., & Wijnen, F.
(2004). Early language development in children with a genetic risk of
dyslexia. Dyslexia, 10(4), 265-288.
71
Van der Schoot, M., Licht, R., Horsley, T. M., & Sergeant, J. A. (2002). Fronto-central
dysfunctions in reading disability depend on subtype: Guessers but not
spellers. Developmental Neuropsychology, 22(3), 533-564.
Wallach, G. P., & Butler, K. G. (Eds.). (1994). Language learning disabilities in
school-age children and adolescents: Some principles and applications. Pearson
College Division.
Westby, C. E. (2005). Assessing and remediating text comprehension problems. In H.
W. Catts & A. G. Kamhi (Eds.), Language and reading disabilities (2nd ed.)
(pp. 157-232). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc
Westerveld, M. F., Gillon, G. T., & Miller, J. F. (2004). Spoken language samples of
New Zealand children in conversation and narration. Advances in Speech-
Language Pathology, 6(4), 195-208.
Westerveld, M. F., & Gillon, G. T. (2008). Oral narrative intervention for children with
mixed reading disability. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 24(1), 31-54.
Wilson, R., Majsterek, D., & Simmons, D. (1996). The effects of computer-assisted
versus teacher-directed instruction on the multiplication performance of
elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 29(4), 382-390.
Yeung, P. S., Ho, C. S. H., Chan, D. W. O., & Chung, K. K. H. (2014). What are the
early indicators of persistent word reading difficulties among Chinese readers in
elementary grades?. Dyslexia, 20(2), 119-145.
72
Wright, H. H., & Newhoff, M. (2001). Narration Abilities of Children with Language-
Learning Disabilities in Response to Oral and Written Stimuli. American
Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10(3), 308.
73
APPENDIX A
All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Naimisham Campus,

Manasagangothri, Mysore-570006.
CONSENT FORM
Dissertation on
Narrative discourse skills in children with learning disability
Information to the participants

I, Ms. Devika S, II MSc student at AIISH for my dissertation titled- “Narrative
discourse skills in children with learning disability” with the Principal Investigator Dr.
Hema N., Lecturer, Department of Speech – Language Sciences, AIISH, Mysore – 6.
The aim of the research is to study the narrative skills in children with learning
disability in Malayalam language. I need to collect data from 10 children with learning
disability in the age range of 8-12 years. Information will be collected through an
interview and audio recording for the overall duration of around 30-40 minutes each
under one or two recording conditions. I assure you that this data will be kept
confidential. There is no influence or pressure of any kind by us or the investigating
institute to your participation and the research procedure is different from routine
medical or therapeutic care activities. There is no risk involved to the participants, but
your cooperation in the study will go a long way in helping us to understand the
narrative skills in children with learning disability and thereby help in identifying any
deficits in this domain which can be trained during intervention.
Informed Consent
I have been informed about the aims, objectives and the procedure of the study.
I understand that I have a right to refuse participation as participant or withdraw my
consent at any time. I have the freedom to write to Chairman, AEC in case of any risk
associated with the study.
I, ________________________________________, the undersigned, give my consent
to be participant of this investigation/study/program.
Signature of participant Signature of investigator

(Name and Address) Date
__________________________________
__________________________________
i
APPENDIX B
“The Frog Where are you”

(Mayer, 1969)
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
xv
Description of the picture stimulus “Frog where are you” by Mayer(1969)
There once was a boy who had a dog and a pet frog. He kept the frog in a large jar in
his bedroom.
One night while he and his dog were sleeping, the frog climbed out of the jar. He
jumped out of an open window.
When the boy and the dog woke up the next morning, they saw that the jar was empty.
The boy looked everywhere for the frog. The dog looked for the frog too. When the dog
tried to look in the jar, he got his head stuck.
The boy called out the open window, “Frog, where are you?” The dog leaned out the
window with the jar still stuck on his head.
The jar was so heavy that the dog fell out of the window headfirst! The boy picked up
the dog to make sure he was ok. The dog wasn‟t hurt but the jar was smashed.
The boy and the dog looked outside for the frog. The boy called for the frog.
He called down a hole in the ground while the dog barked at some bees in a beehive.
A gopher popped out of the hole and bit the boy on right on his nose. Meanwhile, the
dog was still bothering the bees, jumping up on the tree and barking at them.
xvi
The beehive fell down and all of the bees flew out. The bees were angry at the dog for
ruining their home.
The boy wasn‟t paying any attention to the dog. He had noticed a large hole in a tree.
So he climbed up the tree and called down the hole.
All of a sudden an owl swooped out of the hole and knocked the boy to the ground.
The dog ran past the boy as fast as he could because the bees were chasing him.The
owl chased the boy all the way to a large rock.
The boy climbed up on the rock and called again for his frog.He held onto some
branches so he wouldn‟t fall.
But the branches weren‟t really branches! They were deer antlers. The deer picked up
the boy on his head.
The deer started running with the boy still on his head. The dog ran along too. They
were getting close to a cliff.
The deer stopped suddenly and the boy and the dog fell over the edge of the cliff.
There was a pond below the cliff. They landed with a splash right on top of one
another.
They heard a familiar sound.
The boy told the dog to be very quiet.
They crept up and looked behind a big log.
There they found the boy‟s pet frog. He had a mother frog with him.
They had some baby frogs and one of them jumped towards the boy.
The baby frog liked the boy and wanted to be his new pet. The boy and the dog were
happy to have a new pet frog to take home. As they walked away the boy waved and
said “goodbye” to his old frog and his family looked for the frog too.
xvii
APPENDIX –C
Narrative discourse sample in Malayalam language with the quantitative and qualitative
analysis
Example from LD participant no. 8, the verbatim transcription is given according to each picture
in the “Frog story” English translation in brackets and the narrative discourse analysis.
1- oru divasam oru thavala botilinte agath iripund. Oru kutiyum oru patikutim athine nokikone
irikuvarnu, pati botilil tala itt nokuvarnu.(one day a frog was there in a bottle. One boy and dog
were sitting watching it, dog looked inside)
2-avar urangiyapol tavala veliyil chadi irangi pakshe kutti arinjila (when they slept, frog jumped
out of jar but the child id not know it)
3-ravile avar eneet noki.engum frogine kanunila. Evideyum kanunila(when they woke up in the
mornig, they did not see the frog anywhere)
4- Avan shovinte agath okke noki. Apo pati botilinte agath kudungi poi.tala anakaan patathe
nikunu(he looked in his shoe. Then dog got stuck inside bottle. He could not move his head)
5- ennit avar janal turan purathek noki. Patiyude talayil botili kudungi poyi pakshe kutti anerami
aneram frogine vilikuvarnu( then he opened window and looked out. Dog’s head was stuck
inside but child was calling for frog)
6-jannal vazhi patti tarayil veen poyi apol Kutti ath kandu. Avan nokinikua patti veezhunne
kandit(from window the dog fell down and he saw it. Then he was looking )
7-kutti purath vanna patikutiye eduthu. Pati avane nakki tudachu.apo botil tarel veen potti avde
kuppi chill aii (he came out and picked up the dog. Dog licked then bottle had broken into
pieces)
8-avar ennit purathek nadanu apol kuti tavalaye vilichond nadakunund. Kuray then ichakal
parakunatum kandu(then they walked out calling the frog on the way. They saw many honeybees
flying)
9-avar nadan nadan oru kaatil ethi pakshe avde frogine kandila. Valiya kaad arnu ath. Kurey
marangal undarnu( walking walking they reached a forest, but there was no frog. It was a big
forest. Many trees were there)
xviii
10- nadann etiyapol kuti oru hol kandu. Athil avan nokunund. Pati anengil apo then ichayude
kood marathil thungi kidakane kandu. Athil chadi kuraykuvarnu( when he reached he saw a pit.
He looked inside pit. Dog was looking at the beehive hanging from tree)
11- apo eli irangi vann kutiyude mukil kadichu koduthu. Pati anengi marathil aneram keri. Then
ichakal kutil kurakkunundarnu aa pati( then rat came out of hole and bit him. Dog was climbing
tree at that time. dog started barking at the beehive)
12- then icha kud tazhe veenu. Pati ath noki nikunund. Then ichakal paranu vannu
purathek.(beehive fell down. Dog was looking at it. Bees started flying out)
13- apo kuti oru marathil keri ethi nokunundarnu. Athil oru hol pole kandu ethi noki. Holil frog
undonn noki( then child started climbing a tree . he saw a hole like opening there. He started
peeping in to check if frog is hiding inside that)
14- peten oru munga holeen purathek paran vann.ath kand kuti pedich poyi tale veen. Then
ichakal mothom parakan tudangi. Parane paranne then ichakal kuthan vannu( suddenly an owl
cam flying out. Seeing that the dog got scared. All bees started flying around) they flew and
came to injure him.)
15- then ichakal elaam pattine odichu(bees were chasing the dog)
16-mungaye pedichu kuti parayude adiyil olichu irikuvarnu munga avane kandila(afraid of the
owl, boy hid under a rock but owl did not see him)
17- kuti parayude purath keri tavalaye vilichond ninnu. Oru kambil pidich vilichond nikuvarnu(
he climed on a rock and started calling the frog. He was holding a stick and calling the frog)
18- ath oru kambalarnu. maante kombarnu. Oru maan arnu parayude purakil maranje ninnath,
Maan eneetathum avan kudungi poyi( that was not a stick. It was deer horns. A deer was hiding
behind the rock.when it stood up he got trapped)
19-maan odan tudangi. Mante talayila kudungiye e kuti pakshe maan vegam oduva. Pati
nokikkond munil odunund. Speedilan elarum odunat(it started running. He got trapped on its
head. Dog was running in front. They are running fast)
20-odi odi ninapo kutim patiyum tazhe veenu. Taazhek terich veenu(when they ran and stopped,
dog and boy fell down. They fell down with force)
21- a katil oru kulam undarnu( there was a pond in that forest)
xix
22- avar aa kulathil poyi veenu(they fell into that pond)
23- kuti vellathine pongiyapol pati talayil irikunu. Kuti savund ket sredikunudarnu(when the boy
came up from water the dog was on his head. He was listening to a sound carefully)
24-kuti karayil keri . oru tadiyude aduth irunn patiyod ocha vekkale enn kanichu. Pati karayilek
neenthi varunu( child came to shore. He went near a wooden piece asking dog not to make noise.
Dog also swam to shore)
25- apo tadiyude aparth aaro olich iripundenn toni(he felt someone was hiding behind the wood)
26-aparth nokiyapo rand tavalakale kandu(when he looked on the other side, he saw two frogs)
27-pineed nokiyapo kanam kurey tavala irikunu( later when he looked many frogs came)
28- enit oru tavalaye eduth tata kanichu tata paranju madangi veetil(he picked one from it and
said bye returned home)
29- baaki frogsum elam noki irikunund ( other frogs were watching them)
Quantitative T-unit analysis:
No.of T units(NTU)=60
No. of words per T-unit(NWTU)=7.2(436/60)
No.of clauses(NC)=71
No of words per clause(NWC)=6.1(436/71)
xx
Qualitative analysis:
Sl. Aspect Rate

No.
1. Discourse structure
a) Discourse forethought 1
b) Organizational Planning 1
2. Communication Intent
a. Initiation of narration 2
b. Asks for assistance 2
c. Imagines events 1
3. Coherence
a. Global 1
b. Local 1
4. Topic Management
a) Introducing topic 2
b) Topic shifts 2
c) Topic changes 1
d) Perseverations 2
e) Minimal elaborations 1
f) Topic elaboration 1
5. Information adequacy 1
6. Information content 1
7. Message accuracy 1
8. Temporal and causal relation (TCR) 1
9. Vocabulary specificity 1
10. Linguistic fluency 1
11. Speech style 2
12. Intonation 2
13. Revision behavior 2
14. Repair strategy
a. Self-correction 2
b. Repair through repetition 1
c. Initiated correction 2
d. Request for clarification 2
Total 36
DQ 69.23
xxi
APPENDIX –D
Narrative discourse sample in Malayalam language with the quantitative and qualitative
analysis
Example from TDC participant no.8, the verbatim transcription is given according to each
picture in the “Frog story” English translation in brackets and the narrative discourse analysis.
1- oru divasam oru veetil oru kuttiyundayirunu. Rathriyil avan avante pet ayit valartan oru
frogine kond vannu. Frogine oru jaril itit irikuvarnu. Pattikutti undayirunitum avanu frogine pet
aakan venamarunu. Apo avante kutukaranaaya pattikutim jaril nokikond nikuva
(One day there was a child in a house. At night he brought a frog home for raising as his
pet.Although he had a dog, he wanted a pet frog too. Frog was kept inside a jar.The his friend
puppy also started watching the jar)
2-ath kazhinj kuti kidan urangi avante kude aa pattiyum urangi. Apo tavala jariinte agathune
irangi veliyil poyi(after that child slept with his dog. Then frog jumped out of the jar )
3-ravile kuttiyum pattiyum enitapo jarinte agath tavalaye kanunila. Avan alochichu evide poyi
tavala enn( morning when the boy and dog woke up, the frog was missing from the jar.He started
thinking where it could have gone)
4-rand shoes undarnu. Avan shovinte agath noki. Patikuti jarinte agath nokan vendi tala itt
aneram tala kudungi poyi.(two shoes were there. He searched inside his shoes. Dog put his head
inside jar to search but his head got trapped inside it)
5- kuti jannal turan a tavalaye aneshich vilichuninapol patiyude talayil jar kudungi.ath tala
angotum ingotum itt aati kond irunu karanam kudungi kuppi talayil(when the boy opened
window to search for frog, then dog;s head got trapped. It was shaking its head because the jar
got trapped on its head)
6-kutti ingane veliyil nokikond ninapol pati veliyilek chaadi(while the child was looking out,dog
jumped out )
7-kuti irangi vann nokiyapol patiyude talayil kudungiya jar poti. Kuti deshyathil patiye poki
eduthapo pati avane nakkan tudangi(when he came out and looked, the jar trapped on its head
had broken into pieces. When he picked up the dog, it started licking him)
xxii
8-kuti ath kazhinj veetine purath irangi oru mara chuvattil poya shesham vilichu noki frogine.
Pati taen ichakale pidikan nokunu(then the child went out of his house to a tree and started
calling for frog. Dog was trying to catch some honeybees flying around)
9-avar nadan nadan oru kaatil ethi. Avde hanibeesde kud kandu(they walked and reached a
forest. There they saw a beehive)
10- kuti nokiyapo oru kuzhi kandu. Athilek nokikond irunapo pati ten icha kutil noki kurachu.
Path ath engnelum talli idan chinthikuvarnu.(then child saw a pit. He was looking inside pit
when dog started barking at the beehive.The dog was thinking of ways to push it down)
11- aa kuzhine eli irangi vanatum avante mookil maanti koduthu. Avan vedanich urakke karanju.
Apo patikuti marathil keri tudangi a hanibeede kud talli idan vendi(when rat came out of the pit
it scratched his nose. He started crying in pain. Then dog started climbing to push the beehive
down from the tree)
12- aati aati kud taazhe veen kuti apo avden odi poyi. Othirim bees kudine purathek
paranu.(shaking shaking ,the beehive fell down. Boy fled from there. Lots of bees started c\flying
out of it)
13- kuti odi odi oru marathinte mandak keri. Atile holil sukshich noki frog avide undonn(he ran
and ran and climbed a tree.he looked in that hole if frog was there)
14- athinagathun oru owl paranne vannapo kutti pedichu tazhe veenu. Hanibees oke paran vari
ayit pokunundarnu.( from inside an owl flew out and child got scared. All honeybees were flying
in a straight line)
15- hanibees elam patikutiye kuthan poyi karanam patiyaan avarude kud talli itat enn
mansilayi(the bees chased the dog because they understood it was the dog who destroyed their
beehive)
16-ee owlune rekshapeadan vendi kuti oru parayude tale poyi ninnu(to save himself from the
owl, he hid under a big rock)
17- enit parayude etom uyarna nilayil vannit oru kamb kiti. Atil pidich frogine vilichu(reaching
the highest point on the rock by holding onto a twig, he started calling for the frog)
18- ath oru maante kombarnu. Maan eneetathum avan maante mandayil ayi poyi(but that was a
deer’s horn. When deer rose he fell on top of it)
xxiii
19-maan odan tudangi. Pati munnil odunu.pati nokiyapo athinte muthalaali mante purath
kudungi kidakunu. Apo pati ath kandit kurachond oduvarunu(deer started running. Dog running
in front.when dog looked up it saw its master trapped on the deer’s head. Then seeing that it
started barking while running)
20-maan ninatum kutim patiyum tazhe veenu(when the deer stopped,boy and dog fell down)
21- kuti veenat oru kaadinte ull bhaagathayirunu(child fell into a deeply forested area)
22- rand perum orumich aa kulathil veenu. Maan nokunundarnu(both of them fell together into a
pond. Deer was looking )
23- kuti eneetapo entho shabdam ketu. Tavalayude shabdham ketu. Tavalayude shabdam kekuna
pole thoni(when the child stood up, he heard some sound. He heard a frog sound. He felt like he
was hearing a frog sound)
24-kutiyum patiyum marakashanathinte aduthek neengi vanna shesham karayil keri patiyod
mindathirikaan paranju. (dog and boy came near a wooden piece,then he came to shore while
telling the dog to stop barking and be silent)
25- kuti marathinte kambil keriyapo keri patiyum pinaale(when child climbed on the piece of
wood, dog also climbed)
26- nokiyapo rand tavalakale irikanae kandu(on looking they found two frogs)
27-kure kazhinje kurey tavala kutikalum vannu.kutti athishayich noki. Ithil eente eythan
alochichu(afterwards lots of baby frogs also came. Which one of these is mine he started
thinking)
28- avan oru tavalaye eduth elarkum tata kanichu(he picked up one frog waved bye)
29- baaki frogsum bai paranju(all other frogs said bye)
Quantitative T-unit analysis:

No.of T units(NTU)=52
No. of words per T-unit(NWTU)=9.61 (500/52)
No.of clauses(NC)=77
No of words per clause(NWC)=6.4 (500/77)
xxiv
Qualitative analysis:
Sl. Aspect Rate
No.
1. Discourse structure
a) Discourse forethought 2
b) Organizational Planning 2
2. Communication Intent
a. Initiation of narration 2
b. Asks for assistance 1
c. Imagines events 2
3. Coherence
a. Global 2
b. Local 2
4. Topic Management
a) Introducing topic 2
b) Topic shifts 2
c) Topic changes 2
d) Perseverations 2
e) Minimal elaborations 1
f) Topic elaboration 2
5. Information adequacy 2
6. Information content 2
7. Message accuracy 2
8. Temporal and causal relation (TCR) 2
9. Vocabulary specificity 2
10. Linguistic fluency 2
11. Speech style 2
12. Intonation 2
13. Revision behavior 2
14. Repair strategy
a. Self-correction 1
b. Repair through repetition 1
c. Initiated correction 1
d. Request for clarification 1
Total 46
DQ 88.46
xxv
APPENDIX E
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS SCALE
Discourse Analysis Scale for narration task
(Hema & Shyamala, 2008)
Points to be considered while using Discourse Analysis Scale:
The parameters of propositional and non-propositional aspect of narration can be

quantified with few general instructions to the evaluator as follows:
1. Initially read the keys provided in the sub headings which explain the exact
meaning of the parameters to be scored as good, fair and poor with respect to
the particular context of narration.
2. Scoring procedure involves the use of rating scale. Three points perceptual
rating scale is used to evaluate each parameters.
3. Each appropriate behavior (normal) is given a higher score and the

inappropriate behavior (abnormal) is scored low.
Propositional aspects of communication.
This includes the notion of relevancy, clarity of reference and coherence of

information. It deals with how discourse is organized with respect to overall plan,
theme or topic and how individual utterances are conceptually linked to main
theme/topic.
1) Discourse Structure
Good- The discourse is organized with respect to overall plan, theme or topic and how
events occurring earlier in time being described before events occurring later, and
causative events preceding their consequences. The narrative discourse is never
confusing in terms of logically and chronologically.
Fair- The discourse is partially confusing even if it’s partially organized with respect to
overall plan, theme or topic and how events occurring earlier in time being described
before events occurring later, and causative events preceding their consequences,
logically and chronologically making the narratives confusing.
xxvi
Poor- The discourse is completely confusing since it is unorganized with respect to
overall plan, theme or topic and how events occurring earlier in time being described
before events occurring later, and causative events preceding their consequences. Thus
the narrative is completely confusing in terms of logically and chronologically.
a) Discourse forethought--------------------------------------------------( )
[Score: 0-Poor, 1-Fair, 2-Good]
b) Organizational planning -----------------------------------------------( )
2) Communication intent
This parameter can be evaluated using frequency count, so check for the presence or
absence. If present, make a note whether an individual use this parameter only in
required circumstances or in all the circumstances.
Good- Individuals using this parameter in all required circumstances.
Fair- Individuals using this parameter inconsistently in the required circumstances.
Poor- This parameter is absent in the entire context of narration.
a) Initiation of narration-------------------------------------------------( )
b) Asks for assistance during narration--------------------------------( )
c) Imagines events correctly--------------------------------------------( )
3) Coherence
a). Global coherence----------------------------------------------( )
Good- Presence of good relationship between the meaning and context of verbalization
with respect to the general topic of narration.
Fair- Presence of partial relationship between the meaning and context of verbalization
with respect to the general topic of narration.
xxvii
Poor- Relationship between the meaning and context of verbalization with respect to
the general topic of narration is completely absent.
b). Local coherence-----------------------------------------------( )
Good- Presence of good relationship between the meaning and context of verbalization
with that of the immediately preceding utterance produced by the participant.
Fair- Presence of partial relationship between the meaning and context of verbalization
with that of the immediately preceding utterance produced by the participant.
Poor- Relationship between the meaning and context of verbalization with that of the
immediately preceding utterance produced by the participant is completely absent.
4) Topic management
a) Introducing topic-------------------------------------------------( )
Good- Correctly introducing the topic.
Fair- Partial but correct introduction to topic.
Poor- Irrelevantly introducing topic or no response.
b) Topic shift---------------------------------------------------------( )
Good- Staying within the given topic.
Fair- Gradual shift from the given topic.
Poor- Rapid shift from the given topic.
c) Topic changes----------------------------------------------------( )
Good- Coherent topic change where the topic is within the context of verbalization in
terms of when and where the narrating event occurred.
xxviii
Fair- Partially inappropriate topic change but still the topic is within the main context
of verbalization in terms of when and where the narrating event occurred.
Poor- Non coherent topic change where the topic is decontextualized.
d) Perseveration in the topics---------------------------------------( )
Good- Perseveration not present.
Fair- Perseveration partially present.
Poor- Perseveration continuously present.
e) Minimal elaboration-----------------------------------------------( )
In presence of prompts from the investigator, the participants attempting to give yes/no
responses along with very few sentential level discourse to elaborate the topic.
Good- Minimal elaboration appropriately present in all required circumstances
Fair- Minimal elaboration partially present in all required circumstances.
Poor- Minimal elaboration absent in required circumstances or minimal elaboration

only present throughout the context of narration.
f) Elaboration of topics------------------------------------------------( )
Good- Adequate elaboration of topic.
Fair- Partial elaboration of topic.
Poor- Extra elaboration of topic.
5) Information adequacy
Good- Completely adequate narration at word level/ single sentence level/ multiple
sentence level without any prompts from the investigator.
Fair- Partially adequate narration at word level/ single sentence level/ multiple
sentence level in the presence of few prompts from the investigator.
xxix
Poor- No narration at word level/ single sentence level/ multiple sentence level despite
several prompts from the investigator.
a). Word level/ Single sentence level/ Multiple sentence level-----( )
Underline the level at which the participant is positioned.
6) Information content
Good- Completely correct description of people, locations, objects, activities and

attributes that played a role in the events being narrated about. Good narratives pointing
a detailed linguistic picture of the events they are describing.
Fair- Partially correct description of people, locations, objects, activities and attributes
that played a role in the events being narrated about; Good narratives pointing more
than half a linguistic picture of the events they are describing.
Poor- Incorrect description of people, locations, objects, activities and attributes that
played a role in the events being narrated about. Good narratives pointing less than half
a linguistic picture of the events they are describing.
a). Meaningful and adequate information-----------------------------( )
7) Message Accuracy ------------------------------------------------------------( )
Good- An attempted narration involving correct narration without any confabulation or

any inaccurate information within the same context of narration.
Fair- An attempted narration involving correct narration and few accurate information
without any confabulation within the same context of narration.
Poor- An attempted narration involving incorrect narration with confabulation within

the same context of narration with all inaccurate information.
8) Temporal and causal relation (TCR)--------------------------------------( )
xxx
Good- Presence of all the temporal terms like then, and then, first, next, before, and
after; causal terms like because, when, if, while, and until.
Fair- Presence of few temporal terms like then, and then, first, next, before, and after;
causal terms like because, when, if, while, and until.
Poor- Absence of all the temporal terms like then, and then, first, next, before, and
after; causal terms like because, when, if, while, and until.
9) Vocabulary specificity----------------------------------------------------------( )
Good- Using specific vocabulary when specific information is required.
Fair- Partially using specific vocabulary when specific information is required.
Poor- Overuse of generic terms such as "thing" and “stuff" when more specific
information is required.
10) Linguistic fluency -------------------------------------------------------------( )
Good- Fluent discourse without any repetition, unusual pauses or hesitations.
Fair- Partially fluent discourse with very few repetitions, unusual pauses or hesitations.
Poor- Presence of repetition, unusual pauses, hesitations
11) Speech Style --------------------------------------------------------------------( )
Good- Appropriate use of any dialectal structural forms, code switching and style-
shifting.
Fair- Inappropriate use of dialectal structural forms, code switching, style-shifting is

partially present.
Poor- Presence of totally inappropriate dialectal structural forms, code switching, style-
shifting.
xxxi
12) Intonation ---------------------------------------------------------------------( )
Good- Absence of any inappropriate or abnormal rising, falling, flat intonation with
respect to a particular context of narration.
Fair- Inappropriate or abnormal rising, falling, flat intonation with respect to a

particular context of narration is partially present.
Poor- Presence of inappropriate or abnormal rising, falling, flat intonation with respect
to a particular context of narration.
Non propositional or Interactional aspects of communication
This is one of the important categories of social communication

behavior. These behaviors reflect the reciprocal nature of conversation and the joint co-
operation required of the participant. (Note: In narration it is only from participants’
point of view)
The following subcategories are considered:
1) Revision behaviors ------------------------------------------------------------( )
Good- Absence of false starts and self interruptions in the entire context of narration.
Fair- Presence of false starts and self interruptions in some contexts of narration.
Poor- Continuous presence of false starts and self-interruptions in the entire context of
narration.
2) Repair strategy
This parameter can be evaluated using frequency count, so check for the presence or
absence. If present, make a note whether an individual use this parameter only in
required circumstances or in all the circumstances.
Good- Individuals using this parameter in all required circumstances.

xxxii
Fair- Individuals using this parameter inconsistently in the required circumstances.
Poor- Individuals not using this parameter at all in the entire context of narration.
a) Use of self correction -----------------------------------------------------( )
Participants find a word or sentence after giving a small pause and continue the topic of
narration.
b) Use of repair through repetition/revision-------------------------------( )
Repeating themselves and correcting the discourse without the investigators help.
c) Use of other initiated correction------------------------------------------( )
Participants not able to find the right word, so the investigator fills it with the correct
word to continue the topic of narration.
d) Use of request for clarification -------------------------------------------( )
Requesting the investigator to modify the discourse and use the corrected version of
discourse to continue the topic of narration.
Finally, one can find discourse quotient, using the total score on propositional and non
propositional aspects of communication which should be divided by total scores of all
the features of propositional and non propositional aspects of communication. This
must be multiplied with hundred to get the score in percentage. Example: if the
participant’s score is 32
Discourse Quotient = 32/ (42+10) = 32/52 x 100= 61.54
xxxiii

1230 Devika S

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1230 Devika S

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1230 Devika S

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NARRATIVE DISCOURSE SKILLS OF CHILDREN WITH LEARNING

A Dissertation Submitted in Part Fulfilment of Degree of Master of Science

ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF SPEECH AND HEARING

MANASAGANGOTHRI, MYSORE-570 006

This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Narrative discourse skills of

the degree of Master of Science (Speech-Language Pathology) of the student

of any other Diploma or Degree.

Mysore Dr. S. R. Savithri

This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Narrative discourse skills of

University for the award of any Diploma or Degree.

This is to certify that this dissertation entitled Narrative discourse skills of

Dr. Hema. N, Department of Speech-Language Sciences, All India Institute of Speech

award of any Diploma or Degree.

Mysore Register No: 15SLP011

I also express my gratitude to director Ma’am, Dr.S.R.Savithri for all support.

shaped me into a better person.

me with the statistics of the study.

lovely grandparents for all their prayers.

so much. May our friendship last forever!!

My dissertation buddie, Chaya!!Thanks a lot for always supporting me .Together we discovered

all my classmates who made my memories at AIISH even more colorful.

person!Glad I met you!!kukki makku

with strength. Thank you so much God!

Chapter no Contents Page no.

II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 8-23

III METHOD 24-32

VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 57-62

2 Demographic details of control group 27

Mean, SD and Median for the propositional of narrative discourse of LD

Mean, SD and Median for the Non propositional parameters of narrative

Mean, SD and Median for Discourse quotient of narrative discourse of LD

Results of Mann-Whitney Test for the propositional & non-propositional

Results of descriptive statistics for the parameters of T-unit based analysis

Between group comparisons on quantitative analysis of oral narrative

9 Correlation between qualitative and quantitative parameters irrespective of

Correlation between qualitative and quantitative parameters within LD

Correlation between qualitative and quantitative parameters within TDC

Figure Title of Figure Page

1 Mean scores of the propositional discourse parameters of qualitative 37

2 Mean scores of the propositional discourse parameters of qualitative 38

3 Mean scores of discourse quotient of qualitative analysis of narrative 39

4 Performance of LD group (n=10) and TDC group (n=10) on quantitative 42

Learning disability/ disorders are neurobiological in origin and lead to problems

average or above average intelligence. Dyslexia is a specific learning disability in

decoding abilities. However, in majority of children with learning disability, the

reception and expression of spoken language seems to be compromised, particularly in

Language is a human communication system that makes use of a set of arbitrary

(pragmatics). However, recent research is aiming to understand the pragmatic aspects

of language. Pragmatic analysis is essential as it can provide details on the dynamic

aspects of everyday communication faced by an individual.

Pragmatics includes the study of discourse production and it forms an essential

part of communication. With reference to linguistics, discourse implies units of

of relationship between spoken or written sentences. Discourse may be spoken, written

or multimodal forms of communication, and is not found only in “non-fictional” or

communicative aim, whether in the form of spoken or written text, or monologue or

procedural (describes the procedure in performing an activity), expository (information

on a single topic by one speaker), conversational (sharing information between listeners

demands on the communicator (Ulatowska & Chapman, 1989).

Narrative discourse comprises of an account of events, generally in the past, by using