The co-construction of pragmatic competencies in different settings
The case of two children with autism spectrum disorder
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/jircd.24423Keywords:
conversation analysis, pragmatic competence, qualitative research, conversational partner, co-construction, autism spectrum disorderAbstract
Background: A considerable body of research has concentrated on pragmatic competencies in the context of autism spectrum disorder. In contrast to experimental settings, which usually adopt deficit-oriented perspectives of autistic people’s communicative behavior, studies using a methodological approach informed by conversation analysis (CA) also highlight pragmatic abilities, and reveal the relevance of situated context and collaborative actions with co-participants in which pragmatic competencies can be observed. Building on this strand of research, this article aims to analyze and compare specific pragmatic competencies in different settings.
Method: The investigation is based on video recordings of two autistic children in family and therapy settings. The analytical process is informed by CA and multimodal interaction analysis. It focuses on sequences in which atypical pragmatic behavior occurs, and specifically on the interactional uptake of the atypical behavior by the different conversational partners.
Results: The analysis suggests a link between the respective interactional setting and the interactional uptake of atypical pragmatic behavior. This is shown in the case of both autistic children. The therapists’ uptakes are explicit and critically examine the children’s atypical pragmatic behavior, thereby focusing on form, whereas the family members’ uptakes are implicit, with a focus on conversational content. These two types of uptakes have different effects on the flow of ongoing conversation: only the therapists’ uptakes lead to an interruption followed by a side sequence.
Discussion/conclusion: Because of the effects that interlocutors’ uptakes have on the conversational flow, the autistic children appear pragmatically more or less competent. The results indicate that pragmatic competence should not simply be seen as a personal trait, but also as a mutually accomplished, co-constructed, and context-dependent phenomenon. This interaction-centered – in contrast to person-centered – view of pragmatic competence is accompanied by a shift of perspective in the assessment of pragmatic competencies and possible interventions.
References
American Psychiatric Association (APA) (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5) 5th edn. Washington D.C: American Psychiatric Association. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
Best, W., Maxim, J., Heilemann, C., Beckley, F., Johnson, F., …, and Beeke, S. (2016). Conversation therapy with people with aphasia and conversation partners using video feedback: A group and case series investigation of changes in interaction. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, article 562. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00562
Bing, J. (1983). Contrastive stress, contrastive intonation and contrastive meaning. Journal of Semantics, 2(2), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1093/semant/2.2.141
Bloch, S., and Beeke, S. (2021). A better conversations approach for people living with dysarthria. In M. Walshe and N. Miller (Eds.), Clinical cases in dysarthria (pp. 117–127). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003172536-9
Clarke, M., and Wilkinson, R. (2013). Communicative competence in children’s peer interaction. In N. Norén, C. Samuelsson, and C. Plejert (Eds.), Aided communication in everyday interaction (pp. 23–57). Guildford: J & R Press.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2004). Prosody and sequence organization in English conversation: The case of new beginnings. In E. Couper-Kuhlen and C. E. Ford (Eds.), Sound patterns in interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation (pp. 335–376). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.62.17cou
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
Fasulo, A., and Fiore, F. (2007). A valid person: Non-competence as a conversational outcome. In A. Hepburn and S. Wiggins (Eds.), Discursive research in practice (pp. 224–246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611216.012
Goodwin, C. (2003). Conversational frameworks for the accomplishment of meaning in aphasia. In C. Goodwin (Ed.), Conversation and brain damage (pp. 90–116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goodwin, C. (2004). A competent speaker who can’t speak: The social life of aphasia. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 14(2), 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2004.14.2.151
Goodwin, C. (2017). Co-operative action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016735
Heller, V., and Kern, F. (2021). The co-construction of competence: Trusting autistic children’s abilities in interactions with peers and teachers. Linguistics and Education, 65, 100975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2021.100975
Hindmarsh, J., Reynolds, P., and Dunne, S. (2011). Exhibiting understanding: The body in apprenticeship. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 489–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.008
Kenny, L., Hattersley, C., Molins, B., Buckley, C., Povey, C., and Pellicano, E. (2016). Which terms should be used to describe autism? Perspectives from the UK autism community. Autism, 20(4), 442–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361315588200
Kern, F. (2018). Mastering the body: Correcting bodily conduct in adult–child interaction. Research on Children and Social Interaction, 2(2), 213–234. https://doi.org/10.1558/rcsi.37389
Korkiakangas, T., Dindar, K., Laitila, A., and Kärnä, E. (2016). The Sally-Anne test: An interactional analysis of a dyadic assessment. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 51(6), 685–702. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12240
Kremer-Sadlik, T. (2004). How children with autism and Asperger syndrome respond to questions: A ‘naturalistic’ theory of mind task. Discourse Studies, 6(2), 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445604041767
Local, J., and Wootton, T. (1995). Interactional and phonetic aspects of immediate echolalia in autism: A case study. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 9(2), 155–184. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699209508985330
Maynard, D. W., and Marlaire, C. L. (1992). Good reasons for bad testing performance: The interactional substrate of educational exams. Qualitative Sociology, 15, 177–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00989493
Maynard, D. W., and Turowetz, J. J. (2017). Doing testing: How concrete competence can facilitate or inhibit performances of children with autism spectrum disorder. Qualitative Sociology, 40(4), 467–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-017-9368-5
Maynard, D. W., and Turowetz, J. J. (2022). Autistic intelligence: Interaction, individuality, and the challenges of diagnosis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226815992.001.0001
Mondada, L. (2014). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.004
Ochs, E., and Solomon, O. (2005). Practical logic and autism. In C. C. Casey and R. B. Edgerton (Eds.), A companion to psychological anthropology: Modernity and psychocultural change (pp. 140–167). Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Ochs, E., Kremer-Sadlik, T., Sirota, K. G., and Solomon, O. (2004). Autism and the social world: An anthropological perspective. Discourse Studies, 6(2), 147–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445604041766
Raymond, G., and Lerner, G. H. (2014). A body and its involvements. Adjusting action for dual involvements. In P. Haddington, T. Keisanen, L. Mondada, and M. Nevile (Eds.), Multiactivity in social interaction: Beyond multitasking (pp. 227–245). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.187.08ray
Rendle-Short, J. (2014). Using conversational structure as an interactional resource: Children with Asperger’s syndrome and their conversational partners. In J. Arciuli and J. P. Brock (Eds.), Communication in autism (vol. 11, pp. 217–244). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.11.10ren
Rossano, F., Brown, P., and Levinson, S. C. (2009). Gaze, questioning, and culture. In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives (pp. 187–249). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635670.008
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. https://doi.org/10.2307/412243
Schegloff, E. A., and Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., …, and Uhmann, S. (2009). Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung: Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 10, 353–402.
Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., …, and Uhmann, S. (2011). A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2 translated and adapted for English by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten. Gesprächsforschung: Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 12, 1–51.
Sidnell, J. (2013). Introduction. In J. Sidnell and T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 1–8). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch1
Solomon, O. (2004). Narrative introductions: Discourse competence of children with autistic spectrum disorders. Discourse Studies, 6(2), 253–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445604041770
Sterponi, L., de Kirby, K., and Shankey, J. (2015). Rethinking language in autism. Autism, 19(5), 517–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361314537125
Vivanti, G. (2020). Ask the editor: What is the most appropriate way to talk about individuals with a diagnosis of autism? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50(2), 691–693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-04280-x
Volden, J. (2017). Autism spectrum disorder. In L. Cummings (Ed.), Research in clinical pragmatics (vol. 11, pp. 59–83). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47489-2_3
Volkmer, A., Spector, A., Warren, J. D., and Beeke, S. (2018). The ‘Better Conversations with Primary Progressive Aphasia (BCPPA)’ program for people with PPA (primary progressive aphasia): Protocol for a randomised controlled pilot study. Pilot and Feasibility Studies, 4(1), article 158. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-018-0349-6
Wilkinson, R. (2019). Atypical interaction: Conversation analysis and communicative impairments. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(3), 281–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2019.1631045
Wilkinson, R., Rae, J. P., and Rasmussen, G. (2020). Atypical interaction: The impact of communicative impairments within everyday talk. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28799-3
