Вестник Кемеровского государственного университета. Серия: гуманитарные и общественные науки (Mar 2024)

Means of Lexical Cohesion in Oral Speech: Teenagers Operated for Congenital Heart Disease vs. Apparently Healthy Peers

  • Veronika A. Kameneva,
  • Alexandra A. Rumyantseva

DOI
https://doi.org/10.21603/2542-1840-2024-8-1-33-40
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 8, no. 1
pp. 33 – 40

Abstract

Read online

Cognitive development and speech activity of children operated for congenital heart disease (CHD) remain understudied both from the point of view of psychology and linguistics. The aim was to identify differences in the means of lexical cohesion these groups of teenagers use to create oral texts. This article describes, classifies, and compares the means of lexical coherence in oral texts created by teenagers (13–15 y.o.) with congenital heart disease (focus group, 28 respondents) and their apparently healthy peers (control group, 28 respondents). The material was collected using the diagnostic method introduced by of T. A. Fotekova and T. V. Akhutina: the respondents were asked to talk about their hometown. The statements were analyzed for means of lexical cohesion. The analysis was complicated by the fact that most focus group respondents actually failed to produce a monologue: on average, one response involved 8.5 motivating and encouraging remarks from the interviewer (3.5 in the control group). As a result, cases of lexical cohesion between the interviewer’s questions and the respondent’s answers were not taken into account. The results showed an imbalance of lexical repetition: 64 cases in the focus group vs. 100 cases in the comparison group, 12 cases of synonymous repetition vs. 7, and 11 cases of antonymic repetition vs. 6, respectively. Hyper-hyponymous repetition was poorly represented: only 3 cases in the focus group vs. 6 in the control group. Although lexical repetition was the main means of cohesion, the teenagers with congenital disorders resorted to this method much less often than their apparently healthy peers.

Keywords