1887
Volume 19, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

The present article describes a study in which conversation analysis was used to investigate the verbal interactions between carers and profoundly multiply disabled young people. We examine the cognitive processes that come into play in conversations, and describe and analyze the interactional effects of pathologies on the cognitive processes involved in comprehension. We identify the rationality and reasoning processes to which the disabled person is susceptible, that is to say, that person’s cognitive efficiency, and the communication strategies employed by the “normal” interlocutor. The corpus, which was gathered at a specialist institute in France, consists of video recordings of interactions between a multiply disabled young person and one or more carers. In total, thirteen conversations involving six different young people were recorded. Analysis of the characteristics of the conversational exchanges revealed that conversational exchanges are based on two very precise modes of interaction that foster the mutual understanding process. Learning outcomes: These two modes of interaction represent exchange structures that favor the emergence of mutual understanding and that reveal the multiply disabled person’s cognitive efficiency in the conversation. We highlight the role of repetition as a conversation repair and we discuss the relationship between the carer and the disabled person.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.19.2.01boc
2009-01-01
2019-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Antaki, C. , N. Young , and M. Finlay
    (2002) Shaping clients’ answers: Departures from neutrality in care- staff interviews with people with a learning disability. Disability and Society 17.4: 435-455. doi: 10.1080/09687590220140368
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590220140368 [Google Scholar]
  2. Antaki, C. , W.M.L. Finlay , E. Sheridan , T. Jingree , and C. Walton
    (2006) Producing decisions in service- user for people with an intellectual disability: Two contrasting facilitator styles. Mental Retardation44.5: 322-343. doi: 10.1352/0047‑6765(2006)44[322:PDISGF]2.0.CO;2
    https://doi.org/10.1352/0047-6765(2006)44[322:PDISGF]2.0.CO;2 [Google Scholar]
  3. Antaki, C. , W.M.L. Finlay , and C. Walton
    (2007) The staff are your friends: Intellectually disabled identities in official discourse and interactional practice. Bristish Journal of Social Psychology 46: 1-18. doi: 10.1348/014466606X94437
    https://doi.org/10.1348/014466606X94437 [Google Scholar]
  4. Jingree, T. , W.M.L. Finlay , and C. Antaki
    (2006) Empowering word, disempowering actions: An analysis of interactions between staff members and people with disabilities in residents’ meeting. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research50.3: 212-226. doi: 10.1111/j.1365‑2788.2005.00771.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2005.00771.x [Google Scholar]
  5. Brinton, B. , and M. Fujiki
    (1996) Responses to requests for clarification by older and young adults with mental retardation. Research in Developmental Disabilities17.5: 335-347. doi: 10.1016/0891‑4222(96)00017‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0891-4222(96)00017-0 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chouinard, M.M. , and E.V. Clark
    (2003) Adult reformulations of child errors as negative evidence. Journal of child language30: 637-669. doi: 10.1017/S0305000903005701
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0305000903005701 [Google Scholar]
  7. Clark, Herbert H
    (1996) Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  8. Clark, H.H. , and T. Wasow
    (1998) Repeating words in spontaneous speech. Cognitive psychology37: 21-242.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Clark, Herbert H
    (1999) On the origins of conversation. VerbumXXI.2: 147-161.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Curl, T.S. , J. Local , and G. Walker
    (2006) Repetition and the prosody-pragmatics interface. Journal of pragmatics38.10: 1721-1751. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.02.008
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.02.008 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dowling, Maura
    (2007) Ethnomethodology: Time for a revisit? A discussion paper. International Journal of Nursing studies44: 826-833. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  12. Edwards, Derek
    (1997) Discourse and Cognition. London, Thousand Oaks, New Dehli: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Goodwin, C. , M.H. Goodwin , and D. Olsher
    (2002) Producing sense with nonsense syllables: Turn and sequence in the conversations of a man with severe aphasia. In B. Fox , C. Ford & S. Thompson (eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 56-80.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Goodwin, Charles
    (2003a) Introduction. In C. Goodwin (eds.), Conversation and Brain Damage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3-20.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2003b) Conversational frameworks for the accomplishment of meaning in aphasia. In C. Goodwin (eds.), Conversation and Brain Damage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 90-116.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (2004) A competent speaker who can't speak: The social life of aphasia. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology14.2: 151-170. doi: 10.1525/jlin.2004.14.2.151
    https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2004.14.2.151 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2006) Human sociality as mutual orientation in a rich interactive environment: Multimodal utterances and pointing in aphasia. In N. Enfield and S.C. Levinson (eds.), Roots of Human Sociality. London: Berg Press, pp. 96-125.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Keith, E.N. , J. Welsh , S.M. Camarata , L. Butkovsky , and M. Camarata
    (1995) Available input for language-impaired children and younger children of matched language levels. First Language15.43: 1-17.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lacroix A , J. Bernicot , and J. Reilly
    (2007) Narrative and collaborative conversations in French-speaking children with Williams syndrome. Journal of Neurolinguistics 20.6: 445-461. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2007.03.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2007.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  20. Musiol, M. , and M. Rebuschi
    (in press) Towards a two-step formalisation of verbal interaction in schizophrenia: A case study. In A. Trognon , M. Batt , J. Kaelen , & D. Vernant (eds.) Dialog’s logical properties. Nancy : P.U.N.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Musiol, M. , and A. Trognon
    (1999) Echec de la communication et réussite de la conversation en interaction pathologique. Verbum XXI.2: 207-232.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Pellegrini, A.D. , G.H. Brody , and I.E. Siegel
    (1985) Parent’s teaching strategies with their children: The effect of parental and child status variables. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research14: 509–521. doi: 10.1007/BF01067382
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067382 [Google Scholar]
  23. Perkins, L
    (1995) Applying conversation analysis to aphasia: Clinical implications and analytic issues. European Journal of Disorders of Communication30: 371-735. doi: 10.3109/13682829509021449
    https://doi.org/10.3109/13682829509021449 [Google Scholar]
  24. Perkins, Michael R
    (1998) Is pragmatics epiphenomenal? Evidence from communication disorders. Journal of Pragmatics29: 291-311. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(97)00055‑6
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00055-6 [Google Scholar]
  25. Perrin, L. , D. Deshaies , and C. Paradis
    (2003) Pragmatic functions of local diaphonic repetition in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics35: 1843-1860. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(03)00117‑6
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00117-6 [Google Scholar]
  26. Rieger, Caroline
    (2003) Repetition as self-repair strategies in English and German conversations. Journal of Pragmatics35 : 47-69. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00060‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00060-1 [Google Scholar]
  27. Roulet, E. , A. Auchlin , J. Moeschler , C. Rubattel , and M. Schelling
    (1985) L’articulation du discours en français contemporain. Berne: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Sacks, Harvey
    (1966/1995) Lectures on conversation. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Schegloff, E.A. , G. Jefferson , and H. Sachs
    (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language53: 361-382. doi: 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  30. Searle, John R
    (1969/1995) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  31. Searle, J.R. , and D. Vanderveken
    (1985) Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge (MA): Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Sperber, Dan
    (2000)  Metarepresentations in an evolutionay perspective . In D. Sperber (eds.), Metarepresentations: A multidisciplinarity perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 117-137.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Trognon, Alain
    (2002) Speech acts and the logic of mutual understanding. In D. Vanderveken & S. Kubo (eds.), Essays in Speech Acts Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 121-133. doi: 10.1075/pbns.77.08tro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.77.08tro [Google Scholar]
  34. Vanderveken, Daniel
    (1988) Les actes de discours. Bruxelles: Mardaga.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Vanderveken, D. , and K. Susumo
    (2002) Introduction. In D. Vanderveken & S. Kubo (eds.), Essays in Speech Acts Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 1-21. doi: 10.1075/pbns.77.01van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.77.01van [Google Scholar]
  36. Vigil, D.C. , J. Hodges , and T. Kle
    (2005) Quantity and quality of parental language input to late-talking toddlers during play. Child Language Teaching & Therapy 21.2: 107-122. doi: 10.1191/0265659005ct284oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0265659005ct284oa [Google Scholar]
  37. Yont, K.M. , L.R. Hewitt , and A.W. Miccio
    (2002) What did you say?: Understanding conversational breakdown in children with speech and language impairments. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 16.4: 265-285. doi: 10.1080/02699200210126523
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02699200210126523 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.19.2.01boc
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error