Walker2015a

From emcawiki
Revision as of 01:24, 24 November 2015 by ElliottHoey (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Traci Walker; Jennifer Thompson; Ian Watt |Title=Displays and claims of understanding in conversation by people with aphasia |Tag(s)=EMC...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Walker2015a
BibType ARTICLE
Key Walker2015a
Author(s) Traci Walker, Jennifer Thompson, Ian Watt
Title Displays and claims of understanding in conversation by people with aphasia
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Aphasia, Displays, Understanding, Sequence organization, Therapy, Medical
Publisher
Year 2015
Language
City
Month
Journal Aphasiology
Volume
Number
Pages
URL Link
DOI
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

Background: There is scope for additional research into the specific linguistic and sequential structures used in speech and language therapist-led therapeutic conversations with people with aphasia. Whilst there is some evidence that SLTs use different conversational strategies than the partners of PWA (Lindsay & Wilkinson 1999), research to date has focussed mainly on measuring the effects of conversation-

based therapies - not on analysing therapeutic conversations taking place between SLTs and PWA.
Aims: This paper presents an analysis of the use of oh-prefacing by some PWA during therapeutic supported conversations with SLTs.
Methods & Procedures: Normally-occurring therapeutic conversations between SLTs and PWA after stroke were qualitatively analysed using Conversation Analysis (CA). Interactions with five people with aphasia were video-recorded, involving three different specialist stroke SLTs.
Outcomes & Results: The analysis revealed a difference in the way some PWA use turns that display understanding (e.g., oh right) vs those that continue the conversation, merely claiming understanding (e.g., right). This use of oh-prefacing is similar to that described in typical conversations by Heritage (1984). In our data, SLTs are shown to treat oh-prefaced turns differently from non-oh-prefaced turns, by pursuing the topic in the latter, and progressing on to a new topic in the former.
Conclusions: At least some PWA use oh-prefacing in the same way as non-language-impaired adults to display understanding of information, vs. merely claiming to understand. The SLTs in our data are shown to treat non-oh-prefaced turns as mere claims of understanding by providing the PWA with additional information, using supported conversation techniques (Kagan 1998), and pursuing additional same-topic talk, whereas oh-prefaced turns are treated as displays of understanding by being confirmed, and leading to changes of topic. This study is a first step in providing SLTs with a clearer understanding of the ways in which they are assessing the understanding of PWA, which may in turn help them better support non-therapy staff.

Notes

needs post-publication info