DISRUPTION IN CHILDREN WITH LANGUAGE DISORDER.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Alhamdulillahirobbil’alamin, Praise to Allah Almighty who has blessed
the writer to complete this thesis in order to fulfill the requirement in obtaining the
degree of Master Humaniora of the English Applied Linguistics Study,
Postgraduate School at State University of Medan.
The writer addressed her special gratitude to her beloved parents Saman
and Safridah Hanum, her beloved husband Muhammad Hario Prawiro, A.Md., her
beloved daughter Fawwazia Ainayya and her beloved sisters (Nurainun Mardiah,
S.Pd., Mardani Afrida, S.Pd., Novia Anggraini, S.Kom., and Siti Meylidya Putri),
and her grandmother (Hariah) for supporting and encouraging her with their best
wishes.
Next, the writer would like to extend her indebtedness to a number of
people. Without their guidance, support, and help to the completion of this thesis,
it would not have been like this far.
Foremost, her gratitude in extended to her honorable advisers Prof. Dr.
Berlin Sibarani, M.Pd., and Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M.Pd., who had given her
excellent suggestions, guidance, advices, patience, and precious time in
completing and correcting the present thesis.
She owns her deepest gratitude to all of her examiners, Prof. Dr. Busmin
Gurning, M.Pd., Prof. Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S., and Dr. Rahmad Husein,
M.Ed., who had given their excellent corrections and suggestions in order to make
this thesis better.
She would like to acknowledge the head of English Applied Linguistics
Study Program, Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed., the secretary of English Applied
Linguistics Study Program, Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M.Hum., and the
administrative staff of English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Farid Ma’ruf
for their management administrative help. Special thanks go to all lecturers of
English Applied Linguistics Study Program for sharing their valuable knowledge,
experience, and lesson to her during her academic years.
Her regards also delivered to her best friends (Yusnita, Sari, Iseh, Hendro),
juniors of UMSU Debate Society (Rafy, Mita, Thanthawi, Husni, etc), the Evil
Family (Syandri, Septian, Prasetyo, Ayu Sri Ridhowati, Anita Ramadhani, etc),
and her classmates LTBI A-1 2012/2013 for their support, encouragements,
prayers and precious friendship.
The last but not least, big thanks to UPT. SLB-E Negeri Pembina Provinsi,
the subjects and their families for pemitting the writer to conduct the research.
The writer admits that the content of this thesis is still far from perfection,
but she warmly welcomes any constructive ideas and critics that will improve the
quality of this thesis. The writer also hopes this thesis would be useful for those
who read this thesis.
Writer
Diah Wardani
ABSTRACT
DIAH WARDANI. Disruption in Children with Language Disorder. A
Thesis. Medan: English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Postgraduate
School of State University of Medan, 2017.
This research deals with disruption in children with language disorder. This
research tried to answer the following problems: (1) what disruption was made by
the children with language disorder?, and (2) why did the disruption take place
among children with language disorder?. The research applied the descriptive
qualitative research. The research was conducted at UPT. SLB-E (Sekolah Luar
Biasa) Negeri Pembina Tingkat Provinsi with 16 students of Elementary School
Grade as the subjects to be observed. The findings indicated that all the subjects
made all kinds of disruptions in their utterances i.e. disruption of form, disruption
of content, disruption of use, disruption of interaction between form, content, and
use, and disruption of seperation of form, content, and use. By using the
documentary technique, it was found that there were four reasons of language
disruption occurances made by the children, they are: students with mental
retardation who are included in cognitive limitation, students with hearing loss
who are included in sensory input deficits, students with cemebral palsy who are
included in motor skill deficits and mute and autistic students who are included in
deficient social relation.
Key Words: disruption, children, language, language disorder
ABSTRAK
DIAH WARDANI. Kerusakan Bahasa pada Anak-anak dengan Penyakit
Bahasa. Sebuah Tesis. Medan: Program Studi Linguistik Terapan Bahasa
Inggris, Program Pascasarjana Universitas Negeri Medan, 2017.
Penelitian ini merujuk kepada kerusakan bahasa pada anak-anak dengan penyakit
bahasa. Penelitian ini berusaha menjawab masalah berikut: (1) kerusakan bahasa
apa yang dibuat oleh anak-anak dengan penyakit bahasa?, dan (2) mengapa
kerusakan bahasa terjadi pada anak-anak dengan penyakit bahasa?. Penelitian ini
menerapkan deskriptif kualitatif. Penelitian ini diadakan di UPT. SLB-E (Sekolah
Luar Biasa) Negeri Pembina Tingkat Provinsi dengan 16 orang siswa tingkat
Sekolah Dasar sebagai subjek yang diamati. Hasil dari penelitian ini menemukan
bahwa semua subjek membuat semua jenis kerusakan bahasa pada ujaran mereka,
seperti kerusakan bentuk bahasa, kerusakan isi bahasa, kerusakan fungsi bahasa,
kerusakan interaksi antara bentuk, isi, dan fungsi bahasa, dan pemisahan dari
bentuk, isi, dan fungsi bahasa. Dengan menggunakan teknik dokumentasi,
ditemukan bahwa ada 4 faktor penyebab kerusakan bahasa oleh subjek, yaitu
anak-anak dengan retardasi mental yang termasuk dalam keterbatasan kognitif,
anak-anak tuna rungu yang termasuk dalam kekurangan panca indera, anak-anak
dengan lemah otak termasuk dalam kekurangan kemampuan gerak, dan anak-anak
autis yang termasuk dalam kekurangan hubungan sosial.
Kata Kunci: kerusakan, anak-anak, bahasa, penyakit bahasa
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ABSTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................
i
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................
iv
LIST OF MATRIC ............................................................................................................
v
LIST OF APPENDICES ...................................................................................................
vi
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................
1
1.1
Background of Study .......................................................................................
1
1.2
Problems of the Study .....................................................................................
7
1.3
Objectives of the Study ...................................................................................
7
1.4
Scope of the study ...........................................................................................
8
1.5
Significance of the Study ................................................................................
8
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE ..................................................................
10
A.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK.............................................................................
10
2.1
The Nature of Language Disorder ...................................................................
10
2.2
The Definition of Language Dimensions ........................................................
11
2.3
Disruption in Language Dimensions ...............................................................
14
2.3.1 Disruption of Form ................................................................................
14
2.3.2 Disruption of Content ............................................................................
18
2.3.3 Disruption of Use ..................................................................................
20
2.3.4 Disruption of Interaction between Form, Content, and Use..................
23
i
2.3.5 Disruption of Seperation of Form, Content, and Use ............................
25
Factors of Disruptions in Language Dimensions ............................................
28
2.4.1 Cognitive Limitations ............................................................................
28
2.4.2 Sensory Input Deficits ...........................................................................
32
2.4.3 Motor Skill Deficits ...............................................................................
34
2.4.4 Deficient Social Relation.......................................................................
35
Previous Studies ..............................................................................................
36
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ..............................................................................
38
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH ....................................................
40
2.4
2.5
B.
3.1
Research Design .............................................................................................
40
3.2
Data and Subjects of the Study ......................................................................
40
3.3
Technique for Collecting the Data .................................................................
41
3.4
Technique of Data Analysis ...........................................................................
43
3.5
The Truthworthiness of the Study ..................................................................
45
CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, AND DISCUSSION .........................
49
4.1
Data Analysis .................................................................................................
49
4.1.1 Disruption in Children with Language Disorder ..................................
49
4.1.1.1 Disruption of Form ..................................................................
50
4.1.1.2 Disruption of Content ..............................................................
73
4.1.1.3 Disruption of Use .....................................................................
76
4.1.1.4 Disruption of Interaction between Form, Content, and Use ....
81
4.1.1.5 Disruption of Seperation of Form, Content, and Use ..............
83
ii
4.1.2 The Reasons of Language Disruption Occurances in Children
with Language Disorder ........................................................................
88
4.2
Findings ..........................................................................................................
94
4.3
Discussion ......................................................................................................
95
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ................................................
99
5.1
Conclusions ................................................................................................................
99
5.2
Suggestions ................................................................................................................
100
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1: Disruption of Articulation by Omitting Middle Alveolar
Approximant Consonant........................................................................ 52
Table 4.2: Disruption of Articulation by Omitting Initial and Final
Alveolar Approximant Consonant......................................................... 54
Table 4.3: Disruption of Articulation by Omitting Initial Bilabial Stop
Consonant..............................................................................................
56
Table 4.4: Disruption of Articulation by Omitting Alveolar Fricative
Consonant.............................................................................................
57
Table 4.5: Disruption of Articulation by Omitting Alveolar Stop Consonant......
58
Table 4.6: Disruption of Articulation by Omitting Initial Velar Stop Consonant.
60
Table 4.7: Disruption of Articulation by Omitting Alveolar Lateral Consonant..
61
Table 4.8: Disruption of Articulation by Omitting Velar Nasal Consonant.........
62
Table 4.9: Disruption of Articulation by Omitting Middle Vowels.....................
63
Table 4.10: The Distribution of Disruption............................................................
64
Table 4.11: The Percentage of Articulation Disruption..........................................
65
Table 4.12: The Phonemes of /c/, /j/, /n/, and /p/
in Minimal Pairs Content ...................................................................
67
Table 4.13: The Phonemes of /c/, /j/, /n/, and /p/
in Non-minimal Pairs Content............................................................
Table 4.14: Distribution of Disruption Factors........................................................
68
88
Table 4.15: The Reasons of Disruption in Children
with Language Disorder Entirely.......................................................
89
Table 4.16: The Comparison Table between Theories
and Research Finding..........................................................................
iv
96
LIST OF MATRIX
Matrix 4.1: The Factors of Language Disruption Occurances
in Children with Language Disorder ......................................................
v
92
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1:
The Transcription of The Subjects’ Utterances....................................
106
Appendix 2:
English Consonants and Vowels..........................................................
145
Appendix 3:
The Subjects’ Identities........................................................................
146
vi
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1
The Background of the Study
Language is so basic to our existance that life without words is difficult
to envision. It stands at the center of human affairs, from the most prosaic to the
most profound. And language is very complex (Wetherby, 2000: 30). It has sound
systems that allow the production of words and sentences. There are about
hundred thousands of terms and constructions for relating the words, numerous
distinct words, vocabularies of some 50.000 to 100.000 terms for adults. A
language has not only a structure what linguists try to capture with their rules but
also a function to which that structure is put.
Language is fundamentally an instrument of communication. People talk
as a way of coveying ideas to others – of getting them to grasp new facts, answer
questions, register promises, and so forth. It is the medium through which the
manners, morals and mythology of society are passed on to the next generation.
Indeed, it is a basic ingredient in virtually every social situation. The thread that
runs through all these activities is communication, where people try to put their
ideas over to others. As the main vehicle of human communication, language is
indispensable (Wetherby, 2000: 30).
One reason why human being are superior to other creatures in the world
is their ability to communicate. They communicate by using language to express
1
2
their feelings and opinions. Therefore, language is a determining factor for
survival. Without language, there is no life in the world. How one can speak is
really amazing if it is searched thoroughly. Chomsky (in Papalia and Old, 1990 :
75) defines children in a normal life from two until six years will acquire language
with structure and vocabulary. This is possible because since their birth, they have
been equipped with such a device called Language Acquisation Device (LAD).
The theory says that human has language devices in their mind seems acceptable
up to the present. It is the mean by which the child learns input from parents and
babysitters. The LAD lets the children analyze the language they hear and extract
the rules of grammar that allow them to create new words to help them to
verbalize their intention. Even since an infant, a baby starts to use a language.
Through his crying, the baby is trying to communicate his unhappiness, hunger,
and so on.
Language is also defined as a complex symbolic communication system,
for which symbol-referent relations cannot be inferred through observations, but
have to be learned step by step. Children may use first words before they have any
explicit symbolic understanding. Only when a word is generalized beyond the
initial learning environment, it may be granted symbol use and understanding
(Namy and Waxman 2005).
Next to the verbal domain, the process of symbol development can also
be examined in the nonverbal domain. Symbolic play requires the ability to
symbolize, and awareness of the relation between the present play object or action
and its absent referent in daily life (Jarrold and Baddeley: 1997). Symbolic play
3
has been linked to language development in typical children and young children
with language disorder syndrome (e.g., Lewis, Boucher, Lupton and Watson:
2000; McCune 1995; Toth, Dowson, Munson, Estes and Abbott: 2006).
Other symbolic abilities, such as understanding of pictures, have not been
studied in relation to language abilities yet. Stephenson and Linfoot (1996) argued
that the use of pictures as symbols has clear parallels to the use of words as
symbols. Therefore, the research about the language development of children
should be conducted regularly.
The development of language skills is one of the most important
achievements of early childhood. Language acquisition leads to new opportunities
in other developmental areas, such as cognitive, social, and emotional
development and is a corner stone for successful outcomes later in life
(Schlichting, Blume and Stahr: 1995). Bates (1979) indicated two critical
transitions in early childhood which precede language development: (1)
development of communicative intentionality, and (2) symbol formation. The first
transition is the onset of communicative intentionality, when children become
aware that their signals influence behavior of others. In typical development,
intentionality emerges when children start to use proto-imperative and protodeclarative behaviors, i.e., to obtain a desired object/event or to share
attention/interest between persons on a common focus, by the end of their first
year of life (9–13 months) (Baron-Cohen 1989; Bates 1979; Camaioni1997). The
second transition concerns the emergence of symbol understanding and use.
According to Bates (1979) symbol formation requires an understanding of the
4
relationship between a sign and its referent. The sign can replace that referent in a
variety of situations, even if the referent is not currently present. During the first
years of life children gradually learn to understand and use symbols, which is
reflected in the development of conventional gestures, words, and symbolic play
(Wetherby et al. 1998).
Although language ability usually develops spontaneously, it does not
progress typically for a substantial number of children. Children with certain
language disorder syndrome show impairments in language development (TagerFlusberg, Rogers, Cooper, Landa and Lord: 2005; Eigstie, De Marchena, Schuh,
and Kelley: 2011). The development of functional language serves an important
prognostic function (Mawhood et al.2000). Thus, gaining a better understanding
of language impairments in language disorder syndrome is important for
development and improvement of interventions.
People also believe that the competence of language acquisition is not
only determined by the way people can communicate with other people, but also
by the way the message is carried out and suitable with the context or situation.
The competence of language is succesfully achieved when people can
communicate with well articulation, grammatically correct and socially
appropriate utterance which make sense. Those are called as the dimensions of
language which consist of form, content and use. The problem appears when a
child does not fulfill these dimensions of language. No matter a child can speak
well, if the message can not be meant anything, he/she has a disturbance in his/her
comprehension. No matter a child can comprehend the message, if the way he/she
5
convey the message is not understandable, he/she has a disturbance in production
and so on. Those problems are called as Disruption of language (Lahey, 1988).
The disruption deals with the form, content and use of the language.
Disruption of form includes the disrupted building blocks of language such as
disrupted articulation, disrupted phonemes, disrupted morphemes and disrupted
syntax in language. For example: /aya/ instead of saying /saya/, /tupak//aca/
instead of saying /buka//puasa/ etc. Disruption of content is defined as the
disrupted meaning or semantic in language. For example: when an adult asks a
child “How old are you?” The child answers “I am fine” instead of “I am 10 years
old”. Disruption of use is defined as the distupted functions (goal, intent, purpose)
in language. For example: when a child does not understand the speaker-listener
role, he/she tends to interrupt in people’s discussion and suddenly changes the
topic of discussion. The disruption of language may also occur in the interaction
of form, content and use which causes contradictive between what a child says
and the reality. For example: a child says that he/she is hungry, but in fact, he/she
just had his/her meal. The last is the disruption which is caused by the seperation
of form, content, and use that consists of echolalia and perseveration. Echolalia is
repeating what people say as the response. For example: when an adult asks a
child “Kamu makan apa?” the child answers “Kamu makan apa?” instead of
“Saya makan roti”. While perseveration is keeping repeating the first answer
although the child is given different questions. For example: “Kamu makan apa?”
the child answers “Makan roti”. Then the adult asks again “Roti apa?” the child
6
answers “Makan roti”. The child just answers the first question correctly, while
he/she keeps repeating the same answers for other different questions.
Being aware or not, normal children fulfill these language dimensions in
communicating, but not the abnormal ones. If a child is lack of one of these
language dimensions, it means that he/she suffers language disorder syndrome.
But people still do not understand the context of disruption that the children have,
especially parents and adults. People also still do not understand in what context
the language dimensions are disrupted in each interaction and how are they
seperated in communication which can cause language disorder. People especially
parents and adults need to know if the language produced by children with
language disorder is disrupted in one type of language dimensions, because it will
make them aware that their children have a particular weakness in language which
make them uneasy to produce and comprehend the language.
In (SLB)E Karya Ujung, most of the students of Autism class produce
echolalia language. Echolalia language is the language produced by the children
by repeating the words after the adult utter something to them, for example adult
said: “ini balon”, the child repeated “balon”, when the adult said “ini rumah”, the
child repeated “rumah”. Another example of disruption is when the child in that
SLB called everybody he saw “mamak”. It showed that the child did not know the
meaning of “mamak” and what “mamak” refers to. However, the parents and
teachers really knew that the children suffer language disorder, but they did not
know that language disorder itself consists of some disruptions in accordance to
the disturbance they make in producing and comprehending the language.
7
Another reason why parents and adults should care about the language
development of their children is because those children need to be struggled as
human beings who deserve to have normal life like others. Although they cannot
speak properly, but they deserve to communicate by using their own ways.
Therefore, it is significant that those children need more attention and
understanding from their parents and adults especially in comprehending their
language and the way they interact among each other.
From the explanation above, the researcher would like to conduct the
research about the disruption in children with language disorder in SLB in Medan,
in order to find out how the language is disrupted in children who have language
impairments.
1.2
The Problems of the Study
In relation to the background that has been elaborated previously, the
problems of this study are formulated as follow.
1. What disruption was made by children with language disorder?
2. Why did the disruption take place among children with language disorder?
1.3
The Objectives of the Study
Based on the problems of the study, the objectives are as follow.
1. To find out the disruption which was made by children with language
disorder.
8
2. To find out the factors why disruption took place among children with
language disorder.
1.4
The Scope of the Study
In this study, the researcher deals only with the disruption of language
dimensions in children with language disorder (Lahey, 1988). And the children
who were observed were the children with language disorder in the second grade
of Elementary school in SLB in Medan.
1.5
The Significance of the Study
A study which was conducted for academic purpose has a great
importance for the development of knowledge. The findings of this research
certainly provided valuable inputs that can enrich the study on the development of
language acquisition. It is hoped that the findings have valuable contributions to
the theoretical and practical aspects.
a. Theoretically, the findings can be made as guidelines for adults especially
parents who are interested in the process of introducing new words to
young children. It will be also very useful for references in assisting of
facilitating the children in the process of acquiring new words. And for
other language researchers who are interested in conducting a more indepth study on language acquisition, by comparing the result of this
research, they can enrich the knowledge on language acquisition and know
how much knowledge of language which can be acquired and produced by
9
the language-disodered children especially the disruption which occur in
the language. This also can provide a basis for further research on the
different stages of the children’s word acquisition.
b. Practically, the findings can make the parents more active and creative in
introducing language to the children with language disorder, and can make
parents understand the disruption which is made by their children in
producing and comprehending the language. If supposed, parents use
babysitters’ help in taking care their children, these persons will be more
aware of introducing a new language so that the children can produce
sentences naturally whatever they want to speak and comprehending the
children’s language although they have disruption in producing language.
And it is also better for adults to make a conversation to the children very
often no matter the disruption that the children make.
99
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
After analyzing and drawing all the disruptions of language in the
subjects with different etiological factors of disruption, the researcher draws the
conclusions as follows.
1. All of language disruptions were made by the children with language disorder
namely: the disruption of form which consists of disruption of articulation,
disruption of phonemes, disruption of morphemes, and disruption of syntax;
the disruption of content; the disruption of use which consists of changing
topics disorderly and interrupting in people’s discussion; the disruption of
interaction between form, content, and use; and the seperation of form,
content, and use which is divided into echolalia and perseveration.
2. There are four reasons of making the disruptions by children with language
disorder such as mental retardation students who are included in cognitive
limitation, deaf students who are included in sensory input deficit, celebral
palsy students who are included in motor skill deficit, and mute and autistic
students who are included in deficient social relation. Those factors existed in
all subjects who made the disruption in producing and comprehending the
language. The other findings from the research are the results of the disruption
factors affecting the children with language disorder such as (1) one factor can
cause more than one disruption, (2) different factors can cause similar
99
100
disruptions, (3) similar factors can cause different disruptions.
5.2 Suggestions
Having seen the result of the study, the researcher would like to offer the
suggestions as follows.
1. It is advisable for the adults especially parents to understand the five
disruptions of language made by the children and the reasons of the language
disruption occurances made by the children so that they can understand and
communicate with the children with language disorder. Since handicapped
children like this deserve to have the value of making communication.
2. It is suggested to the lecturers of linguistics to teach about the language
disruption made by the children and also the reasons of the language
disruption occurances made by the children to the students and general
teachers in order to make them have understanding about the language
produced by the children with language disorder especially in their
surrounding.
3. It is expected that language disruption produced by the children with language
disorder with any disruption factors will not be a barrier conversation between
the children and adults especially among their own family members since they
are still able to understand what children mean by other aspects in Pragmatics
to catch the meaning such as presupposition, reference speech, and gestures.
4. It is suggested to other researchers and the students of Applied Linguistics
who are conducting further research about language disruption to find more
101
factors of children who make disruption in producing and comprehending the
language in which the results of the research can help the parents with those
typical children.
5. It is suggested to the government to provide a special school for children with
deficient social relation and seperate them from the students with mental
retardation, because children with deficient social relation are not mentally
retarded. Therefore, they need different school instead of Sekolah Luar Biasa.
And since Sekolah Luar Biasa has ambiguous meaning, which can be defined
as outstanding and unusual, then it is suggested to change the name of the
school become Sekolah Berkebutuhan Khusus.
Alhamdulillahirobbil’alamin, Praise to Allah Almighty who has blessed
the writer to complete this thesis in order to fulfill the requirement in obtaining the
degree of Master Humaniora of the English Applied Linguistics Study,
Postgraduate School at State University of Medan.
The writer addressed her special gratitude to her beloved parents Saman
and Safridah Hanum, her beloved husband Muhammad Hario Prawiro, A.Md., her
beloved daughter Fawwazia Ainayya and her beloved sisters (Nurainun Mardiah,
S.Pd., Mardani Afrida, S.Pd., Novia Anggraini, S.Kom., and Siti Meylidya Putri),
and her grandmother (Hariah) for supporting and encouraging her with their best
wishes.
Next, the writer would like to extend her indebtedness to a number of
people. Without their guidance, support, and help to the completion of this thesis,
it would not have been like this far.
Foremost, her gratitude in extended to her honorable advisers Prof. Dr.
Berlin Sibarani, M.Pd., and Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M.Pd., who had given her
excellent suggestions, guidance, advices, patience, and precious time in
completing and correcting the present thesis.
She owns her deepest gratitude to all of her examiners, Prof. Dr. Busmin
Gurning, M.Pd., Prof. Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S., and Dr. Rahmad Husein,
M.Ed., who had given their excellent corrections and suggestions in order to make
this thesis better.
She would like to acknowledge the head of English Applied Linguistics
Study Program, Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed., the secretary of English Applied
Linguistics Study Program, Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M.Hum., and the
administrative staff of English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Farid Ma’ruf
for their management administrative help. Special thanks go to all lecturers of
English Applied Linguistics Study Program for sharing their valuable knowledge,
experience, and lesson to her during her academic years.
Her regards also delivered to her best friends (Yusnita, Sari, Iseh, Hendro),
juniors of UMSU Debate Society (Rafy, Mita, Thanthawi, Husni, etc), the Evil
Family (Syandri, Septian, Prasetyo, Ayu Sri Ridhowati, Anita Ramadhani, etc),
and her classmates LTBI A-1 2012/2013 for their support, encouragements,
prayers and precious friendship.
The last but not least, big thanks to UPT. SLB-E Negeri Pembina Provinsi,
the subjects and their families for pemitting the writer to conduct the research.
The writer admits that the content of this thesis is still far from perfection,
but she warmly welcomes any constructive ideas and critics that will improve the
quality of this thesis. The writer also hopes this thesis would be useful for those
who read this thesis.
Writer
Diah Wardani
ABSTRACT
DIAH WARDANI. Disruption in Children with Language Disorder. A
Thesis. Medan: English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Postgraduate
School of State University of Medan, 2017.
This research deals with disruption in children with language disorder. This
research tried to answer the following problems: (1) what disruption was made by
the children with language disorder?, and (2) why did the disruption take place
among children with language disorder?. The research applied the descriptive
qualitative research. The research was conducted at UPT. SLB-E (Sekolah Luar
Biasa) Negeri Pembina Tingkat Provinsi with 16 students of Elementary School
Grade as the subjects to be observed. The findings indicated that all the subjects
made all kinds of disruptions in their utterances i.e. disruption of form, disruption
of content, disruption of use, disruption of interaction between form, content, and
use, and disruption of seperation of form, content, and use. By using the
documentary technique, it was found that there were four reasons of language
disruption occurances made by the children, they are: students with mental
retardation who are included in cognitive limitation, students with hearing loss
who are included in sensory input deficits, students with cemebral palsy who are
included in motor skill deficits and mute and autistic students who are included in
deficient social relation.
Key Words: disruption, children, language, language disorder
ABSTRAK
DIAH WARDANI. Kerusakan Bahasa pada Anak-anak dengan Penyakit
Bahasa. Sebuah Tesis. Medan: Program Studi Linguistik Terapan Bahasa
Inggris, Program Pascasarjana Universitas Negeri Medan, 2017.
Penelitian ini merujuk kepada kerusakan bahasa pada anak-anak dengan penyakit
bahasa. Penelitian ini berusaha menjawab masalah berikut: (1) kerusakan bahasa
apa yang dibuat oleh anak-anak dengan penyakit bahasa?, dan (2) mengapa
kerusakan bahasa terjadi pada anak-anak dengan penyakit bahasa?. Penelitian ini
menerapkan deskriptif kualitatif. Penelitian ini diadakan di UPT. SLB-E (Sekolah
Luar Biasa) Negeri Pembina Tingkat Provinsi dengan 16 orang siswa tingkat
Sekolah Dasar sebagai subjek yang diamati. Hasil dari penelitian ini menemukan
bahwa semua subjek membuat semua jenis kerusakan bahasa pada ujaran mereka,
seperti kerusakan bentuk bahasa, kerusakan isi bahasa, kerusakan fungsi bahasa,
kerusakan interaksi antara bentuk, isi, dan fungsi bahasa, dan pemisahan dari
bentuk, isi, dan fungsi bahasa. Dengan menggunakan teknik dokumentasi,
ditemukan bahwa ada 4 faktor penyebab kerusakan bahasa oleh subjek, yaitu
anak-anak dengan retardasi mental yang termasuk dalam keterbatasan kognitif,
anak-anak tuna rungu yang termasuk dalam kekurangan panca indera, anak-anak
dengan lemah otak termasuk dalam kekurangan kemampuan gerak, dan anak-anak
autis yang termasuk dalam kekurangan hubungan sosial.
Kata Kunci: kerusakan, anak-anak, bahasa, penyakit bahasa
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ABSTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................
i
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................
iv
LIST OF MATRIC ............................................................................................................
v
LIST OF APPENDICES ...................................................................................................
vi
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................
1
1.1
Background of Study .......................................................................................
1
1.2
Problems of the Study .....................................................................................
7
1.3
Objectives of the Study ...................................................................................
7
1.4
Scope of the study ...........................................................................................
8
1.5
Significance of the Study ................................................................................
8
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE ..................................................................
10
A.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK.............................................................................
10
2.1
The Nature of Language Disorder ...................................................................
10
2.2
The Definition of Language Dimensions ........................................................
11
2.3
Disruption in Language Dimensions ...............................................................
14
2.3.1 Disruption of Form ................................................................................
14
2.3.2 Disruption of Content ............................................................................
18
2.3.3 Disruption of Use ..................................................................................
20
2.3.4 Disruption of Interaction between Form, Content, and Use..................
23
i
2.3.5 Disruption of Seperation of Form, Content, and Use ............................
25
Factors of Disruptions in Language Dimensions ............................................
28
2.4.1 Cognitive Limitations ............................................................................
28
2.4.2 Sensory Input Deficits ...........................................................................
32
2.4.3 Motor Skill Deficits ...............................................................................
34
2.4.4 Deficient Social Relation.......................................................................
35
Previous Studies ..............................................................................................
36
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ..............................................................................
38
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH ....................................................
40
2.4
2.5
B.
3.1
Research Design .............................................................................................
40
3.2
Data and Subjects of the Study ......................................................................
40
3.3
Technique for Collecting the Data .................................................................
41
3.4
Technique of Data Analysis ...........................................................................
43
3.5
The Truthworthiness of the Study ..................................................................
45
CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, AND DISCUSSION .........................
49
4.1
Data Analysis .................................................................................................
49
4.1.1 Disruption in Children with Language Disorder ..................................
49
4.1.1.1 Disruption of Form ..................................................................
50
4.1.1.2 Disruption of Content ..............................................................
73
4.1.1.3 Disruption of Use .....................................................................
76
4.1.1.4 Disruption of Interaction between Form, Content, and Use ....
81
4.1.1.5 Disruption of Seperation of Form, Content, and Use ..............
83
ii
4.1.2 The Reasons of Language Disruption Occurances in Children
with Language Disorder ........................................................................
88
4.2
Findings ..........................................................................................................
94
4.3
Discussion ......................................................................................................
95
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ................................................
99
5.1
Conclusions ................................................................................................................
99
5.2
Suggestions ................................................................................................................
100
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1: Disruption of Articulation by Omitting Middle Alveolar
Approximant Consonant........................................................................ 52
Table 4.2: Disruption of Articulation by Omitting Initial and Final
Alveolar Approximant Consonant......................................................... 54
Table 4.3: Disruption of Articulation by Omitting Initial Bilabial Stop
Consonant..............................................................................................
56
Table 4.4: Disruption of Articulation by Omitting Alveolar Fricative
Consonant.............................................................................................
57
Table 4.5: Disruption of Articulation by Omitting Alveolar Stop Consonant......
58
Table 4.6: Disruption of Articulation by Omitting Initial Velar Stop Consonant.
60
Table 4.7: Disruption of Articulation by Omitting Alveolar Lateral Consonant..
61
Table 4.8: Disruption of Articulation by Omitting Velar Nasal Consonant.........
62
Table 4.9: Disruption of Articulation by Omitting Middle Vowels.....................
63
Table 4.10: The Distribution of Disruption............................................................
64
Table 4.11: The Percentage of Articulation Disruption..........................................
65
Table 4.12: The Phonemes of /c/, /j/, /n/, and /p/
in Minimal Pairs Content ...................................................................
67
Table 4.13: The Phonemes of /c/, /j/, /n/, and /p/
in Non-minimal Pairs Content............................................................
Table 4.14: Distribution of Disruption Factors........................................................
68
88
Table 4.15: The Reasons of Disruption in Children
with Language Disorder Entirely.......................................................
89
Table 4.16: The Comparison Table between Theories
and Research Finding..........................................................................
iv
96
LIST OF MATRIX
Matrix 4.1: The Factors of Language Disruption Occurances
in Children with Language Disorder ......................................................
v
92
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1:
The Transcription of The Subjects’ Utterances....................................
106
Appendix 2:
English Consonants and Vowels..........................................................
145
Appendix 3:
The Subjects’ Identities........................................................................
146
vi
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1
The Background of the Study
Language is so basic to our existance that life without words is difficult
to envision. It stands at the center of human affairs, from the most prosaic to the
most profound. And language is very complex (Wetherby, 2000: 30). It has sound
systems that allow the production of words and sentences. There are about
hundred thousands of terms and constructions for relating the words, numerous
distinct words, vocabularies of some 50.000 to 100.000 terms for adults. A
language has not only a structure what linguists try to capture with their rules but
also a function to which that structure is put.
Language is fundamentally an instrument of communication. People talk
as a way of coveying ideas to others – of getting them to grasp new facts, answer
questions, register promises, and so forth. It is the medium through which the
manners, morals and mythology of society are passed on to the next generation.
Indeed, it is a basic ingredient in virtually every social situation. The thread that
runs through all these activities is communication, where people try to put their
ideas over to others. As the main vehicle of human communication, language is
indispensable (Wetherby, 2000: 30).
One reason why human being are superior to other creatures in the world
is their ability to communicate. They communicate by using language to express
1
2
their feelings and opinions. Therefore, language is a determining factor for
survival. Without language, there is no life in the world. How one can speak is
really amazing if it is searched thoroughly. Chomsky (in Papalia and Old, 1990 :
75) defines children in a normal life from two until six years will acquire language
with structure and vocabulary. This is possible because since their birth, they have
been equipped with such a device called Language Acquisation Device (LAD).
The theory says that human has language devices in their mind seems acceptable
up to the present. It is the mean by which the child learns input from parents and
babysitters. The LAD lets the children analyze the language they hear and extract
the rules of grammar that allow them to create new words to help them to
verbalize their intention. Even since an infant, a baby starts to use a language.
Through his crying, the baby is trying to communicate his unhappiness, hunger,
and so on.
Language is also defined as a complex symbolic communication system,
for which symbol-referent relations cannot be inferred through observations, but
have to be learned step by step. Children may use first words before they have any
explicit symbolic understanding. Only when a word is generalized beyond the
initial learning environment, it may be granted symbol use and understanding
(Namy and Waxman 2005).
Next to the verbal domain, the process of symbol development can also
be examined in the nonverbal domain. Symbolic play requires the ability to
symbolize, and awareness of the relation between the present play object or action
and its absent referent in daily life (Jarrold and Baddeley: 1997). Symbolic play
3
has been linked to language development in typical children and young children
with language disorder syndrome (e.g., Lewis, Boucher, Lupton and Watson:
2000; McCune 1995; Toth, Dowson, Munson, Estes and Abbott: 2006).
Other symbolic abilities, such as understanding of pictures, have not been
studied in relation to language abilities yet. Stephenson and Linfoot (1996) argued
that the use of pictures as symbols has clear parallels to the use of words as
symbols. Therefore, the research about the language development of children
should be conducted regularly.
The development of language skills is one of the most important
achievements of early childhood. Language acquisition leads to new opportunities
in other developmental areas, such as cognitive, social, and emotional
development and is a corner stone for successful outcomes later in life
(Schlichting, Blume and Stahr: 1995). Bates (1979) indicated two critical
transitions in early childhood which precede language development: (1)
development of communicative intentionality, and (2) symbol formation. The first
transition is the onset of communicative intentionality, when children become
aware that their signals influence behavior of others. In typical development,
intentionality emerges when children start to use proto-imperative and protodeclarative behaviors, i.e., to obtain a desired object/event or to share
attention/interest between persons on a common focus, by the end of their first
year of life (9–13 months) (Baron-Cohen 1989; Bates 1979; Camaioni1997). The
second transition concerns the emergence of symbol understanding and use.
According to Bates (1979) symbol formation requires an understanding of the
4
relationship between a sign and its referent. The sign can replace that referent in a
variety of situations, even if the referent is not currently present. During the first
years of life children gradually learn to understand and use symbols, which is
reflected in the development of conventional gestures, words, and symbolic play
(Wetherby et al. 1998).
Although language ability usually develops spontaneously, it does not
progress typically for a substantial number of children. Children with certain
language disorder syndrome show impairments in language development (TagerFlusberg, Rogers, Cooper, Landa and Lord: 2005; Eigstie, De Marchena, Schuh,
and Kelley: 2011). The development of functional language serves an important
prognostic function (Mawhood et al.2000). Thus, gaining a better understanding
of language impairments in language disorder syndrome is important for
development and improvement of interventions.
People also believe that the competence of language acquisition is not
only determined by the way people can communicate with other people, but also
by the way the message is carried out and suitable with the context or situation.
The competence of language is succesfully achieved when people can
communicate with well articulation, grammatically correct and socially
appropriate utterance which make sense. Those are called as the dimensions of
language which consist of form, content and use. The problem appears when a
child does not fulfill these dimensions of language. No matter a child can speak
well, if the message can not be meant anything, he/she has a disturbance in his/her
comprehension. No matter a child can comprehend the message, if the way he/she
5
convey the message is not understandable, he/she has a disturbance in production
and so on. Those problems are called as Disruption of language (Lahey, 1988).
The disruption deals with the form, content and use of the language.
Disruption of form includes the disrupted building blocks of language such as
disrupted articulation, disrupted phonemes, disrupted morphemes and disrupted
syntax in language. For example: /aya/ instead of saying /saya/, /tupak//aca/
instead of saying /buka//puasa/ etc. Disruption of content is defined as the
disrupted meaning or semantic in language. For example: when an adult asks a
child “How old are you?” The child answers “I am fine” instead of “I am 10 years
old”. Disruption of use is defined as the distupted functions (goal, intent, purpose)
in language. For example: when a child does not understand the speaker-listener
role, he/she tends to interrupt in people’s discussion and suddenly changes the
topic of discussion. The disruption of language may also occur in the interaction
of form, content and use which causes contradictive between what a child says
and the reality. For example: a child says that he/she is hungry, but in fact, he/she
just had his/her meal. The last is the disruption which is caused by the seperation
of form, content, and use that consists of echolalia and perseveration. Echolalia is
repeating what people say as the response. For example: when an adult asks a
child “Kamu makan apa?” the child answers “Kamu makan apa?” instead of
“Saya makan roti”. While perseveration is keeping repeating the first answer
although the child is given different questions. For example: “Kamu makan apa?”
the child answers “Makan roti”. Then the adult asks again “Roti apa?” the child
6
answers “Makan roti”. The child just answers the first question correctly, while
he/she keeps repeating the same answers for other different questions.
Being aware or not, normal children fulfill these language dimensions in
communicating, but not the abnormal ones. If a child is lack of one of these
language dimensions, it means that he/she suffers language disorder syndrome.
But people still do not understand the context of disruption that the children have,
especially parents and adults. People also still do not understand in what context
the language dimensions are disrupted in each interaction and how are they
seperated in communication which can cause language disorder. People especially
parents and adults need to know if the language produced by children with
language disorder is disrupted in one type of language dimensions, because it will
make them aware that their children have a particular weakness in language which
make them uneasy to produce and comprehend the language.
In (SLB)E Karya Ujung, most of the students of Autism class produce
echolalia language. Echolalia language is the language produced by the children
by repeating the words after the adult utter something to them, for example adult
said: “ini balon”, the child repeated “balon”, when the adult said “ini rumah”, the
child repeated “rumah”. Another example of disruption is when the child in that
SLB called everybody he saw “mamak”. It showed that the child did not know the
meaning of “mamak” and what “mamak” refers to. However, the parents and
teachers really knew that the children suffer language disorder, but they did not
know that language disorder itself consists of some disruptions in accordance to
the disturbance they make in producing and comprehending the language.
7
Another reason why parents and adults should care about the language
development of their children is because those children need to be struggled as
human beings who deserve to have normal life like others. Although they cannot
speak properly, but they deserve to communicate by using their own ways.
Therefore, it is significant that those children need more attention and
understanding from their parents and adults especially in comprehending their
language and the way they interact among each other.
From the explanation above, the researcher would like to conduct the
research about the disruption in children with language disorder in SLB in Medan,
in order to find out how the language is disrupted in children who have language
impairments.
1.2
The Problems of the Study
In relation to the background that has been elaborated previously, the
problems of this study are formulated as follow.
1. What disruption was made by children with language disorder?
2. Why did the disruption take place among children with language disorder?
1.3
The Objectives of the Study
Based on the problems of the study, the objectives are as follow.
1. To find out the disruption which was made by children with language
disorder.
8
2. To find out the factors why disruption took place among children with
language disorder.
1.4
The Scope of the Study
In this study, the researcher deals only with the disruption of language
dimensions in children with language disorder (Lahey, 1988). And the children
who were observed were the children with language disorder in the second grade
of Elementary school in SLB in Medan.
1.5
The Significance of the Study
A study which was conducted for academic purpose has a great
importance for the development of knowledge. The findings of this research
certainly provided valuable inputs that can enrich the study on the development of
language acquisition. It is hoped that the findings have valuable contributions to
the theoretical and practical aspects.
a. Theoretically, the findings can be made as guidelines for adults especially
parents who are interested in the process of introducing new words to
young children. It will be also very useful for references in assisting of
facilitating the children in the process of acquiring new words. And for
other language researchers who are interested in conducting a more indepth study on language acquisition, by comparing the result of this
research, they can enrich the knowledge on language acquisition and know
how much knowledge of language which can be acquired and produced by
9
the language-disodered children especially the disruption which occur in
the language. This also can provide a basis for further research on the
different stages of the children’s word acquisition.
b. Practically, the findings can make the parents more active and creative in
introducing language to the children with language disorder, and can make
parents understand the disruption which is made by their children in
producing and comprehending the language. If supposed, parents use
babysitters’ help in taking care their children, these persons will be more
aware of introducing a new language so that the children can produce
sentences naturally whatever they want to speak and comprehending the
children’s language although they have disruption in producing language.
And it is also better for adults to make a conversation to the children very
often no matter the disruption that the children make.
99
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
After analyzing and drawing all the disruptions of language in the
subjects with different etiological factors of disruption, the researcher draws the
conclusions as follows.
1. All of language disruptions were made by the children with language disorder
namely: the disruption of form which consists of disruption of articulation,
disruption of phonemes, disruption of morphemes, and disruption of syntax;
the disruption of content; the disruption of use which consists of changing
topics disorderly and interrupting in people’s discussion; the disruption of
interaction between form, content, and use; and the seperation of form,
content, and use which is divided into echolalia and perseveration.
2. There are four reasons of making the disruptions by children with language
disorder such as mental retardation students who are included in cognitive
limitation, deaf students who are included in sensory input deficit, celebral
palsy students who are included in motor skill deficit, and mute and autistic
students who are included in deficient social relation. Those factors existed in
all subjects who made the disruption in producing and comprehending the
language. The other findings from the research are the results of the disruption
factors affecting the children with language disorder such as (1) one factor can
cause more than one disruption, (2) different factors can cause similar
99
100
disruptions, (3) similar factors can cause different disruptions.
5.2 Suggestions
Having seen the result of the study, the researcher would like to offer the
suggestions as follows.
1. It is advisable for the adults especially parents to understand the five
disruptions of language made by the children and the reasons of the language
disruption occurances made by the children so that they can understand and
communicate with the children with language disorder. Since handicapped
children like this deserve to have the value of making communication.
2. It is suggested to the lecturers of linguistics to teach about the language
disruption made by the children and also the reasons of the language
disruption occurances made by the children to the students and general
teachers in order to make them have understanding about the language
produced by the children with language disorder especially in their
surrounding.
3. It is expected that language disruption produced by the children with language
disorder with any disruption factors will not be a barrier conversation between
the children and adults especially among their own family members since they
are still able to understand what children mean by other aspects in Pragmatics
to catch the meaning such as presupposition, reference speech, and gestures.
4. It is suggested to other researchers and the students of Applied Linguistics
who are conducting further research about language disruption to find more
101
factors of children who make disruption in producing and comprehending the
language in which the results of the research can help the parents with those
typical children.
5. It is suggested to the government to provide a special school for children with
deficient social relation and seperate them from the students with mental
retardation, because children with deficient social relation are not mentally
retarded. Therefore, they need different school instead of Sekolah Luar Biasa.
And since Sekolah Luar Biasa has ambiguous meaning, which can be defined
as outstanding and unusual, then it is suggested to change the name of the
school become Sekolah Berkebutuhan Khusus.