Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
Non-Aphasic Speaker Speech Eliciting in Nature
The non-aphasic speaker presents a question or new topic and a response is expected; the turns are speech eliciting in nature.
The speaker with non-fluent aphasia produces a response which results in trouble because of sparse expression.
The non-aphasic speaker co-constructs the utterance supplying a fuller grammatical structure; the turns are interpretative in nature.
The negotiation continues until mutual understanding is satisfactorily reached or attempts thereof are renounced.
In the following, we will illustrate further these different participatory structures within the conversations of fluent vs. non-fluent participants. We will focus on the methods employed by the recipients to address the trouble emerging from expressive linguistic difficulties.
First, we will analyses and compare the family members’ and SLT’s next turn repair actions in the conversations of the participant with fluent aphasia. Second, we will look at the family member’s and SLT’s actions in the conversations of the participant with non-fluent aphasia.
Recipient actions in conversations of the participant with fluent aphasia
As shown earlier, the trouble sources of the fluent speaker proved to be more local. As a consequence, they were solved by relatively uncomplicated next turn repair actions. Example (5) illustrates a paraphasic word search, the most common expressive problem in the conversation between the fluent speaker L and his two grandsons (A and T) (see lines 01–04). T responds to the search with a word candidate (line 05; for a similar practice see e.g. Oelschlaeger & Damico, 2000):
Offering a word candidate.
01 L: Nii. (2.4) .mt joo hh .mt (3.2).mt hh (on hh nä hh) right yeah is ? Right. (2.4) .mt yeah hh .mt (3.2).mt hh (has hh nä hh)
02 (1.5) .mt (1.8) onko se- tuo- (.) hh .mt Ville is-Qhethat 1nameM (1.5) .mt (1.8) has he- that- (.) hh .mt Ville
03 kertonu minkälaista se on (0.5) amer- amerissa- (-) tell-PPC what.sort.of-PAR it is {army}-INE told you what it is like (0.5) in the a- ar- (-)
04 amer[(—) {armeija=army} ar [(—)
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 member’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 pretend a further form parental (line 01). L is already beginning to move on in making his comment (line 02) when A, the other grandson, corrects (line 03) the paraphasia 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 summarizing 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)
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
Non-Aphasic Speaker Speech Eliciting in Nature |
Non-Aphasic Speaker Speech Eliciting in Nature