Formulating actions and events with limited linguistic resources: Enactment and iconicity in agrammatic aphasic talk

Research on Language and Social Interaction

Volumn 43, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 57-84

  Wilkinson, Ray ^a   Beeke, Suzanne ^b   Maxim, Jane ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 76649135842     PISSN: 08351813     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08351810903471506     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. C. (Eds.) (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
2. Auer, P., & Rönfeldt, B. (2004). Prolixity as adaptation: Prosody and turn-taking in German conversation with a fluent aphasic. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford (Eds.), Sound patterns in interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation (pp. 171-200). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
3. Beeke, S. (2005). Re-thinking agrammatism: Using conversation analysis to investigate the talk of individuals with aphasia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of London.
4. Beeke, S., Wilkinson, R., & Maxim, J. (2003). Exploring aphasic grammar 1: A single case analysis of conversation. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 17, 81-107.
5. Beeke, S., Wilkinson, R., & Maxim, J. (2007). Grammar without sentence structure: A conversation analytic investigation of agrammatism. Aphasiology, 21, 256-282.
6. Bookless, T., & Mortley, J. (1996). A proposed method for analyzing severely agrammatic speech. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6, 109-127.
7. Buchler, J. (1940). The philosophy of Peirce: Selected writings. London, England: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
8. Caplan, D. (1987). Neurolinguistics and linguistic aphasiology: An introduction. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
9. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
10. Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. (1990). Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66, 764-805.
11. Clift, R. (2001). Meaning in interaction: The case of "actually." Language, 77, 245-291.
12. Clift, R., & Holt, E. (2007). Introduction. In E. Holt & R. Clift (Eds.), Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction (pp. 1-15). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
13. Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1998) Coherent voicing: On prosody in conversational reported speech. Inlist, 1. Available from http://www.uni-potsdam.de/u/inlist
14. De Brabanter, P. (2005). Quotations and the intrusion of non-linguistic communication into utterances. In A. Dey, B. Kokinov, D. Leake, & R. Turner (Eds.), Proceedings of Context 2005: Fifth International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Context (pp. 126-139). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
15. Dressler, W. U. (1995). Interactions between iconicity and other semiotic parameters in language. In R. Simone (Ed.), Iconicity in language (pp. 21-38). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
16. Edwards, S. (2000). A clinical assessment of verbs in an agrammatic patient. In R. Bastiaanse and Y. Grodzinsky (Eds.), Grammatical disorders in aphasia: A neurolinguistic perspective (pp. 191-213). London, England: Whurr.
17. Ellis, A. W., & Young, A. W. (1996). Human cognitive neuropsychology: A textbook with readings. Hove, England: Psychology Press.
18. Fischer, O., & Nänny, M. (2001). Introduction: Iconicity and nature. European Journal of English Studies, 5, 3-16.
19. Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2002). Social interaction and grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language (pp. 119-144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Frawley, W. (1992). Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21. Givón, T. (1979). On understanding grammar. New York, NY: Academic Press.
22. Givón, T. (1985). Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 187-219). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
23. Givón, T. (2005). Context as other minds: The pragmatics of sociality, cognition and communication. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
24. Goffman, E. (1981). Response cries. In E. Goffman, Forms of talk (pp. 78-123). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
25. Goodglass, H. (1976). Agrammatism. In H. Whitaker & H. A.Whitaker (Eds.), Studies in neurolinguistics (Vol. 1, pp. 237-260). New York, NY: Academic Press.
26. Goodglass, H., Kaplan, E., & Barresi, B. (2001). The Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE) (3rd ed.). BaltimoreMD,: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
27. Goodwin, C. (1995). Co-constructing meaning in conversations with an aphasic man. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28, 233-260.
28. Goodwin, C. (2003). Conversational frameworks for the accomplishment of meaning in aphasia. In C. Goodwin (Ed.), Conversation and brain damage (pp. 90-116). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
29. Goodwin, C. (2006).Human sociality as mutual orientation in a rich interactive environment: Multimodal utterances and pointing in aphasia. In N. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of human sociality (pp. 96-125). London, England: Berg Press.
30. Goodwin, C. (2007). Interactive footing. In E. Holt & R. Clift (Eds.), Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction (pp. 16-46). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
31. Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1992). Assessments and the construction of context. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 147-190). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
32. Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among Black children. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
33. Hand, C. R., Tonkovich, J. D., & Aitchison, J. (1979). Some idiosyncratic strategies utilized by a chronic Broca's aphasic. Linguistics, 17, 729-759.
34. Heeschen, C., & Schegloff, E. A. (1999). Agrammatism, adaptation theory, conversation analysis: On the role of so-called telegraphic style in talk-in-interaction. Aphasiology, 13, 365-406.
35. Heeschen, C., & Schegloff, E. A. (2003). Aphasic agrammatism as interactional artifact and achievement. In C. Goodwin (Ed.), Conversation and brain damage (pp. 231-282). New York, NY: Oxford University Press
36. Heritage, J. C. (1984a). Garfinkel and ethnomethdology. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
37. Heritage, J. C. (1984b). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. C. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299-345). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
38. Holt, E. (1996). Reporting on talk: The use of direct reported speech in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29, 219-245.
39. Holt, E. (2000). Reporting and reacting: Concurrent responses to reported speech. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33, 425-454.
40. Howard, D. (1985). Agrammatism. In S. K. Newman & R. Epstein (Eds.), Current perspectives in dysphasia (pp. 1-31). Edinburgh, Scotland: Churchill Livingstone.
41. Hudson, R. (1985). The limits of subcategorization. Linguistic Analysis, 15, 233-255.
42. International Phonetic Association (IPA). (1999). Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A guide to the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
43. Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of story telling in conversation. In J. Schenkein. (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 213-248). New York, NY: Academic Press.
44. Jefferson, G. (2004). "At first I thought": A normalizing device for extraordinary events. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 131-167). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
45. Klewitz, G., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1999). Quote-unquote?: The role of prosody in the contextualization reported speech sequences. Inlist, 12. Available from http://www.uni-potsdam.de/u/inlist
46. Klippi, A. (1996). Conversation as an achievement in aphasics. Helsinki, Finland: Finnish Literature Society.
47. Kolk, H. (2001). Does agrammatic speech constitute a regression to child language? A three-way comparison between agrammatic, child and normal ellipsis. Brain and Language, 77, 340-350.
48. Lerner, G. (1991). On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society, 20, 441-458.
49. Lerner G. (1996). On the "semi-permeable" character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 238-276). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
50. Li, C. N. (1986). Direct and indirect speech: A functional study. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect speech (pp. 29-45). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
51. Lind, M. (2002). Conversational cooperation: The establishment of reference and displacement in aphasic interaction: A Norwegian case study. Oslo, Norway: Unipub AS.
52. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vols. 1 and 2) Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
53. Mayes, P. (1990). Quotation in spoken English. Studies in Language, 14, 325-363.
54. Menn, L., O'Connor, M., Obler, L. K., & Holland, A. (1995). Non-fluent aphasia in a multilingual world. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
55. Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.) (1996). Interaction and grammar. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
56. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. C. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57-101). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
57. Recanati, F. (2001). Open quotations. Mind, 110, 637-687.
58. Sacks, H. (1972). An initial investigation of the useability of conversational data for doing sociology. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 31-74). New York, NY: Free Press.
59. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. (2 vols.). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
60. Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 15-21). New York, NY: Irvington.
61. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
62. Saffran, E., Berndt, R. S., & Schwartz, M. (1989). The quantitative analysis of agrammatic production: Procedure and data. Brain and Language, 37, 440-479.
63. Schegloff, E. A. (1972). Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 75-119). New York, NY: Free Press.
64. Schegloff, E. A. (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givón (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax (pp. 261-288). New York, NY: Academic Press.
65. Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of "uh huh" and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Georgetown University roundtable on languages and linguistics (pp. 71-93). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
66. Schegloff, E. A. (1996) Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematic. In B. Fox (Ed.), Studies in anaphora (pp. 437-485). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
67. Schegloff, E. A. (2000a). On granularity. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 715-720.
68. Schegloff, E. A. (2000b). When "others" initiate repair. Applied Linguistics, 21, 205-243.
69. Schegloff, E. A. (2003). Conversation analysis and communication disorders. In C. Goodwin (Ed.), Conversation and brain damage (pp. 21-55). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
70. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair for conversation. Language, 53, 361-382.
71. Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289-327.
72. Schnitzer, M. L. (1989). The pragmatic basis of aphasia. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
73. Schnitzer, M. L. (1995). The regression hypothesis: Communicative continuum vs. parametrically defined grammars. Brain and Language, 48, 163-190.
74. Schulze-Wenck, S. (2005). Form and function of "first verbs" in talk-in-interaction. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation (pp. 319-348). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
75. Sidnell, J. (2006). Coordinating gesture, talk and gaze in reenactments. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39, 377-409.
76. Streeck, J., & Knapp, M. L. (1992). The interaction of visual and verbal features in human communication. In F. Potayos (Ed.), Advance in non-verbal communication: Sociocultural, clinical, esthetic and literary perspectives (pp. 3-25). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
77. Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue and imagery in conversational dialogue. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
78. Wilkinson, R. (1995). Aphasia: Conversation analysis of a non-fluent aphasic person. In M. Perkins and S. Howard (Eds.), Case studies in clinical linguistics (pp. 271-292). London, England: Whurr.
79. Wilkinson, R. (2007). Managing linguistic incompetence as a delicate issue in aphasic talk-in-interaction: On the use of laughter in prolonged repair sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 542-569.
80. Wilkinson, R., Beeke, S., & Maxim, J. (2003). Adapting to conversation: On the use of linguistic resources by speakers with fluent aphasia in the construction of turns at talk. In C. Goodwin (Ed.), Conversation and brain damage (pp. 59-89). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
81. Wilkinson, R., Gower, M., Beeke, S., & Maxim, J. (2007) Adapting to conversation as a language-impaired speaker: Changes in aphasic turn construction over time. Communication and Medicine, 4, 79-97.