Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
Discussion Question About A Mutual Relative
778 M. LAAKSO AND S. GODT
In example (5), the fluent speaker L asks a question about a mutual relative (lines 01–04). On lines 03–04 he runs into word finding difficulty in completing his turn and cannot reach the correct form of the word. However, at the end of a grammatical construction his word search is suggestive enough for T, one of the grandsons, to come up with a word candidate, and so on line 05, T joins the search in overlap by offering the word to complete L’s turn.
The close relationship between the participants and the family mem- ber’s shared knowledge on the topic may also make it easier to offer a word candidate. The word candidate is approved by L who repeats it (line 06). This example works to exemplify how a linguistic difficulty, a word search, can quite directly and immediately be fixed in order to move forward in the conversation much like what would happen in an ordinary conversation between non-aphasic speakers (cf. Goodwin & Goodwin, 1986).
Besides word candidates, direct other-corrections were common in fluent conversations (see example 6). Here L and his two grandsons (T and A) are talking about the boys’ prospective matriculation examinations. An unmodulated other-correction typical of everyday interaction (cf. Haakana & Kurhila, 2009) occurs on line 03:
In commenting how the boys must prepare themselves for the exams, L unsuccessfully approximates the word prepata ‘prime’ with a cut-off attempt preta- and a further form peretal (line 01). L is already beginning to move on in making his comment (line 02) when A, the other grandson, corrects (line 03) the paraphasic form in overlap with L who is finishing his turn. Although A’s turn is a direct other-correction, it is not treated as
05→ T: [Armeijassa.= army-INE
[In the army.=
06 L: =Armeijassa. army-INE =In the army.
Other-correcting.
01 L: Teidän pitää- (1.1) nyt sitte- (.) preta- peretal you-PL-GEN must now then {prime} {prime} So you need to-(1.1) now- then- (.) pri- pirem
02 eng[lang- English for Engl-
03 → A: [Prepata. prime-INF
[prime.
04 L: Nii. PRT Right.
05 A: Joo. PRT Yes.
06 T: Ni:i. PRT Right.
CLINICAL LINGUISTICS & PHONETICS 779
problematic by L who confirms it (line 04). The other-correction makes up a minimal insertion sequence (lines 03–04), after which the conversation returns to its progression and L’s comment on lines 01–02 receives its response from both boys (lines 05-06).
The above-mentioned direct problem-handling methods (i.e. word candidates and other-corrections) were characteristic next turn repairs in the conversation between L with fluent aphasia and his grandsons. These frequent other-repairs did not appear to be considered problematic although there is a preference for self-repair in conversation (Schegloff et al., 1977). On the contrary, direct other-repair resolved the trouble effectively and permitted the participants to develop the topic instead of focusing on repair.
However, the participation of the SLT differed from the family members to some extent. In example (7) L and his SLT are talking about the funny name of L’s residential area. Instead of directly correcting, the SLT offers a display of her understanding as a full sentence (lines 05–06):
On lines 01‒03, L comments that if he were better able to talk, he would do something regarding the name. L’s turn includes pauses and attempts at self-repair and the end of the turn (line 03) is hard to understand. The SLT does not readily respond (line 04), after which she first acknowledges L’s turn and then offers her formulation (lines 05–06) of the gist of L’s meaning for L to confirm or reject, resembling rephrasing formulations used in psychotherapy (cf. Weiste & Peräkylä, 2013) which offer the therapist’s version of the client’s description.
The SLT’s formulation is produced as a summarising sentence, not as a single word as were the word candidates of the grandsons. On line 07, L indicates that the SLT’s formulation is correct by approving it. In contrast to the direct methods of the two grandsons, the SLT’s approach seems more indirect and subtle. She does not interrupt the turn of L by offering immediate corrections (instead she responds after a pause). Giving time and not instantly assuming the floor may reflect the rehabilitative elements of speech-language therapy. Not taking the floor at the first possible place seems to
Offering candidate understanding.
01 L: °juu,° (1.3) jos minä olisin paremmin (0.6) puhu- yeah if I are-1-CON good-COMP speak °yeah,° (1.3) if I was better (0.6) at speak-
02 puhumaan niin (.) menisin- menisin sinne joskus (.) speak-INF so go-1-CON go-1-CON there sometime speaking (.)I would go- I would go there sometime (.)
03 heh heh (1.2) vähä (käy käy-) (.) Pönttölä. a little fit fit place-name
heh heh (1.2) a little (fit fit-) (.) Pönttölä.
04 (1.3)
05 → SLT-L: Mmm. (.)pyrkisit vaikuttammaan että try-2-CON influence-INF that
Mmm. (.)you would try to influence on
06 → muutetaan nimi. change-PAS DEF name changing the name.
07 L: Niin? (0.8) PRT Yeah? (0.8)
780 M. LAAKSO AND S. GODT
encourage the speaker with aphasia to resolve the trouble on his own. In this way she allows the preferred self-repair to take place. In therapy other-correction may be experienced as misreferred. The SLT’s multi-word response also models sentence-level expression for the aphasic speaker.
Recipient actions in conversations of the participant with non-fluent aphasia
In contrast to the easily identified, isolated trouble sources in fluent conduction aphasia and the immediate next turn resolution thereof, in non-fluent aphasia, trouble permeates the conversation, leaving the non-aphasic speaker responsible for co-constructing a meaning for the turns. In example (8), K with non-fluent aphasia is talking with his wife (E) about their plans for the day in a form of a ‘hint-and-guess’ sequence where questions, interpretations and guesses by the non-aphasic participant alternate with the answers and hints by the PWA (cf. Laakso & Klippi, 1999). The wife starts the topic by informing K what she is going to do in the evening (lines 01–02):
Co-constructing ‘hint-and-guess’ sequence.
01 E: No kuule (1.2) mä lähden nyt sitte tänä iltana PRT hear-2-IMP I go-1 now then this-ESS evening-ESS Well you (1.2) I’m going to go draw in pencil
02 piirtämään. draw-INF tonight.
03 K: Jaaha? PRT I see?
04 E: Mmmhm?
05 K: Minä toi khhh kauppa toi (.) leh- toi lehti? I that store that {magazine} that magazine I that khhh store that (.) mag- that magazine?
06 E: Nii? So?
07 K: Ja ((coughs)) kir- kirje (.) kirja.
and {letter} letter book And ((coughs)) let- letter (.) book.
08 → E: (Oo sun) mitä Tekniikan maailman vai? you-GEN what magazine.name-GEN or
(Oh your) World of Technology or which one?
09 K: Joo. Yes. ((K LOOKS AWAY FROM E))
10 → E: Vaiko Tietokonelehti. Or-Q magazine.name Or Computer Magazine.
11 K: £Joo se toih-£ yeah it that
£Yes this that-£
CLINICAL LINGUISTICS & PHONETICS 781
The new topic the wife introduces is met with K’s short response (line 03), and the wife encourages K to expand with a minimal interrogative Mmmhm? (line 04). As a result, K produces a telegraphic-style utterance ‘I – store – magazine’ (line 05). In this slot, his utterance is interpretable as commenting what he himself is going to do later. Again the wife invites K to continue with an inquiring minimal response (line 06). K continues by adding elements ‘and letter book’ (line 07) which do not clarify the meaning of his prior turn.
The wife proceeds to offer a name of a magazine, and a ‘hint and guess’ sequence begins (line 08). The wife’s interrogative guess-type turns alternate with K’s hint-type answers until line 16 where K utters a crucial hint ‘America’ which is followed by the wife’s final candidate, Computer Magazine (line 17). The wife’s single word offers resemble the word candidates the grandsons used to resolve word searches in the fluent data.
The sequence then ends with acknowledging closing turns (lines 18–19). There is an interesting detail on lines 08–09 where K seems to accept the wife’s first word candidate as correct. On closer inspection K’s turn on line 09 is hesitant in tone and he does not direct his gaze to his wife to confirm his verbal message.
In the light of this conflicting information the wife, perhaps having adapted to the aphasic difficulties manifested in their conversations, is able to see that the current word candidate may not have been correct and proceeds to offer alternatives that seem to be based on her prior knowledge on magazines her husband usually buys. Another potential display of the couple’s adaptation to the husband’s disability is how the wife chooses to begin negotiating the meaning of K’s turns on lines 05 and 07. She ignores the letter and book K has mentioned but instead targets the name of the magazine which she treats as the most crucial bit of information regarding the topic.
Her action resembles the behavior of the two grandsons in the fluent speaker data in that it seems to aim at as effortless solution as possible in order to further the topic of conversation. Interpreting K’s turns in their entirety might have led into a prolongation of the negotiation.
The dissimilarity in everyday vs. institutional recipient participation was not as explicit in the non-fluent speaker conversations as in the fluent data. In the non-fluent data, the SLT co- constructs the talk of K in a way that resembles the wife’s actions in the home conversation. However, whereas the wife initiates conversational topics by commenting, the SLT tries to elicit
12 → E: £Vai molemmat.£ £Or both.£
13 K: £Yksi.£ £One.£
14 → E: Kumpi. which Which one.
15 (1.2)
16 K: Se (.) ((coughs)) Amerikka toi, it America that It (.) ((coughs)) America that,
17 → E: Tietokonelehti. magazine name Computer Magazine.
18 K: Mmm,
19 E: Joo. (1.5) Yeah. (1.5)
782 M. LAAKSO AND S. GODT
and prompt conversation by asking questions, which is a practice typically employed by SLTs (cf. Silvast, 1991). In example (9), the non-fluent speaker K and SLT-K are talking about K’s hobbies:
Speech elicitation, prompting and co-constructing a ‘hint-and-guess’ sequence.
01 SLT-K: Mt entäs sitte siitä- (.) sä har- sanoit että sä what about then it-ELA you say-2-PST that you What about that then- (.) you take- you said that you
02 harrastat sitä valokuvausta. (.) take-2.an.interest.in it-PAR photographing-PAR take an interest in photographing. (.)
03 kerro siitä. (1.8) sul on kameroita. (.) tell-IMP it-ELA you-ADE is camera-PL-PAR tell me about that. (1.8) you’ve got cameras. (.)
04 montakin. many-CLI many too.
05 K: Joo. PRT Yes.
06 (2.5)
07 SLT-K: Minkälaisia. what.kind-PL-PAR What kind.
08 (2.1)
09 K: Vanha toi- (1.9) kaksikymmentä- ei kolmekymmentä-
Old that twenty no thirty Old that- (1.9) twenty- no thirty-
10 ei: neljäkymmentä vuotta toi- (1.6) heh vanhat. no forty year-PAR that old-PL No: forty years that- (1.6) heh old.
11 → SLT-K: Oot sitäkin harrastanu are-2 it-PAR-CLI take.an.interest-PPC You have taken an interest in that
12 → nelkyt vuotta. forty year-PAR fo forty years.
13 K: Joo. PRT Yes.
14 → SLT-K: Valokuvausta [myöskin. photographing-PAR too-CLI Photographing [as well.
15 K: [Joo. (.) joo. PRT PRT [Yes. (.) yes.
16 → SLT-K: Onko sulla kameraa siltä ajalta. is-Q you-ADE camera-PAR it-ABL time-ABL Do you have a camera from that period.
17 K: Joo. PRT Yes.
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow
Discussion Question About A Mutual Relative |
Discussion Question About A Mutual Relative