A case study of aphasic control of conversation C' Rhys, K' Robinson B'E' Blaney, J' M' McAllister U

1
A case study of aphasic control of
conversationC. Rhys, K. Robinson B.E. Blaney,
J. M. McAllisterUniversity of Ulster
2
Background information

• The conversational dyad
• an untrained female volunteer (IN)
• a male with aphasia (AS), eight months post-onset
• Data
• completion of a confrontational naming task
• informal conversation
• Analytical framework
• Conversation Analysis

3
Introduction

• Word retrieval difficulties
• Two ways word finding difficulties can be
  repaired
• The speaker can embark on a solitary word search
• The co participant can offer suggestions/guesses
  of the target.
• Recent literature focuses on the collaborative
  nature of the second type of repair

4
Hint and Guess Sequences

• Problem establishment phase
• Establishment of a co-participation framework
• Hint and Guess Phase
• Long confirmation phase
• Laakso and Klippi (1999)

5
Why do ASs lexical problems not typically result
in searching?

• Laakso and Klippi (1999) provide 2 explanations
  for the non occurrence of HG
• Non-impaired participant fails to collaborate in
  the word search
• The person with aphasia fails to invite
  co-participation in the word search

6
Our Proposal

• Absence of these word searching behaviours
• Is not a failure to accomplish some action.
• Is an observable choice not to engage in either
  solitary or collaborative searching.

7
How is this choice observable?

• Extract 2 follows initial pattern of HG in
  extract 1, but diverges at line 181
• AS there? ?(article)? (.) ltsorrygt cant
  remember (.) the word(.) and that took a
  long time to get back ? from that
• HG is in progress but then AS actively closes
  down the collaborative word search and continues
  with the narrative.

8
Coparticipant orientation

• Extract 2 shows a TIB and a return of gaze by AS
• Why are these not oriented to by IN as a request
  for collaboration?
• What discursive practice does AS adopt/adapt to
  actively close down the word searching sequence?

9
Contrasting examples

• Extract 1
• Cant remember the word
• word search
• Extract 2
• Sorry cant remember the word
• NO word search

10
Action accomplished by sorry

• sorry is typically an explicit apology term
  (Robinson 2004).
• In our data, sorry stops word searching.
• Claim AS adopts/adapts sorry as linguistic
  resource to close down word searching (Ex3).

11
Properties of sorry (Robinson 2004)

• Apology terms can be used to accomplish
  non-apology actions
• Apologies can be first pair parts
• Apologies index an object of regret and embody
  a claim to have offended someone

12
The object of regret

• On each use, sorry indexes a particular object
  of regret
• (Coulmas 1981 Fraser 1981 Rehbein Ehlich
  1976).
• The action that sorry accomplishes is tied to
  the nature of this object of regret.

13
Linguistic indexing

• sorry in the context of repair
• indexes the repairable item
• constitutes a repair initiator

14
ASs object of regret

• Sorry in our data is also linguistically
  indexed
• The object of regret is ASs lexical problem and
  prospectively his choice not to resolve it.
• Apologies often co-occur with accounts.
• Extract 2 cant remember the word is an
  account, accounting for not pursuing the HG.

15
Structural properties of sorry

• Sorry is a first pair part of an adjacency pair
  and makes relevant a response
• This new apology adjacency pair interrupts the
  preceding word search sequence.
• Sorry is thus interpretable as halting the word
  searching.

16
Is it just an apology then?

• Single turns of talk can be mobilized to
  accomplish multiple, distinct actions, which can
  be hierarchically organized in terms of their
  centrality (and conditional relevance).
• Extract 3
• Sorry in line 06 is primarily a repair
  initiator, but simultaneously an apology.

17
Multiple actions of sorry

• Hence we are arguing that AS uses sorry both
• to close down word searching
• simultaneously as an apology that addresses
  facework concerns
• Is there evidence for this in the speaker
  orientation to sorry?
• Extract 4

18
Hierarchical organisation

• Two different interactional goals
• completion of a confrontational naming task
• informal conversation
• Influence of interactional goal on hierarchical
  organisation
• Apology takes primacy in the naming context
• Closing down takes primacy in the conversational
  context

19
Summary

• The explicit apology sorry is adapted by AS
• to halt any word searching
• to simultaneously accomplish the apology action.
• Speaker orientation provides evidence for both
  actions and their hierarchichal organisation
• The availability of this adaptation is accounted
  for with reference to the properties of sorry.

20
Conclusions

• Word finding difficulties need not always be
  repaired
• Adaptation of the action accomplished by a TCU is
  accounted for not only by sequential context but
  also by linguistic properties.
• The non-impaired participant not only attends to
  but also collaborates in the redeployment of
  semiotic resources (Rhys 2005)

21
Implications

• Clinical practice needs to focus on collaborative
  nature of adaptation to impairment
• Shifts focus onto retained pragmatic ability
  rather than impairment.
• Clinical implications for how we conceive and
  assess competence