Difference between revisions of "Rasmussen2016"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Gitte Rasmussen; |Title=Repeated use of request for confirmation in atypical interaction |Tag(s)=EMCA; Atypical interaction; Adult; chil...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Volume=30 | |Volume=30 | ||
|Number=10 | |Number=10 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=849–870 |
| − | |URL=https://doi | + | |URL=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02699206.2016.1209244 |
|DOI=10.1080/02699206.2016.1209244 | |DOI=10.1080/02699206.2016.1209244 | ||
|Abstract=This study investigates a specific method for making possible the participation of participants with cognitive and communicative impairments in social face-to-face interaction. Non-impaired co-participants design close-ended questions that project who the next speaker is, i.e. the impaired co-participant. The questions also project what kind of response amongst alternatives the impaired co-participant is supposed to produce. Upon answers to these questions, the non-impaired co-participant requests the impaired participant to confirm the answer twice. Using conversation analytic (CA) methods, the study scrutinises what is achieved by requesting a confirmation of the provided answer – repeatedly so. The study argues that the practice may put the (deficit) competence of the participant with impairments in focus if the initial close-ended question works to establish an understanding of a prior action by the participant with impairments. | |Abstract=This study investigates a specific method for making possible the participation of participants with cognitive and communicative impairments in social face-to-face interaction. Non-impaired co-participants design close-ended questions that project who the next speaker is, i.e. the impaired co-participant. The questions also project what kind of response amongst alternatives the impaired co-participant is supposed to produce. Upon answers to these questions, the non-impaired co-participant requests the impaired participant to confirm the answer twice. Using conversation analytic (CA) methods, the study scrutinises what is achieved by requesting a confirmation of the provided answer – repeatedly so. The study argues that the practice may put the (deficit) competence of the participant with impairments in focus if the initial close-ended question works to establish an understanding of a prior action by the participant with impairments. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 10:18, 25 December 2019
| Rasmussen2016 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Rasmussen2016 |
| Author(s) | Gitte Rasmussen |
| Title | Repeated use of request for confirmation in atypical interaction |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Atypical interaction, Adult, child, close-ended questions, cognitive impairment, communicative impairment, request for confimation |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2016 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics |
| Volume | 30 |
| Number | 10 |
| Pages | 849–870 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/02699206.2016.1209244 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This study investigates a specific method for making possible the participation of participants with cognitive and communicative impairments in social face-to-face interaction. Non-impaired co-participants design close-ended questions that project who the next speaker is, i.e. the impaired co-participant. The questions also project what kind of response amongst alternatives the impaired co-participant is supposed to produce. Upon answers to these questions, the non-impaired co-participant requests the impaired participant to confirm the answer twice. Using conversation analytic (CA) methods, the study scrutinises what is achieved by requesting a confirmation of the provided answer – repeatedly so. The study argues that the practice may put the (deficit) competence of the participant with impairments in focus if the initial close-ended question works to establish an understanding of a prior action by the participant with impairments.
Notes
