Heeschen1999
| Heeschen1999 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Heeschen1999 |
| Author(s) | Claus Heeschen, Emanuel A. Schegloff |
| Title | Agrammatism, Adaptation Theory, Conversation Analysis: On the Role of so-called Telegraphic Style in Talk-in-Interaction |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1999 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Aphasiology |
| Volume | 13 |
| Number | 4/5 |
| Pages | 365–405 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/026870399402145 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
In this paper, a specific aphasiological problem is approached by means of conversation analysis: the varying manifestations of agrammatism in the speech of one patient. According to the adaptation theory by Kolk and Heeschen, (most) agrammatics have the option to speak either in complete sentences (with the usual problems familiar to any aphasiologist) or to resort to systematically simplified expressions ('telegraphic style'). Two episodes from a conversation between an agrammatic patient and her best friend areanalysed - one episode in which the patient uses hardly any 'telegrams' and one in which telegraphic expressions figure more centrally. The core questions are: What is achieved by resorting to telegraphic style in talk-in-interaction? and; How far does the healthy co-participant organize her conduct contingent on the varying practices in the patient's speech? A first answer suggests that telegraphic style is a resource for mobilizing the co-participant to become more engaged and to provide more help and is deployed specifically to exploit this feature. In the analytic explication of the episodes, turn by turn, turn component by turn component is addressed in some detail, thereby not disregarding any observation as irrelevant a priori. It is this procedure that is central to thepotential contribution of CA to aphasiology. In the course of the explication further questions emerge: Is the notion of 'telegram' meaningful within an interaction-oriented approach? Is there variation in the patient's speech not only across occasions, but also across co-participants and across settings? The process of analysis of the episodes is informed by two domains of data: prior aphasiological knowledge and the experience and expertise of conversation analysts with talk and conduct in interaction among language-unimpaired speakers. Combining the two lines of research is not straightforward: it might lead to complex multivalent characterizations of some occurrences in the data, specifically those related to the question of how far the co-participant treats the patient as 'impaired' and how far she avoids the exposure of linguistic deficiencies in the patient.
Notes
