Search

The application of Conversation Analysis (CA) to the investigation of agrammatic aphasia reveals that utterances produced by speakers with agrammatism engaged in everyday conversation differ significantly from utterances produced in response to decontextualised assessment and therapy tasks. Early studies have demonstrated that speakers with agrammatism construct turns from sequences of nouns, adjectives, discourse markers and conjunctions, packaged by a distinct pattern of prosody. This article presents examples of turn construction methods deployed by three people with agrammatism as they take an extended turn, in order to recount a past event, initiate a discussion or have a disagreement. This is followed by examples of sequences occurring in the talk of two of these speakers that result in different, and more limited, turn construction opportunities, namely 'test' questions asked in order to initiate a new topic of talk, despite the conversation partner knowing the answer. The contrast between extended turns and test question sequences illustrates the effect of interactional context on aphasic turn construction practices, and the potential of less than optimal sequences to mask turn construction skills. It is suggested that the interactional motivation for test question sequences in these data are to invite people with aphasia to contribute to conversation, rather than to practise saying words in an attempt to improve language skills. The idea that test question sequences may have their origins in early attempts to deal with acute aphasia, and the potential for conversation partnerships to become 'stuck' in such interactional patterns after they may have outlived their usefulness, are discussed with a view to clinical implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Therapy for agrammatism, once only targeted at surface grammar, has begun to demonstrate the benefits of rigorous theoretically motivated therapy aimed at underlying syntax. Whilst there is evidence that grammatical ability in the clinical setting can be improved by such therapies, it has proved hard to detect carryover to everyday conversation in the home. Recent research using a qualitative methodology called Conversation Analysis (CA) has shown that utterances produced by agrammatic speakers in peer conversation differ significantly from those elicited during assessment and therapy tasks. This is because tasks target decontextualized language, isolated from an interactional context of real-life talk about needs, opinions, and experiences. This paper explores the idea that, given this finding, it may be more appropriate, and effective, to provide therapy for agrammatism by targeting the grammar of conversation directly. It outlines a new therapeutic approach based on CA concepts, describes the early development of a valid quantitative measure of change in conversation and presents some qualitative data from one of the first dyads involved in an ongoing therapy study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Historically, agrammatism, a symptom of Broca's aphasia, has been associated with dysprosody, on account of speakers' slow, halting, and effortful speech. Almost all investigations of this phenomenon use experimental methods (reading, repetition). Thus, little is known about how prosody is used by speakers with agrammatism and understood by their interlocutors in everyday conversations. This paper takes an interactional approach to prosody, using Conversation Analysis to explore everyday conversations between three speakers with agrammatism and their family members/friends, recorded in the home. A distinct prosodic pattern is revealed in their talk, whereby non-final words in an agrammatic utterance are produced with mid-level or minor rising pitch, and final words with a prominent pitch excursion. The analysis shows that conversation partners orient to terminal pitch movement as a signal of turn completion. Conversely, they do not take the floor when pitch signals continuation, despite significant pausing and severe grammatical disruption. Thus, prosody appears to function to regulate turn taking in the same way as it does in typical (non-language disordered) conversation. For these three speakers, intact prosodic skills appear to compensate for impaired grammatical ability, by packaging a series of haltingly produced words into an utterance, the meaning of which is responded to by the conversation partner as the sum of its agrammatic parts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Agrammatic speech can manifest in different ways in the same speaker if task demands change. Individual variation is considered to reflect adaptation, driven by psycholinguistic factors such as underlying deficit. Recently, qualitative investigations have begun to show ways in which conversational interaction can influence the form of an agrammatic speaker's output. Aims: To explore qualitative patterns of individual variation in the output of a single case, in order to address the following questions: (1) in what ways do grammatical structure, verbs and argument structure differ qualitatively between data samples?; and (2) what is the influence of interaction on the structure of utterances? Methods & Procedures: A man with severe and chronic agrammatism is videotaped completing tests of spoken sentence construction, composite, and cartoon strip picture descriptions and a story telling task. In addition, he independently videotapes a sample of conversation with a family member at home. Analyses of these data draw on cognitive neuropsychological, linguistic and psycholinguistic methodologies as well as the data-driven procedures of conversation analysis. Outcomes & Results: The qualitative analysis uncovers considerable variation between data sets with respect to grammatical structure, verbs and argument structure. The agrammatic speaker appears more skilled at imposing order on his spontaneous speech than the results of sentence construction tests might predict. Interaction influences his output style. Adaptation is found to be a collaborative process that occurs between two speakers in the quest for mutual understanding, not something that takes place within an individual. Conclusions: It is concluded that an interactional approach to agrammatism has the potential to yield important insights into the characteristics of telegraphic speech and individual variation. The failure of sentence-level tests to capture this individual's skill in producing systematically structured utterances in conversation implies that the assessment of agrammatism could benefit from the additional sampling and analysis of conversational grammar. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article gives an overview of the application to aphasia of conversation analysis (CA), a qualitative methodology for the analysis of recorded, naturally occurring talk produced in everyday human interaction. CA, like pragmatics, considers language use in context, but it differs from other analytical frameworks because the clinician is not making interpretations about how an aspect of language should be coded or judging whether an utterance is successful or adequate in terms of communication. We first outline the CA methodology before discussing its application to the assessment of aphasia, principally through the use of two published assessment tools. We then move on to illustrate applications of CA in the field of aphasia therapy by discussing two single case study interventions. Key conversation behaviors are illustrated with transcripts from interactions recorded by the person with aphasia and the person's habitual conversation partner in the home environment. Finally, we explore the implications of using CA as a tool for assessment and treatment in aphasia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although research into agrammatism has done much to characterise the nature of the underlying disorder, most studies have analysed elicited, task-based data. As a result, little is known about the grammar that people with agrammatism use in everyday talk with habitual conversational partners. There is evidence in the Conversation Analysis (CA) literature to suggest that conversational grammar may not mirror the grammar of elicited language samples. Aims: To explore the notion that conversation and task-based data do not necessarily reveal the same grammatical phenomena, addressing the following questions: (1) What resources does a speaker with agrammatism make use of in order to construct a turn at talk? (2) Is the conversational grammar of a speaker with agrammatism organised in a systematic way? (3) What is the relationship between patterns of turn construction in conversation and the grammatical characteristics of output elicited by decontextualised language tests? Methods & Procedures: A videotaped conversation between an agrammatic speaker and his adult daughter is analysed using CA. Four recurring turn construction formats are described and illustrated with extracts. Background information on the client presents the results of picture-naming and sentence production tests. Outcomes & Results: There is great variation between the grammar of conversation and test data. Test results reveal a severe problem with verb access and sentence construction, with ability declining sharply as the number of verb arguments increases. However, the speaker deploys interactional alternatives to standard grammatical structures, and it is possible for him to recount events without explicit articulation of verbs and argument structures, using a combination of talk and mime. Only a minority of his conversational utterances are concerned with recounting events - commenting, assessing, and reasoning are highly prevalent. Conclusions: Conversation and sentence-level tests provide complementary but essentially different information about grammatical ability. This implies that assessment of conversational grammar should become a routine part of any investigation of agrammatism in order to gain a more complete picture of an individual's ability to impose structural order on their talk, and to explore implications for successful interaction with others. Currently, approaches to assessment and intervention over-emphasise events. In conversation, other actions such as giving an opinion are just as prevalent. Findings suggest a mismatch between what appears problematic on testing and what is treated as problematic by the interactants in conversation, and that intervention might profitably seek to address grammatical difficulties that have a basis in interaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using the methodology and findings of conversation analysis, we analyze changes in the talk of a man with aphasia (a language disorder acquired following brain damage) at two points in his spontaneous recovery period in the first months post-stroke. We note that in the earlier conversation (15 weeks post-stroke) two of the turn constructional methods he particularly makes use of are replacement (a form of repair) and extension. By the time of the latter conversation (30 weeks poststroke) these methods are less prevalent, while another repair operation, insertion, is now used in a particular way not seen in the earlier conversation. We suggest that these methods are means by which the aphasic speaker adapts his limited linguistic resources to the demands of constructing a turn-at-talk in conversation in order to lessen the extent of repair and delay with the turn and thus lessen the exposure of his linguistic noncompetence and his identity as ‘different’, ‘disabled’, or ‘language impaired’. These turn constructional methods are dynamic and change as the speaker recovers. We suggest that communication disorders such as aphasia can be problematic not only because of difficulties they can cause in conveying information or producing other social actions, but also because they can create difficulties in the presentation of self in everyday life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Explores the use of context in aphasia as a manifestation of systematic adaptation to the environment of everyday conversation. Use of conversation analysis approach; Discussion through video data of two people with acute aphasia; Language of speakers with aphasia.