Purves2009
| Purves2009 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Purves2009 |
| Author(s) | Barbara A. Purves |
| Title | The Complexities of Speaking for Another |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, aphasia, family interaction, speaking for |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2009 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Aphasiology |
| Volume | 23 |
| Number | 7-8 |
| Pages | 914–925 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/02687030802514946 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Background: While it is recognised that conversation partners of people with aphasia often speak for them, investigation of “speaking‐for” incidents has shown that these comprise a wide range of behaviours, leading Simmons‐Mackie, Kingston, and Schulz (2004) to identify a “fine interactive line” (p. 123) between “speaking for” and “speaking instead of”. To date, however, there has been little exploration of these behaviours in the context of everyday family conversation; furthermore, little is known about how family members themselves interpret the actions of speaking for their relative with aphasia.
Aims: The goal of this paper is to describe how the husband of a woman with progressive nonfluent aphasia (PNFA) and their adult children experienced and interpreted his ways of speaking for her.
Methods & Procedures: Findings are drawn from a qualitative case study exploring a family's experiences of progressive aphasia through analyses of their talk. Methodology included a thematic analysis of in‐depth interviews conducted with each of six family members and conversation analysis of their everyday conversations together, selected and audio recorded by the participants themselves over a 3‐month period.
Outcomes & Results: The husband's “speaking‐for” behaviours, which emerged as a significant theme in the interview data from him and all four adult children, were linked to long‐standing patterns of interaction but were described as problematic in the context of his wife's aphasia. Conversation analysis revealed that he used three patterns of “speaking‐for” behaviours, each with different interactional strategies and consequences.
Conclusions: Discussion highlights the nuances, challenges, and complexities of “speaking for” behaviours when considered in the historical context of relationship.
Notes
