Difference between revisions of "Friedland1998"
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=D. Friedland; N. Miller |Title=Conversation Analysis of communication breakdown after closed head injury |Tag(s)=EMCA; Medical EMCA; Con...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)= | + | |Author(s)=Deborah Friedland; Nick Miller |
|Title=Conversation Analysis of communication breakdown after closed head injury | |Title=Conversation Analysis of communication breakdown after closed head injury | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Medical EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Case Study; Brain injury; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Medical EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Case Study; Brain injury; |
|Key=Friedland1998 | |Key=Friedland1998 | ||
|Year=1998 | |Year=1998 | ||
|Journal=Brain Injury | |Journal=Brain Injury | ||
|Volume=12 | |Volume=12 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Number=1 |
| + | |Pages=1–14 | ||
| + | |URL=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/026990598122818 | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1080/026990598122818 | ||
|Abstract=This single case study investigated the use of Conversation Analysis (CA) in assessing pragmatic language difficulties after closed head injury (CHI). The aim ws to see if CA captures the types of communication breakdown observed after CHI and whether results from CA can be directly related to scores on formal tests more typically applied after CHI. The results suggested that CA was a sensitive tool for identifying and investigating pragmatic deficits in this case. It facilitated an exploration of whether language impairments identified on formal tests manifest themselves in functional commu nication; it revealed how different interlocutors adapt to these language difficulties in conversation and also explained why some conversational partners were more successful than others. Considered together, formal test results and CA insights facilitated an in depth analysis into the precise nature of the communicative impairments of the speaker in this exploratory study, suggesting that CA is a promising approach to the assessment of pragmatic impairments in the CHI population. | |Abstract=This single case study investigated the use of Conversation Analysis (CA) in assessing pragmatic language difficulties after closed head injury (CHI). The aim ws to see if CA captures the types of communication breakdown observed after CHI and whether results from CA can be directly related to scores on formal tests more typically applied after CHI. The results suggested that CA was a sensitive tool for identifying and investigating pragmatic deficits in this case. It facilitated an exploration of whether language impairments identified on formal tests manifest themselves in functional commu nication; it revealed how different interlocutors adapt to these language difficulties in conversation and also explained why some conversational partners were more successful than others. Considered together, formal test results and CA insights facilitated an in depth analysis into the precise nature of the communicative impairments of the speaker in this exploratory study, suggesting that CA is a promising approach to the assessment of pragmatic impairments in the CHI population. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 01:01, 16 February 2016
| Friedland1998 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Friedland1998 |
| Author(s) | Deborah Friedland, Nick Miller |
| Title | Conversation Analysis of communication breakdown after closed head injury |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Medical EMCA, Conversation Analysis, Case Study, Brain injury |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1998 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Brain Injury |
| Volume | 12 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 1–14 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/026990598122818 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This single case study investigated the use of Conversation Analysis (CA) in assessing pragmatic language difficulties after closed head injury (CHI). The aim ws to see if CA captures the types of communication breakdown observed after CHI and whether results from CA can be directly related to scores on formal tests more typically applied after CHI. The results suggested that CA was a sensitive tool for identifying and investigating pragmatic deficits in this case. It facilitated an exploration of whether language impairments identified on formal tests manifest themselves in functional commu nication; it revealed how different interlocutors adapt to these language difficulties in conversation and also explained why some conversational partners were more successful than others. Considered together, formal test results and CA insights facilitated an in depth analysis into the precise nature of the communicative impairments of the speaker in this exploratory study, suggesting that CA is a promising approach to the assessment of pragmatic impairments in the CHI population.
Notes
