‘Planning’ talk and traumatic brain injury
An exploratory application of conversation analysis
Keywords:conversation analysis, task-based interaction, traumatic brain injury
Task-based activities of daily living are often a target of assessment and intervention for people with acquired communication disorders, but their interactional organization has not undergone detailed investigation. This study explores a task-based interaction focused on ‘planning’ involving a man with TBI and his friend. It analyses a half hour recording in which they planned errands that would need to be completed before the man with TBI departed for an overseas holiday. Conversation analytic single episode analysis is used. Discussion focuses on the phases and actions that were used during planning talk. Some speculation about the utility of these practices for planning with a person with TBI is also put forward. Finally, it is suggested that, pending further investigation, a clinical focus on the actions described in the present study might prove useful for structuring and facilitating the participation of people with TBI in routine task-based activities.
Asmuß, B. and Oshima, S. (2012). Negotiation of entitlement in proposal sequences. Discourse Studies 14 (1): 67–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445611427215
Barnes, S. E. (in press). Proper noun anomia in conversation: A description of how a man with chronic anomia constructed referencing turns. Aphasiology.
Barnes, S. E. and Ferguson, A. (2012). Speakership asymmetry during topic talk involving a person with aphasia. Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders, 3 (1): 179–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/jircd.v3i1.27
Beeke, S., Maxim, J. and Wilkinson, R. (2007). Using conversation analysis to assess and treat people with aphasia. Seminars in Speech and Language 28 (2): 136–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-970571
Body, R. and Parker, M. (2005). Topic repetitiveness after traumatic brain injury: An emergent, jointly managed behaviour. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 19 (5): 379–392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699200400027189
Bolden, G. B. (2008). ‘So what's up?’: Using the discourse marker so to launch conversational business. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41 (3), 302–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08351810802237909
Bottari, C., Gosselin, N., Guillemette, M., Lamoureux, J. and Ptito, A. (2011). Independence in managing one’s finances after traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury 25 (13–14): 1306–1317. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/02699052.2011.624570
Craven, A. and Potter, J. (2010). Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies 12 (4): 419–442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445610370126
Davidson, B., Worrall, L. and Hickson, L. (2003). Identifying the communication activities of older people with aphasia: Evidence from naturalistic observation. Aphasiology 17 (3): 243–264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/729255457
Denman, A. and Wilkinson, R. (2011). Applying conversation analysis to traumatic brain injury: Investigating touching another person in everyday social interaction. Disability and Rehabilitation 33 (3): 243–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2010.511686
Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A. and Thompson, S. A. (2002). Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox and S. A. Thompson (eds) The Language of Turn and Sequence, 14–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fox, B. A. and Thompson, S. A. (2010). Responses to wh-questions in English conversation. Research on Language & Social Interaction 43 (2): 133–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08351811003751680
Gardner, R. (2001). When Listeners Talk: Response Tokens and Listener Stance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Goodwin, C. (2003) (ed). Conversation and Brain Damage. New York: Oxford University Press.
Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. H. (1992). Assessments and the construction of context. In A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds) Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, 147–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction 45 (1): 1–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
Heritage, J. and Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68 (1): 15–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103
Heritage, J. and Sorjonen, M. (1994). Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: And-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society 23 (1), 1–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500017656
Holland, A. L. (1982). Observing functional communication of aphasic adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 47 (1): 50–56.
Kaplan, E., Goodglass, H. and Weintraub, S. (1983). The Boston Naming Test (2nd edn). Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.
Kertesz, A. (2006). The Western Aphasia Battery – Revised. San Antonio, TX: PsychCorp. Lock, S., Wilkinson, R. and Bryan, K. (2001). Supporting Partners of People with Aphasia in Relationships and Conversation (SPPARC): A Resource Pack. Bicester: Speechmark.
Parr, S. (2007). Living with severe aphasia: Tracking social exclusion. Aphasiology 21 (1): 98–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02687030600798337
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, 57–102. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New York: Longman.
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68 (6): 939–967. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1519752
Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly 50 (2): 101–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2786745
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. The American Journal of Sociology 102 (1): 161–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/230911
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208
Schegloff, E. A. and Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica 8 (4): 289–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/semi.1922.214.171.1249
Snow, P., Douglas, J. and Ponsford, J. (1997). Procedural discourse following traumatic brain injury. Aphasiology 11 (10): 947–967. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02687039708249421
Speer, S. (2002). ‘Natural’ and ‘contrived’ data: A sustainable distinction?. Discourse Studies 4 (4): 511–525.
Stivers, T. (2005). Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language & Social Interaction 38 (2): 131–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1
Stivers, T. and Hayashi, M. (2010). Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society 39: 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404509990637
Stivers, T. and Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society 35: 367–392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060179
Togher, L., Hand, L. and Code, C. (1997). Analysing discourse in the traumatic brain injury population: Telephone interactions with different communication partners. Brain Injury 11 (3): 169–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/026990597123629
Waring, H. Z. (2007). The multi-functionality of accounts in advice giving. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11 (3): 367–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2007.00328.x
Ylvisaker, M., Jacobs, H. E. and Feeney, T. (2003). Positive supports for people who experience behavioural and cognitive disability after brain injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 18 (1): 7–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001199-200301000-00005
How to Cite
© Equinox Publishing Ltd.
For information regarding our Open Access policy, click here.