Mutual understanding mechanism in verbal exchanges between carers and multiply-disabled young people: An interaction structure analysis
Abstract
The present article describes a study in which conversation analysis was used to investigate the verbal interactions between carers and profoundly multiply disabled young people. We examine the cognitive processes that come into play in conversations, and describe and analyze the interactional effects of pathologies on the cognitive processes involved in comprehension. We identify the rationality and reasoning processes to which the disabled person is susceptible, that is to say, that person’s cognitive efficiency, and the communication strategies employed by the “normal” interlocutor. The corpus, which was gathered at a specialist institute in France, consists of video recordings of interactions between a multiply disabled young person and one or more carers. In total, thirteen conversations involving six different young people were recorded. Analysis of the characteristics of the conversational exchanges revealed that conversational exchanges are based on two very precise modes of interaction that foster the mutual understanding process. Learning outcomes: These two modes of interaction represent exchange structures that favor the emergence of mutual understanding and that reveal the multiply disabled person’s cognitive efficiency in the conversation. We highlight the role of repetition as a conversation repair and we discuss the relationship between the carer and the disabled person.
Keywords:
Quick links
Antaki, C., N. Young, and M. Finlay
(2002) Shaping clients’ answers: Departures from neutrality in care- staff interviews with people with a learning disability. Disability and Society 17.4: 435-455. 
Antaki, C., W.M.L. Finlay, E. Sheridan, T. Jingree, and C. Walton
(2006) Producing decisions in service- user for people with an intellectual disability: Two contrasting facilitator styles. Mental Retardation 44.5: 322-343.
Antaki, C., W.M.L. Finlay, and C. Walton
(2007) The staff are your friends: Intellectually disabled identities in official discourse and interactional practice. Bristish Journal of Social Psychology 46: 1-18.
Jingree, T., W.M.L. Finlay, and C. Antaki
(2006) Empowering word, disempowering actions: An analysis of interactions between staff members and people with disabilities in residents’ meeting. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 50.3: 212-226.
Brinton, B., and M. Fujiki
(1996) Responses to requests for clarification by older and young adults with mental retardation. Research in Developmental Disabilities 17.5: 335-347.
Chouinard, M.M., and E.V. Clark
(2003) Adult reformulations of child errors as negative evidence. Journal of child language 30: 637-669. BoP
BoPClark, Herbert H
Clark, H.H., and T. Wasow
(1998) Repeating words in spontaneous speech. Cognitive psychology 37: 21-242.
Clark, Herbert H
(1999) On the origins of conversation. Verbum XXI.2: 147-161.
Curl, T.S., J. Local, and G. Walker
Dowling, Maura
(2007) Ethnomethodology: Time for a revisit? A discussion paper. International Journal of Nursing studies 44: 826-833.
Edwards, Derek
Goodwin, C., M.H. Goodwin, and D. Olsher
(2002) Producing sense with nonsense syllables: Turn and sequence in the conversations of a man with severe aphasia. In B. Fox, C. Ford & S. Thompson (eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 56-80. BoP
Goodwin, Charles
(2003a) Introduction. In C. Goodwin (eds.), Conversation and Brain Damage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3-20.
(2003b) Conversational frameworks for the accomplishment of meaning in aphasia. In C. Goodwin (eds.), Conversation and Brain Damage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 90-116.
(2004) A competent speaker who can't speak: The social life of aphasia. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 14.2: 151-170.
(2006) Human sociality as mutual orientation in a rich interactive environment: Multimodal utterances and pointing in aphasia. In N. Enfield and S.C. Levinson (eds.), Roots of Human Sociality. London: Berg Press, pp. 96-125.
Keith, E.N., J. Welsh, S.M. Camarata, L. Butkovsky, and M. Camarata
(1995) Available input for language-impaired children and younger children of matched language levels. First Language 15.43: 1-17.
Lacroix A, J. Bernicot, and J. Reilly
(2007) Narrative and collaborative conversations in French-speaking children with Williams syndrome. Journal of Neurolinguistics 20.6: 445-461.
Musiol, M., and M. Rebuschi
in press) Towards a two-step formalisation of verbal interaction in schizophrenia: A case study. In A. Trognon, M. Batt, J. Kaelen, & D. Vernant (eds.) Dialog’s logical properties Nancy P.U.N
Musiol, M., and A. Trognon
(1999) Echec de la communication et réussite de la conversation en interaction pathologique. Verbum XXI.2: 207-232.
Pellegrini, A.D., G.H. Brody, and I.E. Siegel
(1985) Parent’s teaching strategies with their children: The effect of parental and child status variables. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 14: 509–521.
Perkins, L
(1995) Applying conversation analysis to aphasia: Clinical implications and analytic issues. European Journal of Disorders of Communication 30: 371-735.
Perkins, Michael R
(1998) Is pragmatics epiphenomenal? Evidence from communication disorders. Journal of Pragmatics 29: 291-311. BoP
BoPPerrin, L., D. Deshaies, and C. Paradis
(2003) Pragmatic functions of local diaphonic repetition in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1843-1860. BoP
BoPRieger, Caroline
(2003) Repetition as self-repair strategies in English and German conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 35 : 47-69.
Roulet, E., A. Auchlin, J. Moeschler, C. Rubattel, and M. Schelling
(1985) L’articulation du discours en français contemporain. Berne: Peter Lang.
Sacks, Harvey
(1966/1995) Lectures on conversation. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell.
Schegloff, E.A., G. Jefferson, and H. Sachs
(1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53: 361-382. BoP
BoPSearle, John R
(1969/1995) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. BoP
Searle, J.R., and D. Vanderveken
(1985) Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge (MA): Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, Dan
(2000)
Metarepresentations in an evolutionay perspective
. In D. Sperber (eds.), Metarepresentations: A multidisciplinarity perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 117-137.
Trognon, Alain
(2002) Speech acts and the logic of mutual understanding. In D. Vanderveken & S. Kubo (eds.), Essays in Speech Acts Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 121-133.
Vanderveken, Daniel
(1988) Les actes de discours. Bruxelles: Mardaga.
Vanderveken, D., and K. Susumo
(2002) Introduction. In D. Vanderveken & S. Kubo (eds.), Essays in Speech Acts Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 1-21.
Vigil, D.C., J. Hodges, and T. Kle
(2005) Quantity and quality of parental language input to late-talking toddlers during play. Child Language Teaching & Therapy 21.2: 107-122.
Yont, K.M., L.R. Hewitt, and A.W. Miccio
(2002) What did you say?: Understanding conversational breakdown in children with speech and language impairments. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 16.4: 265-285.