Presentation on theme: "Everyday talk between people with aphasia and their conversational partners Elizabeth Armstrong PhD Lynne Mortensen PhD Macquarie University."— Presentation transcript:
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.
Wording eg. tag questions, evaluative words, modality Semantics eg. speech function: command, question, challenge Genre/text type eg. recount Context of situation i.e. Field, Tenor, Mode
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
Genre of casual conversation 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”
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 SupportingConfronting Give: Information Statement Acknowledge Contradict Demand: Information Question Answer Withhold Give: G&S Offer Accept Decline Demand: G&SCommand 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 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