Auer-etal2020

From emcawiki
Revision as of 03:01, 3 May 2020 by ElliottHoey (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=INCOLLECTION |Author(s)=Peter Auer; Angelika Bauer; Ina Hörmeyer |Title=How Can the ‘Autonomous Speaker’ Survive in Atypical Interaction? The Case of...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Auer-etal2020
BibType INCOLLECTION
Key Auer-etal2020
Author(s) Peter Auer, Angelika Bauer, Ina Hörmeyer
Title How Can the ‘Autonomous Speaker’ Survive in Atypical Interaction? The Case of Anarthria and Aphasia
Editor(s) Ray Wilkinson, John Rae, Gitte Rasmussen
Tag(s) EMCA, Anarthria, Aphasia, Cerebral palsy, Augmented Alternative Communication
Publisher
Year 2020
Language English
City
Month
Journal
Volume
Number
Pages 373-408
URL Link
DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28799-3_13
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title Atypical Interaction
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

Autonomous speakership is a key concept of Western language ideology. In interactional practice, our autonomy as speakers is of course never complete; but we can stick to this ideology because the “conversational engine” (Levinson) accommodates a good deal of collaboration without endangering this concept. Two important reasons for this are a. a.that speakers are given a chance to do whatever they want to do by themselves first; and


b. b.that even in those cases in which they obviously cannot, their coparticipants support them in such a way as to not make them lose control over their utterance.


The latter is guaranteed through various dialogical practices of post-processing such as understanding checks, conjectures, etc.

In this contribution, we investigate two kinds of atypical interaction: on the one hand interaction with persons who have aphasia, on the other hand interaction with people who have cerebral palsy using computers to communicate (AAC). We show that the two principles of conversational organization are upheld as long as possible even in these cases. In many ways, the challenged participants’ status as the authors and articulators of their conversational contributions may be threatened—but supportive interactional partners can make sure that their status as principals of their utterance remains intact. The challenged speaker’s face is at least partially safeguarded, even though his or her lack of verbal and articulatory resources cannot be hidden.

Notes