Difference between revisions of "Walker2015a"
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|Key=Walker2015a | |Key=Walker2015a | ||
|Year=2015 | |Year=2015 | ||
+ | |Language=English | ||
|Journal=Aphasiology | |Journal=Aphasiology | ||
+ | |Volume=30 | ||
+ | |Number=6 | ||
+ | |Pages=750–764 | ||
|URL=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02687038.2015.1119797 | |URL=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02687038.2015.1119797 | ||
|DOI=10.1080/02687038.2015.1119797 | |DOI=10.1080/02687038.2015.1119797 | ||
− | |||
|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. | |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. | ||
Latest revision as of 09:54, 3 June 2018
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