Armstrong, Elizabeth

Groenewold, Rimke

English

ARTS repository - University of Groningen

   University of GroningenEnactment and communicative competence in aphasiaGroenewold, Rimke; Armstrong, ElizabethIMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordPublication date:2018Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research databaseCitation for published version (APA):Groenewold, R., & Armstrong, E. (2018). Enactment and communicative competence in aphasia: Afunctional linguistic perspective. Poster session presented at Clinical Aphasiology Conference, Austin,Texas, United States.CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-amendment.Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.Download date: 13-02-2023FundingThis work is part of the research programme The use of direct speech as acompensatory device in aphasic interaction with project number 446-16-008,which is financed by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research(NWO).Enactment and communicative competence in aphasia A functional linguistic perspectiveRimke Groenewold¹,² & Elizabeth Armstrong¹, ¹School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Western Australia, Australia, ²Center for Language and Cognition Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands. r.groenewold@ecu.edu.auReferencesEggins, S., & Slade, D. (2004). Analysing casual conversation. London: Equinox.Groenewold, R., Bastiaanse, R., Nickels, L., & Huiskes, M. (2014). Perceived liveliness and speech comprehensibility in aphasia: the effects of direct speech in auditory narratives. Int J Lang Commun Disord, 49(4), 486-497.Holland,A. (1977). Some practical considerations in aphasia rehabilitation. In M. Sullivan & M. Kommers (Eds.), Rationale for Adult AphasiaTherapy (pp. 167-180). University of Nebraska, Lincoln: NB.Lind, M. (2002). The use of prosody in interaction: Observations from a case study of a Norwegian speaker with a non-fluent type of aphasia. In F.Windsor, M. L. Kelly, & N. Hewlett (Eds.), Investigations in clinical phonetics and linguistics(pp. 373-389). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates Ind.MacWhinney, B., Fromm,D., Forbes, M., & Holland,A. (2011).AphasiaBank: Methods for studying discourse. Aphasiology, 25(11), 1286-1307.Merrill, N., Gallo, E., & Fivush, R. (2015). Gender Differences in Family Dinnertime Conversations.Discourse Processes, 52(7), 533-558.Oelschlaeger, M. L., & Damico, J. S. (1998). Joint productions as a conversational strategy in aphasia. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 12(6), 459-480.Richmond,V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1985). Communication: apprehension, avoidance, and effectiveness. Scottsdale,Arizona: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.Wilkinson, R., Beeke, S., & Maxim, J. (2010). Formulating actions and events with limited linguistic resources: Enactment and iconicity in agrammatic aphasic talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 57-84.PROCEDURES1. Division of transcripts into moves: semantically distinguished discourse units that fulfil a particular function such as agreeing, disagreeing, elaborating or countering. 2. Move coding using an adapted version of the Speech Function Network (Fig. 2). This process reveals patterns of initiating/responding and supporting/confronting. This reveals insights into how participants explore, adjust, and negotiate alignments and differences in meanings conveyed.Figure 2. Adapted SFL-framework (Eggins & Slade, 2004). Rectangles representassertive moves, rounded rectangles represent neutral moves, oval representsdeferential moves (Richmond & McCroskey, 1985; Eggins & Slade, 2004)3. Move labelling in terms of conversational assertiveness(see shapes used in Fig. 2). 4. Enactment identification based on verbal (e.g., person reference and/or reporting verb), paralinguistic (e.g., intonation shift) and non-verbal (e.g., shift in gesturing style) markers (e.g., Lind, 2002; Groenewold et al., 2014). 5. Examination of relationship between enactment and conversational assertiveness. Hereto, the distribution over the three levels of conversational assertiveness (assertive, neutral, deferential, Fig. 2) was compared between enactments and non-enactments. CONCLUSION & DISCUSSIONEnactment can be a device that enables PWA to be more assertive in everyday interaction. This is in line with previous research indicating that enactment allows PWA to reveal communicative competences that otherwise would remain hidden (e.g., Groenewold et al., 2014), resonating Holland’s axiomatic suggestion that speakers with aphasia “communicate better than they talk” (Holland, 1977: 173). Outcomes support a functional therapy approach, in which attention is paid to using strategies which compensate for language impairments rather than focusing on deficits.BACKGROUNDEnactment, an identified communicative resource in aphasia, is a discourse phenomenon involving direct reported speech and/or gesture, body movement, prosodyto depict scenes or events (e.g., Wilkinson et al., 2010).Conversational assertiveness is a prominent aspect of communicative competence, hence important for people with aphasia to develop/maintain. It entails capacities such as initiating topics, expressing opinions and feelings, challenging other speakers, and making requests (Merrill et al., 2015; Richmond & McCroskey, 1985). RESEARCH QUESTIONTo what extent does enactment contribute to conversational assertiveness in everyday interactions involving people with aphasia?METHODSMATERIALSFive video-recorded everyday interactions between P (50-year-old man with moderate conduction aphasia) and his wife M (Fig. 1), drawn from AphasiaBank (MacWhinney et al., 2011) and collected by Oelschlager & Damico (1998). Each recording had a duration between 22-53 minutes.Figure 1. Still taken from one of the interactions between P (left) and M.RESULTS§ Total: 2811 moves (P: n=1242; M: n=1569)§ Assertive moves: P < M (44% vs. 56%)§ P: ≈5% enactment moves§ M: ≈1% enactment moves§ P’s assertive moves: enactments > non-enactments (n=43/58 and n=501/1184, respectively)§ Relationship between enactment and conversational assertiveness for P (p<0.001), not for M (p>0.05) (Fig  3) Figure 3. Distribution over assertiveness categories for enactments and non-enactments produced by both speakers

Enactment and communicative competence in aphasia:A functional linguistic perspective

https://pure.rug.nl/ws/files/64713471/CAC_Groenewold_Armstrong.pdf

Enactment and communicative competence in aphasia:A functional linguistic perspective

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ARTS repository - University of Groningen