190 likes | 259 Views
Everyday talk between people with aphasia and their conversational partners. Elizabeth Armstrong PhD Lynne Mortensen PhD Macquarie University. Why Conversation?. Everyday talk: a functional clinical goal
E N D
Everyday talk between people with aphasia and their conversational partners Elizabeth Armstrong PhD Lynne Mortensen PhD Macquarie University
Why Conversation? • Everyday talk: a functional clinical goal • Essence of human interaction & human relationships (Lock, Wilkinson & Bryan, 2001) • Every day we engage with others through talk. • Motivated to by need to • communicate ideas • interpersonal needs to establish and maintain relationships • negotiate particular dimensions of our social identity (Eggins & Slade1997). • Compromise (as in aphasia) has significant psychosocial implications.
Rationale cont’d • Aphasic speakers use different language in conversation c/f picture description and other monologues (Beekes et al, 2003; Lock et al, 2001) • Corpus linguistic data points to wide variations in everyday talk • Enables aphasic speakers to make maximum use of residual communicative resources • A conversational approach within and beyond the clinic promotes ‘carryover’ • Can provide model for training relatives and carers in natural conversational interactions
Details of research project • Aim: • The study examines conversations between an aphasic speaker and conversational partner and takes an interpersonal perspective on the meanings exchanged. • Participants & data: • Naturalistic conversational samples obtained from 8 participants (4 couples) in their home • Analysis • SFL is the theoretical framework used, specifically an interpersonal perspective on the meanings exchanged.
Wordingeg. tag questions, evaluative words, modality Context of situation i.e. Field, Tenor, Mode Genre/text type eg. recount Semantics eg. speech function: command, question, challenge
Research questions • The following questions are explored: • i) What kinds of genres do aphasic individuals participate in during everyday interactions within the home environment? • ii) What kinds of speech functions are demonstrated by aphasic speakers during conversation, in the presence of significant lexicogrammatical difficulties, and what are some of the potential compromises involved • iii) what are the conversational partner’s contributions to conversations and how do these impact on the aphasic speaker’s language choices
Schematic structure Greeting Address – usually realised by saying someone’s name Direct approach – personal; conversation about health, clothing, family (i.e. friend to friend) Indirect approach – contextual talk about the weather, the immediate surroundings (stranger or acquaintance) Centering – talk about more involved topics, speaker’s world views Identification – speakers introduce themselves (strangers) Leave-taking – indicating the anticipated end of the conversation Goodbye Grammatical patterns Informal language between friends, e.g attitudinal lexis colloquial lexis including abbreviated forms, slang, swearing interruptions and overlaps first names, nick-names, diminutives modalisation to express probability and opinion More formal language between strangers or acquaintances, e.g neutral lexis formal lexis – full forms, no slang politeness forms careful turn-taking titles, no first names modalisation to express deference, e.g. “I wonder would you mind closing the window” Genre of casual conversation
Dialogue: Speech functions and the exchange of meanings • Different genres can be embedded within conversation or everyday talk, e.g. • monologic recounts, expression of opinions as expositions or arguments, gossip, chat. • Speech functions vary to reflect the exchange of information & interpersonal meanings typical of these different genres • Conversation is • an interactive event in which a speaker adopts a particular speech role and assigns a complementary role to the listener • an exchange in which giving implies receiving and demanding implies a response
Speech functions and the exchange of meanings Basic Speech Functions Initiation Response Supporting Confronting Give: Information Statement Acknowledge Contradict Demand: Information Question Answer Withhold Give: G&S Offer Accept Decline Demand: G&S Command Undertake Refuse
Example • Participant A: • 75 Years old • CVA 14 years ago • Predominantly expressive nonfluent aphasia • BDAE severity rating 2 • Born in Holland – in Australia since 1950 • Prior to stroke, managed small businesses • Participant M: • Prior to stroke, managed small businesses • A’s wife • 67 years old • Special education teacher retires after A had stroke
Text types • Dreadful lunch: • monologue (recount) - A • information exchange - A & M • monologue (exposition)- M • Shopping text: • negotiation of goods and services - between A & M
Discussion points • Different genres across and within texts • A’s relative strengths and weaknesses across texts • M’s contributions to conversations and how they impact on A’s language choices • ‘successful’ vs. ‘unsuccessful’ • Possible measures
Speech function measures:Descriptive • Does the aphasic speaker have as large a variety of speech functions as the partner? • Can the aphasic speaker initiate an interaction? If so, what functions does s/he use – questions only? • Can the aphasic speaker continue a conversation –can s/he follow-up on comments of the partner? • Does the aphasic speaker introduce new information? • Does the partner tend to ask questions only? How does the aphasic speaker respond to questions? • Does the partner follow up on statements by the aphasic speaker? • Does the partner use a range of speech functions?
Other: Quantitative • Number of times each partner initiates and responds – as above, exploring the roles of each partner in the conversation • Number of words per speech function (e.g., monitoring amount of language used by the aphasic speaker in particular, but also the non-aphasic partner. It might happen that the non-aphasic person is using too many words and that length is an issue for the aphasic person’s comprehension) • Number of turns involving ellipsis • Number of clauses per turn (monitoring the amount that each person contributes – is one dominating?)
Other • No. turns involving repair(Booth & Perkins, 1999) • Average length of repair sequences (Booth & Perkins, 1999) • speaking rate (words per minute) (Boles, 1998) • speaking efficiency (words per utterance) (Boles, 1998) • relative contribution to conversation e.g., number of utterances per speaker