Investigating the interactional significance of the use of well by a child with ASD during writing interactions

Authors

  • Jamie Maxwell Marshall University, Huntington
  • Jack Damico University of Colorado, Boulder

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/jircd.21245

Keywords:

discourse analysis, writing, socialization, autism spectrum disorders

Abstract

Background: Understanding the strategies children use to negotiate interactional breakdowns is important, as it can help clinicians to recognize, orient, and mediate the breakdowns collaboratively with the child, in order to re-establish intersubjectivity. In previous clinical and research contexts, one participant we observed evidenced many behaviors initially coded as ‘avoidance’ or ‘failure to maintain topic’ or as problematic in some way. These behaviors often contained specific linguistic devices (e.g., ‘hmmm,’ ‘bu:t,’ and ‘well’). The functions of well as a discourse marker have been documented extensively by conversation analysts in neurotypical populations (e.g., Heritage, 2015; Kovarsky, 1990; Pomerantz, 1984; Schegloff and Lerner, 2009; Schiffrin, 1987). This study employs principles of conversation analysis (CA) to investigate the function of well in the clinical contexts observed.

Method: Interactional analysis, a hybrid approach to CA, was employed to investigate one child’s use of well in writing interactions. Data were collected over the course of one semester. Three sessions were chosen for analysis, transcribed, and analyzed for instances of well. Each occurrence was analyzed and coded individually. Thematic analysis followed, in order to arrive at an overall understanding of how the participant employed well interactionally.

Results: Well in turn-initial places occurred 40 times across the three sessions. These instances could be organized into four different themes of use: issue with question posed; response may not meet listener expectations; difficulty formulating response; and loss of intersubjectivity.

Discussion/conclusion: This analysis highlights how the participant’s use of well in the interactions analyzed was meaningful. Turns prefaced by well signaled breakdowns in intersubjectivity, a need for conversational support, disagreement, issues with the previous speaker’s turn, or a warning/acknowledgement that the response might be different than the listener’s expectation. Clinical and research implications are explored.

Author Biographies

  • Jamie Maxwell, Marshall University, Huntington

    Jamie Maxwell, PhD, CCC-SLP, is an assistant professor at Marshall University. She received her MS in speech-language pathology and her PhD in applied language and speech sciences at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. Research interests include socialization, language and literacy development, fluency, and qualitative research methodologies.

  • Jack Damico, University of Colorado, Boulder

    Jack Damico, PhD, CCC-SLP, is a clinical linguist and speech-language pathologist with a master’s degree in communicative disorders and a PhD in linguistics. With over 12 years of clinical experience as a speech-language pathologist in public schools, medical settings, and private practice, his research focuses on the authentic implications for individuals with atypical language and communication skills, and on the development of clinical applications to assist in overcoming communicative problems. Working primarily in the areas of aphasia in adults and language and literacy difficulties in children from both monolingual and bilingual backgrounds, he specializes in the utilization of various qualitative research methodologies to investigate language and communication as social action. An ASHA Fellow, he is the consulting editor of the Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders. He has recently joined the University of Colorado Boulder faculty after 28 years as the Doris B. Hawthorne Eminent Scholar Chair at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette.

References

Agar, M. H. (1986). Speaking of ethnography. Newbury Park: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985895

Bolden, G. B. (2011). On the organization of repair in multiperson conversation: The case of ‘other’-selection in other-initiated repair sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 44, 237–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2011.591835

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674029019

Damico, J. S., and Nelson, R. L. (2005). Interpreting problematic behavior: Systematic compensatory adaptations as emergent phenomena in autism. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 19(5), 405–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699200400027163

Damico, J. S., Nelson, R. L., Damico, H., Abendroth, K., and Scott, J. (2008). Avoidance strategies in an exceptional child during unsuccessful reading performances. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 22(4–5), 283–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699200801918820

Damico, H. L., Damico, J. S., Nelson, R. L., Weill, C., and Maxwell, J. (2016). Infusing meaning and joy back into books: Reclaiming literacy in the treatment of young children with autism spectrum disorder. In R. J. Meyer and K. F. Whitmore (Eds.), Reclaiming early childhood literacies: Narratives of hope, power, and vision. New York: Routledge.

Delves, K., and Stirling, L. (2010). Studying misunderstanding and repair in adult-child interactions: Lessons from conversations with typically developing children and high functioning children with autism. In Y. Treis and R. De Busser (Eds.), Selected papers from the 2009 conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.

Dindar, K., Korkiakangas, T., Laitila, A., and Kärnä, E. (2016). Building mutual understanding: How children with autism spectrum disorder manage interactional trouble. Journal of Interactional Research Communication Disorders, 7(1), 49–77. https://doi.org/10.1558/jircd.v7i1.28228

Dobbinson, S., Perkins, M. R., and Boucher, J. (1998). Structural patterns in conversations with a woman who has autism. Journal of Communication Disorders, 31(2), 113–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9924(97)00085-3

Geller, E. (1998). An investigation of communication breakdowns and repairs in verbal autistic children. British Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 44(87), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1179/096979598799156092

Goodwin, C., and Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283–307. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.001435

Heritage, J. (2015). Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 88, 88–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.008

Herrera, C., Seeberger, S., Nelson, R., and Abendroth, K. (2009). Interpreting finger-flapping in the reading behaviors of an individual with Asperger syndrome. Asia Pacific Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing, 13(3), 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1179/136132809805335346

Jefferson, G. (1987). On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In G. Button and J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 86–100). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Keen, D. (2005). The use of non-verbal repair strategies by children with autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26(3), 243–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2004.07.002

Kovarksy, D. (1990). Discourse markers in adult-controlled therapy: Implications for child centered intervention. Journal of Childhood Communication Disorders, 13(1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/152574019001300105

Local, J., and Wootton, T. (1995). Interactional and phonetic aspects of immediate echolalia in autism: A case study. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 9(2), 155–184. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699209508985330

Local, J., and Wootton, T. (1996). On being echolalic: An analysis of the interactional and phonetic aspects of an autistic’s language. York Papers in Linguistics, 17, 119–165.

Maxwell, J. (2015). An investigation of how school-age children with autism spectrum disorders use writing as a socio-cultural tool in the context of a meaning based literacy environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Louisiana at Lafayette.

Muskett, P., Perkins, M., Clegg, J., and Body, R. (2010). Inflexibility as an interactional phenomenon: Using conversation analysis to re-examine a symptom of autism. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 24(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699200903281739

Perkins, M. R. (2005). Pragmatic ability and disability as emergent phenomena. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 19(5), 367–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699200400027155

Perkins, M. R. (2014). Linguistic recycling in typical and atypical interaction. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 28(7–8), 590–601. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2014.926995

Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. New York: Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/piag91272

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 (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.008

Rydell, P. J. (2012). Learning style profile for children with autism spectrum disorders. Kindle DX version. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/Learning-Children-Spectrum-Disorders-ebook

Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (vol. I). Oxford: Blackwell.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Linguistic Society of America, 50(4), 696–735. https://doi.org/10.2307/412243

Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075–1095. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030

Schegloff, E. A. (1987) Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(special issue: Language and social interaction), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786745

Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1295–1345. https://doi.org/10.1086/229903

Schegloff, E. A., and Lerner, G. H. (2009). Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh-questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(2), 91–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810902864511

Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., and Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. https://doi.org/10.2307/413107

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. London: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841

Simmons-Mackie, N., Damico, J. S., and Damico, H. L. (1999). A qualitative study of feedback in aphasia treatment. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 8, 218–230. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360.0803.218

Sterponi, L., and Shankey, J. (2014). Rethinking echolalia: Repetition as an interactional resource in the communication of a child with autism. Journal of Child Language, 41(2), 275–304. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000912000682

Volden, J. (2004). Conversational repair in speakers with autism spectrum disorder. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 39(2), 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/13682820410001663252

Volden, J., Magill-Evans, J., Goulden, K., and Clarke, M. (2007). Varying language register according to listener in speakers with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism Developmental Disorders, 37, 1139–1154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-006-0256-1

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Published

2022-05-29

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Maxwell, J., & Damico, J. (2022). Investigating the interactional significance of the use of well by a child with ASD during writing interactions. Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders, 13(1), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1558/jircd.21245