A closer look at the 'hint and guess' sequences in

This article was downloaded by: [University of Helsinki] On: 01 October 2014, At: 06:20 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Aphasiology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/paph20

A closer look at the 'hint and guess' sequences in aphasic conversation MINNA LAAKSO & ANU KLIPPI Published online: 31 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: MINNA LAAKSO & ANU KLIPPI (1999) A closer look at the 'hint and guess' sequences in aphasic conversation, Aphasiology, 13:4-5, 345-363 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/026870399402136

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access

Downloaded by [University of Helsinki] at 06:20 01 October 2014

and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions

aphasiology, 1999, vol. 13, no. 4} 5, 345±363

A closer look at the ` hint and guess’ sequences in aphasic conversation MI NN A LAA KS O* and ANU KLI P PI *University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland


Abstract The focus of this article is to examine in more detail the collaborative nature of aphasic conversation. In particular, collaborative eåorts can be seen in such situations where aphasic problems, such as word searching, emerge. These problems have traditionally been studied as a cognitive process of an aphasic individual. The aim is to demonstrate that in aphasic conversation word search is a visible activity which often initiates a collaborative problem-solving sequence, traditionally called a ` hint and guess’ sequence. As the special practices by which this collaboration is accomplished are relatively unknown, the ` hint and guess’ sequences of both ¯uent and non-¯uent aphasic speakers have been analysed in detail. The main ®ndings suggest that these sequences have a regular structure of four distinct phases that are quite similar irrespective of the type of aphasia.

Introduction One of the current problems that constrain conversational interactions of aphasic speakers are di¬culties in ®nding words. Word searching is inevitably one of the most typical and persistent behaviours characterizing aphasic speech (Whitehouse et al. 1978). Word ®nding problems are observed across diåerent types of ¯uent and non-¯uent aphasics. Even in Wernicke’s aphasia, attempts at self-repairing paraphasic errors often turn into word searches (Laakso 1997). In conversation where there are aphasic participants, problems such as missing words are often treated sequentially in a collaborative fashion : co-participants supply the missing words for the aphasic speakers in turns that follow the problem (see e.g. Ferguson 1992, Milroy and Perkins 1992, Klippi 1996). However, this is not always the case : sometimes other speakers do not take part in word searching although they were invited by the aphasic speaker (Laakso, in press). According to the ®ndings to date, the lack of collaboration is more typical of some institutional interactions (Laakso 1997, in press), whereas in family settings conversations can be heavily co-constructed so that the healthy co-participants provide guesses that the person with aphasia simply rejects or con®rms (Goodwin 1995). As long ago as 1980, Lubinski, Duchan and Weitzner-Lin compared the breakdowns and repairs in conversations between an aphasic speaker and a spouse and between an aphasic speaker and a speech therapist. They characterized these interactions as ` hint and guess’ sequences in which the aphasic speaker’s utterance provided the hint that was followed by a guess from the healthy co-participant. The Address correspondence to : Minna Laakso, Rehabilitation} Turku City Hospital, Kunnallissairaalantie 20, FIN-20700 Turku, Finland. e-mail : Minna.Laakso! oulu.® Aphasiology ISSN 0268-7038 print} ISSN 1464-5041 online ’ 1999 Taylor & Francis Ltd http:} } www.tandf.co.uk} JNLS} aph.htm http:} } www.taylorandfrancis.com} JNLS} aph.htm

M. Laakso and A. Klippi

346


special practices by which the collaborative management of aphasic errors is achieved are still relatively unknown.Are aphasic speakers and their co-participants making use of the same practices as in ordinary conversation, and what precise form do these interactional sequences take in the course of eåorts to ®nd an outcome for the search ? Furthermore, does the type of aphasia (¯uent vs. non¯uent) have an eåect on the interactional pattern ? It could be that the diåerent type of speech output (e.g. sparse single-word utterances vs. ¯uent erroneous speech) would have an eåect on the interactional construction of these sequences. At least the hints provided by ¯uent and non-¯uent speech are diåerent and potentially consequential for the interpretative work of the healthy co-participants. In addition, the interlocutors may use diåerent practices in their collaborative repair eåorts. Conversations and phenomena analysed The excerpts analysed were derived from a database of conversations of ten ¯uent and four non-¯uent aphasics speakers with diåerent co-participants, 24 conversations altogether. Conversationswere gathered in speech therapy sessions,aphasia group sessions and at adaptation summer courses for persons with aphasia and their families. This paper is focused on conversations of three aphasic speakers. Two of them were ¯uent (E and N) and one non-¯uent (R). The aphasic speakers were also tested with the Finnish version of the Western Aphasia Battery (Kertesz 1982, Lehtihalmes et al. 1986). The clinical background information on the aphasic speakers is presented in table 1. In this paper special attention is paid to conversational sequences where the outcome of a word search of an aphasic speaker is achieved through several speaking turns by diåerent speakers. The focus is on the speaker ’s diåerent signals (both verbal and non-verbal) to create a collaborative participation framework, and the kind of collaborative responses that the co-participants provide in order to analyse in detail how the `hint and guess ’ interaction is achieved and maintained. The term ` participation framework ’ (cf. Goodwin 1981, 1987, Goodwin and Goodwin 1990) is used to refer to the way the speaker and the co-participants, with their talk, eye contacts and gestures, create a mutual framework in which each of them has a role and certain possibilities to participate. For example, by withdrawing the gaze, a speaker may display a word search as her} his own activity where no participation from the others is expected. The framework and the possibilities for each person shift from moment to moment in the course of the ongoing interaction. In ordinary conversation, the initiation of a word search is signalled by an interruption in an ongoing utterance and followed by a pause instead of the next word projected in the utterance (Schegloå 1979). Besides pauses, speakers often also produce sounds to indicate searching such as ùh ’ and `hmm ’, repeat their words or stretch the pronunciation of sounds. To make the searching explicit, expressions such as ` what is it ’ or ` what do you call it ’ are sometimes used. Although a speaker may ®nd a solution to the search by her} himself, word search is an activity in which the co-participants can also take part (Goodwin and Goodwin 1986). A speaker searching for words may invite a co-participant to help in the search. This is most often done by means of shifting one’s gaze to a coparticipant during the search. The appeal becomes emphasized if the speaker

68

59

M

M

E (¯uent) R (non-¯uent)

CI

CI

ICH

Diagnosis

Left parieto-occipital and posterior; temporal (subcortical) Left temporal (large) Not known

Lesion

6 years

8 months

7 months

Duration of illness

Broca’s

Conduction

Conduction

Aphasia type

79.1

69.9

55.8

WAB AQ (max 100)

9.85

7.85

7.0

Comp. (max 10)

The background information of the aphasic participants

8.7

4.4

3.9

Repet. (max 10)

8.0

8.2

4.5

3

2

2

Naming Severity (max 10) (max 5)

CI 5 cerebral infarction ; ICH 5 intracerebral haematoma ; WAB 5 Western Aphasia Battery ; AQ 5 Aphasia Quotient; Comp. 5 comprehension score; Repet. 5 repetition score; Severity 5 severity of aphasia on BDAE Aphasia Severity Rating Scale, 1 5 most severely aphasicÐ5 5 mildly aphasic.

55

F

N (¯uent)

Age

Sex

Subject

Table 1.


` Hint and guess ’ sequences in aphasic conversation 347



348

simultaneously also expresses that a word is unavailable by saying, for instance, ` What is it ’. In fact, Goodwin and Goodwin (1986) stress that in conversation, word search is not simply a cognitive process which occurs inside a speaker’s head but rather a visible activity that other participants can recognize and indeed participate in. According to Laakso (1997), the practices of directing a search to others are used by aphasic speakers as well, and similarly to non-aphasic speakers, aphasic speakers may also withdraw their gaze from the co-participants and display the word search as their own, self-directed activity. In our database of both ¯uent and non-¯uent aphasic speakers, word searching is a common phenomenon which is often, although not always, treated collaboratively. Sometimes the aphasic speaker does not invite the co-participant to take part in the search, and sometimes other speakers do not co-participate although they were invited to (see Laakso, in press, for more details). However, most often when the aphasic speakers display their orientation towards coparticipation by gazing at others, co-construction is triggered in connection with both sparse and incomplete utterances of non-¯uent speakers as well as the erroneous and abundant expressions of ¯uent aphasic speakers. In ordinary non-aphasic conversation, word search problems are solved quite quickly. Although other speakers may collaborate in the search, most often the search is completed quickly either by the speaker who initiated the search or by a co-participant in the next turn. In aphasic conversation, however, it is not uncommon that the resolution of a word ®nding problem takes more time and is extended to several speaking turns of diåerent speakers. How are these sequences of turns then constructed? Do they take the form of a ` hint and guess ’ sequence (Lubinski et al. 1980), and by what practices and by whom is this achieved ? Is it the aphasic speaker or the co-participant who initiates this speci®c type of problemsolving interaction ? The `hint and guess ’ sequences The following example (1) will exemplify the practices surrounding how a word search turns into a ` hint and guess ’ sequence. In this episode a chronic Wernicke ’s aphasic speaker N is talking with her speech therapist about her house and its front garden. She cannot, however, ®nd the words when she is describing what kind of ¯owers she has in the garden. In the same way as a non-aphasic speaker, she uses a variety of non-lexical speech perturbations, such as sound stretches and ùh’s ’ which signal the initiation of self-repair (lines 2±3 in example 1). She also demonstrates non-vocal behaviours such as gazing away from the recipient in a similar manner to that described by Goodwin and Goodwin (1986, p. 57), has several distinct stages in her search such as head shakes, closing of eyes and head turning (cf. Goodwin and Goodwin 1986, p. 61), and also produces additional talk when she cannot ®nd the word (cf. Goodwin and Goodwin 1986, p. 56). Note, in particular, how N ®rst displays orientation towards her own attempts to retrieve the words (line 2 and the beginning of line 3) as she withdraws her gaze, closes her eyes and turns her head away from therapist K, and then how she shifts her gaze to K and invites her to take part in the search (the latter part of line 3), thus creating a framework for co-participation. N ’s invitation is marked with a single arrow ! and the collaborative attempts of the co-participant are marked with a double arrow 3 in the example.


` Hint and guess ’ sequences in aphasic conversation

349

In line 3, during a long pause of almost 3 seconds, N gradually shifts her gaze towards K, sighs and pauses again. By doing so she displays an orientation towards co-participation. At this point, K could already take the invitation and come to help but, in this case, she does not collaborate. As a consequence, N continues by herself and makes cut-oå attempts to produce a word (ist- oX oX oi-, line 3). All the time, she keeps her gaze directed at K, as if these attempts were made for her as further cues to the word that she is looking for. Finally N pauses and sighs again, and then K makes her clari®cation request (line 4). Thus, the aphasic speaker ®rst tries to repair the trouble by herself and when this does not succeed, appeals to her co-participant for help. By that action, the di¬culty of word ®nding becomes established as a fact, to which both interlocutors should pay attention. After the establishment of the problem, co-participation follows. The question K asks in line 4 is constructed in a way that lays ground for the collaborative frame of searching. It interprets N ’s word search attempt as an attempt at ®nding the names of ¯owers and simultaneously limits the set of ¯owers (annuals or perennials) that have to be considered as possible candidates for the word search. It also makes use of the word fragment ist- by completing it to a possible target istuttaa (` to plant ’). After the frame of perennials has been established, K starts to oåer possible candidates from that group of ¯owers (lines 7 and 9), and as a result, one target, violets, is obtained.


350

Example 1 above provides an example of a rather unproblematic collaborative word search where the focus of the word search is quite easily interpreted by the interlocutor who is then able to provide guesses. However, it is not self-evident that the interlocutors orient themselves in mutual collaboration (Laakso, in press) or, if they do, try to solve the same problem. It is often not easy for the interlocutors to select the right domain from where to make guesses (Goodwin 1995).


A detailed analysis of long ` hint and guess ’ sequences by a ¯uent and a non-¯uent aphasic speaker The topic-initial position is the most di¬cult for the interlocutors for de®ning the frame of alternatives to be oåered as outcomes to the search. Indeed, the present authors claim that the extended `hint and guess ’ sequences tend to appear in positions where the aphasic speaker introduces a new topic or subtopic to the conversation. There the previous sequential context gives the least support for the aphasic speaker’s utterance, and the interlocutors have to take time in order to establish the frame of the collaborative search. In these sequences, the participants thus have a dual task : they have to achieve a mutual agreement of collaboration in the search and also to determine a relevant frame or category for producing guesses. In the following section, how these dual tasks are achieved is presented through the phases of a ` hint and guess ’ sequence. One sequence (example 2) from a ¯uent aphasic speaker E and one sequence (example 3) from a non-¯uent aphasic speaker R serve to illustrate this. Example 2 with the ¯uent aphasic speaker (E) is an excerpt from a group conversation in an aphasia summer course. The talk in the group is concentrated on the experiences of being an aphasic. Example 3 with the non-¯uent aphasic speaker (R) is an excerpt from an aphasic speaker±speech therapist interaction. In both cases, the aphasic speaker ’s word search emerges in a topicinitial turn and the outcome is obtained through a sequence of several turns. There appear to be four phases in the course of these sequences: a problem establishment phase, a phase for establishing the collaborative co-participation framework, a ` hint and guess ’ phase, and a con®rmation phase. Both examples are divided into four parts (2a and 3a, 2b and 3b, 2c and 3c, 2d and 3d) which re¯ect these four phases and are analysed in parallel phase by phase. Problem establishment phase The ®rst precondition for collaborative participation is to establish that there is a persistent word ®nding problem. This becomes evident when the speaker is engaged in search for a long time and is not able ®nd the word. In the examples below, it is evident that E and R continue searching in their several successive speaking turns (see examples 2a and 3a, respectively). The sequence (2a) is embedded in a series of complaints by the aphasic participants in the group. In this series, E begins to describe a therapist in the hospital where he was being treated after his stroke. In lines 4 and 5 he encounters di¬culty in ®nding a word which manifests in sound stretching, pausing and a search question (these di¬culties are marked with an arrow ! in the example). When he starts the search, he withdraws his gaze (line 4) and during the search question he looks down at the ¯oor (line 5). At this point, E is clearly engaged in managing the search by himself.

351



E doesn’t succeed in ®nding the word but continues his story (lines 6±8). He illustrates his talk about ¯oors with the gesture of raising his right hand, lowering it and raising it again (lines 6±7). He also uses his left hand for counting in order


352


to determine the number of ¯oors. Though he is searching for words, he doesn’t appeal to his co-participant(s) for help but turns his gaze to M only when he completes his turn (line 8). However, he doesn’t get acknowledgement from M or any of his co-participants (line 9). As a consequence, he continues and revises his explanation. In fact, here the lack of acknowledgement is treated as a request of clari®cation. When E repeats his explanation, he again has to search for the words (lines 10±11). This time he manages to specify that there were stairs. Again, coparticipants do not immediately acknowledge his turn but a long pause follows after which M gives a silent sigh as a response. By withdrawing or delaying acknowledgement or the production of the next relevant turn the recipients display that they have trouble in interpreting E ’s utterances. Then E makes a third attempt to ®nd the crucial words but without success (line 14). In example 3a similar word ®nding problems arise and the aphasic speaker (R) is ®rst trying to repair the trouble by himself. R is talking with his speech therapist A about his childhood environment in Helsinki. He has just explained that his family had already lived in Helsinki for several generations. The speech therapist asks about where in Helsinki these previous generations had lived (lines 1±3), and answering this question, R starts to talk about his grandmother (lines 5±6, 8, 11±12).

R’s turns at talk are characterized by long pauses and word retrieval is very di¬cult : he pauses, produces vocalizations and repeats his words. In the same way as E, he keeps his gaze withdrawn from the co-participant and looks at the table during the silent and ®lled pauses in line 12. In his ®rst turn he only manages to say


353


mummu on (` granny is ’, lines 10±11) but is not able to complete the turn. In line 8, he reserves a turn by leaning forward and by moving his left hand forwards on the table but ends up knocking the table and pausing. In line 11, he manages to expand the utterance by saying mummu on kasvanut (` granny has grown up ’, line 11), but again when the place is to be mentioned, he has to search for words and the search does not succeed (line 12). Thus, in both cases, the word search of the aphasic speaker does not succeed despite several attempts in successive speaking turns. At this phase, the aphasic speakers display searching as a self-directed activity, and the co-participants do not interfere. However, at this stage, co-participation would also be quite di¬cult, as the talk of the aphasic speaker does not provide clear cues about the word that is being searched for. Establishing a framework for co-participation A collaborative sequence can emerge when it is clear to the participants that there is a serious word ®nding problem. After the establishment of the problem, the aphasic speakers’ appeal to their co-participants is, however, essential. The `hint and guess ’ phase is launched when the aphasic speaker clearly shifts orientation towards a co-participant and receives a collaborative response that oåers a solution to the search. This is obvious both with E and with R (examples 2b and 3b, respectively). In the examples, aphasic ’s appeal to the co-participant is marked with a single arrow ! , and the collaborative response of the co-participant is marked with a double arrow 3 . In example 2b, E pauses after his unsuccessful search attempt. During the long pause (line 15), he turns his head and gaze towards another aphasic speaker, P, who is sitting next to him. When E already begins to turn away, P suggests an outcome to the search in a form of a guess (line 16). His utterance ®ts in to E ’s previous utterance as a completion. It also displays his understanding of the previous turns of E, and seems to be particularly linked to the previous illustration of the ¯oors and a staircase. P oåers an alternative from a category of things that are used to moving from ¯oor to ¯oor (an elevator).

In example (3b), R also ends up in pausing as a result of his search attempt. During this long pause, he raises his gaze from the table he had been looking at and brings it to the co-participant (line 13) in the same way as E above. He also sighs (see example 1 for a similar behaviour by N). The therapist A does not make a guess but responds with a minimal acknowledgement mm (line 14). The intonation is rising


354


indicating that A is expecting R to continue. R, however, doesn’t resume talking but turns away and displays gesturally that he is giving up the search (line 15). Then the therapist provides a guess `somewhere here in the centre ’ (line 16).

Thus, in both cases (2b) and (3b), the interlocutors agree to participate in the search and make a guess at what they have been able to understand and infer from the talk of the aphasic speaker. In E ’s case (example 2b), P ’s interpretation also re¯ects the risks of leaving the gesture to do the main work in the telling, as gestures can be understood in many ways. Hint and guess phase As was shown above, the interlocutors provided a candidate resolution. Similarly, Lubinski et al. (1980) found that in aphasic speaker±spouse and aphasic speaker±therapist dyads, both partners (the spouse and the therapist) oåered guesses like Ìs it X ? ’ or ` Is it Y ? ’ and asked Wh- questions. However, as there is not yet much information available and there are several possibilities for the word searched, the ®rst guess does not resolve the problem. The aphasic speakers reject the ®rst guesses and the sequences continue as ` hint and guess ’ sequences (cf. Lubinski et al. 1980). The examples (2c) and (3c) show how the searches of E and R continue in collaboration with their partners. It turns out that the trouble is not resolved in the immediate turns that follow. It takes several collaborative attempts from the coparticipants as well as several attempts at hinting at the target from the aphasic until the word is ®nally found. In the examples (2c) and (3c), the hints provided by the aphasic speaker are marked with a single arrow ! and the collaborative attempts of co-participants are marked with a double arrow 3 .


` Hint and guess ’ sequences in aphasic conversation 355


356


In example 2c E rejects the candidate ` elevator ’ with ` no, no ’ (line 17) but also displays willingness to continue the search. He provides additional information that he is, in fact, looking for a person by using the expression Ì mean that who performed that ’. In addition, E starts to providethe target by saying ` health- ’ (line 18) but interrupts his talk. P immediately completes with ` centre ’ (line 19) which makes a possible compound word ` health centre ’. E rejects this and speci®es that he was in the hospital not in a health centre (line 21). Then he again tries to provide additional information and approximates the word with paraphasic expressions saX rjitta-hi (line 23) and sairaanlija (line 24) which are not real Finnish words but provide some information: they carry derivative morphemes used in names of professions. In fact, P is then able to provide a guess from the category of professions ` a nurse ’ (line 26). Furthermore, E ’s response is not now an outright denial. Instead of rejecting, he says ` yes or that mm what is it ’ (line 28). It displays that although P ’s guess (` a nurse ’) was not the right one, it was from the right category. Then E provides more information: ` there was a woman and a man that kind of .hh g aag others ’ (line 29). P oåers another profession, namely ` doctors ’ (line 31). E rejects this and provides a new paraphasic approximation ` } sick(ness)} therapists or what such are ’ (lines 32±33). P repeats silently his previous oåers and then turns his gaze to M (line 34). In line 37, M asks a clari®cation request ` what did you then do together ’ and E repeats his previous description (lines 38±39). However, now he is able to specify that they walked the stairs up and down. Finally, in line 44, M makes the guess that provides the outcome: ` physiotherapist ’ was the word that was searched for. In example 3c, the co-participant A also makes several guesses before the word search problem is solved. However, the sequence diåers from 2c in that R provides less additional information about the word searched, although he attempts to do it.

357



In line 17, R rejects A ’s guess. His answer rejects the candidate for the place but with the particle ku he implies a willingness to continue the turn and the search activity. However, he soon encounters di¬culties, draws his hand to his lap and



358

leans backwards (line 19). A makes a thinking sound aX mm (line 20). R tries once more to start with the particle kun (line 21) but A provides immediately a request for clari®cation (line 22). The request is structured in such a way that it provides a frame of cardinal directions to help to locate the place in Helsinki. Now R is able to provide additional information: ` in the south ’ (line 23). In line 25, R tries to continue by uttering ` yes and ’. The particle ja (ànd ’) implies again his willingness to continue but he is not able to ®nd the word searched for. In lines 25±30 there is, in fact, a side sequence (cf. Jeåerson 1972) dealing with the di¬culty of ®nding the word. After the embedded side sequence, A oåers a candidate to specify the place (` somewhere near Ullanlinna ’, line 31). She is continuing but the aphasic speaker interrupts her by saying ku (` but ’) and raising his ®nger (line 32). Again, he is not able to ®nd the word but produces the pronoun ` there ’ and simultaneously points towards the south with his index ®nger (line 33). Then he extends his ®ngers, turns his palm down and moves the ¯at palm towards the west. In this way, gesturally, he is able to make his target clearer. A responds by making a guess from the direct south direction (near Kaivopuisto, line 35). As R rejects this (line 37), A makes a further attempt moving towards places in the south-west direction : ` then there is that Merikatu is and well then of course Viiskulma ’ (line 39), which is the target. Long con®rmation phase The third phase characterizing the long ` hint and guess ’ sequences is the prolonged con®rmation phase (see also Klippi, in press). All who have taken part in the collaborative searching give acknowledgement tokens to con®rm that the search is successfully completed. This is evident in both sequences. In the end of the search for the word laX aX kintaX voimistelija (`physiotherapist ’) initiated by E, acknowledgements are given by E and P, the speakers who did the main work in ®nding the word and also by M who provided the resolution. Acknowledgements are marked with an arrow ! in the example.

As M produces the candidate word, E starts to con®rm immediately as the word becomes recognizable, at the point laX aX kintaX voimis (` medical gym ’). He asserts his


359


con®rmation with ®ve agreement tokens in a row: JUU JUU JUU joo juu (all comparable to ` yes ’, line 45). He also increases volume and stretches the pronunciation of the words. This pronounced way of agreeing with the candidate resolution emphasizes that the word was precisely the one that was searched for. P, as a person who provided most of the guesses that served the ®nal solution, also comments on the fact that the word ®nding problem is solved (lines 46 and 48). Also M, who provided the solution, recognizes its con®rmation with joo joo (line 47). In this way the participants make it clear to each other that they now mutually agree what the target of the search was, that the searching activity is now completed and that they can continue to talk on the original topic. In a similar manner, R and A agree about the place name in Helsinki in example (3d).

As A provides the list of places and arrives at the right place, Viiskulma (line 39), R immediately acknowledges this with a pronounced just (` right ’, line 40). In a similar manner to E in 2d, he also increases volume. A repeats Viiskulma very rapidly (line 41) ; there is no interval between her response and R ’s previous con®rmatory just. The turn-taking speeds up, which emphasizes the fact that ®nally the word searched for is found and con®rmed by immediate responses from both participants. R a¬rms A ’s request for con®rmation with another just (line 42) which is latched immediately to A ’s utterance. In this case, he uses falling ®nal intonation and also leans backwards signalling that the search activity is now completed and the right word has been found. As a whole, the interactional structure of these sequences is quite similar despite the diåerences in the conversational setting (e.g. the number of participants) or the type of aphasia of the aphasic speakers. There are, however, some diåerences. The co-participant responses are either plain guesses or they attempt to create a frame of alternatives. The ®rst responses of P in 2b and A in 3b are simple guesses, whereas the next attempt by A creates the frame of cardinal directions so that the next guesses are provided systematically. In a similar manner, K in example 1 creates the frame of perennials which reduces the number of possible alternatives from which guesses are made. When compared with ordinary conversation where there are no aphasic participants, the ` hint and guess ’ sequences of aphasic speakers and their partners are extended in length. However, the same practices (e.g. gaze shifts) seem to be used for managing interaction. Thus, aphasic speakers and their healthy co-participants employ the same non-verbal practices in word searching that are used in ordinary non-aphasic conversation.


360


Conclusions and discussion In the database discussed here, the solution of a word search takes time and is often extended to several speaking turns of diåerent speakers. These sequences can take the form of the so-called ` hint and guess ’ sequence. By analysing such sequences the authors claim that similar interactive patterns can be found regardless of the type of aphasia, and similar practices as in ordinary non-aphasic conversation seem to operate in managing co-participation. However, further study of these interactions is still needed to prove this ®nding. Four phases were discovered in the course of these sequences: a problem establishment phase, a phase of establishing a collaborative co-participation framework, a hint and guess phase, and a long con®rmation phase. Every phase has characteristic interactive features. Most importantly, the participants have to agree about collaboration by creating a collaborative participation framework (cf. also Laakso 1997, in press) if a problem is to be solved through the joint eåorts of the participants. Most often the aphasic speaker ®rst tries to self-repair the problem and when this doesn’t succeed, establishes a collaborative framework by clearly shifting the orientation to a co-participant. If the co-participant agrees, by providing a candidate solution, a `hint and guess ’ sequence can begin. In many cases, the problem has to be established in a quite distinct and visible way before the aphasic speakers shift their orientation towards another speaker. The preferred case seems to be the self-management of the trouble despite the di¬culty caused by aphasia. This suggests that the aphasic speakers in these interactions prefer self-repair, in the same way ordinary non-aphasic participants do. However, the co-participants do not rush to help the aphasic speaker either. As well as paying attention to the interactional signals such as the speaker ’s gaze towards them, the co-participants seem to adjust their collaborative responses according to the content of the aphasic speaker ’s talk : they wait until there is something new from where to continue. This is particularly clear with the non¯uent aphasic speaker where the co-participating speech therapist gives him a lot of time to develop his speech. Sometimes, however, the co-participants respond quite late : the aphasic participant has to sigh and give up before a response emerges. In this respect, there are interactive diåerences in timing between the conversations analysed and this aspect also merits further study. Moreover, in further studies it would be very interesting to look at ordinary conversations between familiar participants and see whether they diåer from the conversations in this database. Due to the diåerences in, for instance, shared knowledge with the aphasic speaker, some conversational partners are better in providing the solution to the search, whereas less familiar partners have more di¬culty in getting the idea of the missing word. However, an investigation by Ferguson (1994) suggests that in fact the less familiar co-participants are more likely to supply words for the aphasic speaker than the familiar ones. In everyday interactions there might also be less tolerance for such long problem-solving sequences (Lesser and Milroy 1993). Conversation is a social phenomenon. Aphasia has many interactional consequences for the ¯ow of conversation, one of which is the extended problem-solving sequences described above. Although a conversation analytic perspective is no longer new in aphasia therapy (see e.g. Kagan and Gailey 1993), we still have surprisingly little detailed knowledge of the interaction in aphasic conversation. In daily interactions, aphasic participants are often relegated to the position of an


361

addressee or a third person even on topics that were initiated by themselves and deal with their own lives (see e.g. Linell and Korolija 1995). The study of the problem-solving interactions of aphasic speakers and their conversational partners gives detailed knowledge about how the conversation can work despite aphasia. By using this knowledge to advise the aphasic speakers and their conversation partners, it will be possible to strengthen the aphasic speakers ’ role as real participants in their everyday interactions.


References Ferguson, A., 1992, Conversational repair of word-®nding di¬culty. In M. Lemme (Ed.) Clinical Aphasiology Vol. 21 (Austin, Texas : Pro-Ed), pp. 299±310. Ferguson, A., 1994, The in¯uence of aphasia, familiarity, and activity on conversational repair. Aphasiology, 8, 143±158. Goodwin, C., 1981, Conversational Organisation : Interaction between Speakers and Hearers (New York : Academic Press). Goodwin, C., 1987, Forgetfulness as an interactive resource. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 115±131. Goodwin, C., 1995, Co-constructing meaning in conversations with an aphasic man. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28, 233±260. Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. H., 1990, Context, activity and participation. In P. Aver and di Luzo (Ed.) The Contextualization of Language (Amsterdam : Benjamins), pp. 77±99. Goodwin, M. H. and Goodwin, C., 1986, Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica, 62, 51±75. Heeschen, C., 1997, The role of agrammatic telegraphic style in talk-in-interaction. Paper presented at the conference `Disorder and order in talk : conversational analysis and communication disorders ’ 25±26th June 1998, London, UK. Jefferson, G., 1972, Side sequences. In Sudnow, D. (Ed.) Studies in Social Interaction (New York : Free Press), pp. 294±338. Kagan, A. and Gailey, G., 1993, Functional is not enough: training conversation partners for aphasic adults. In A. Holland and M. Forbes Aphasia Treatment : World Perspectives (San Diego : Singular), pp. 199±223. Kertesz, A., 1982, The Western Aphasia Battery test manual (USA : Grune & Stratton). Klippi, A., 1996, Conversation as an Achievement in Aphasics (Helsinki : The Finnish Literature Society). Klippi, A., (in press), Collaborating in aphasic group conversation: striving for mutual understanding. In C. Goodwin (Ed.) Situating Language Impairments Within Conversation (New York : Oxford University Press). Laakso, M., 1997, Self-Initiated Repair by Fluent Aphasic Speakers in Conversation (Helsinki : The Finnish Literature Society). Laakso, M., (in press), The interactional construction of repair in conversations of Wernicke ’s aphasics. In C. Goodwin (Ed.) Situating Language Impairments Within Conversation (New York : Oxford University Press). Lehtihalmes, M., Klippi, A. and Lempinen, M., 1986, Western Aphasia Battery. Unstandardised Finnish version. Lesser, R. and Milroy, L., 1993, Linguistics and aphasia : psycholinguistic and pragmatic aspects of intervention . (London: Longman). Linell, P. and Korolija, N., 1995, On the division of communicative labour within episodes in aphasic discourse. International Journal of Psycholinguistics , 11, 143±165. Lubinski, R., Duchan, J. and Weitzner-Lin, B., 1980, Analysis of breakdowns and repairs in aphasic adult communication. In R. Brookshire (Ed.) Clinical Aphasiology Conference Proceedings (Minnesota : BRK), pp. 111±116. Milroy, L. and Perkins, L., 1992, Repair strategies in aphasic discourse; towards a collaborative model. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 6, 27±40. Schegloff, E., 1979, The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givon (Ed.) Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax (New York : Academic Press), pp. 261±286. Schegloff, E. and Sacks, H., 1973, Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289±327. Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H., 1977, The preference of self-correction in the organisation of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361±382.


362

Sorjonen, M.-L., 1996, On repeats and responses in Finnish conversations. In E. Ochs, E. Schegloå and S. Thompson (Eds) Interaction and Grammar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Whitehouse, P., Caramazza, A. and Zurif, E., 1978, Naming in aphasia : interacting eåects of form and function. Brain and Language, 6, 63±74.

Appendix 1 : Principles and abbreviations used in glossing


(Modi®ed from Sorjonen 1996.) In the gloss, morphemes have been separated from the root word with a hyphen. The following have been treated as unmarked forms, not indicated in the glossing: -nominative case -singular -3rd person singular (except when there are special reasons for indicating it) -active voice -present tense -2nd person singular imperative The diåerent in®nitives and participial forms have not been speci®ed. Abbreviations used in glossing 1 2 3 4

1st person ending 2nd person ending 3rd person ending passive person ending

Case endings Case

Abbreviation

Approximate meaning

nominative accusative genitive partitive inessive elative illative adessive ablative allative essive translative abessive instructive comitative

NOM ACC GEN PAR INE ELA ILL ADE ABL ALL ESS TRA ABE INS COM

subject object possession partitiveness ` in ’ ` out of’ ` into’ ` at, on’ ` from’ ` to ’ ` as ’ ` to ’, `becoming ’ ` without’ (various) ` with ’


363

Other abbreviations


1nameF 1nameM CLI COM CON CNJ DIM IMP INF NEG PAS

1st name, female 1st name, male clitic comparative conditional conjunction diminutive imperative in®nitive negation passive

PC PPC PPPC PL POS PRT PST Q SUP

participle past participle passive past participle plural possessive su¬x particle past tense interrogative superlative

Appendix 2 : How to read the conversational examples The speech of each person is depicted on three lines consisting of the original Finnish talk, an English gloss, and an English translation. Each chunk of three lines should be read as follows The ®rst line is the original Finnish talk. It is in bold face and assigned to the initial of the speaker. (See also the transcription symbols.) The second line is the English gloss. (See also Appendix 1 : Principles and abbreviations of glossing.) The third line is a translation into English. It is in italics. sj :

ma$

tiskasin

/vaudit/

ruokailun

ja$ lkeen.

I

wash up-PST-1

{vadit 5

eating-GEN

after

bowls}

I washed up /bowls/ after eating. If gaze and gestures are marked, they are in a smaller font, placed above and below, respectively, the three-line chunk of original speech, its gloss and English translation. Note Aphasic word forms are within slashes } } in the original Finnish example. They are not usually translated into English, but if possible the possible targets are marked on the glossing line in curly brackets and in slashes on the line of English translation.