Walker2015a
| 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 | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Aphasiology |
| Volume | 30 |
| Number | 6 |
| Pages | 750–764 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/02687038.2015.1119797 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
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
