Auer-etal2020
| 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 | Palgrave Macmillan |
| Year | 2020 |
| Language | English |
| City | Cham |
| Month | |
| Journal | |
| Volume | |
| Number | |
| Pages | 373-408 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1007/978-3-030-28799-3_13 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | Atypical Interaction: The Impact of Communicative Impairments within Everyday Talk |
| Chapter | |
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
