The co-construction of pragmatic competencies in different settings

The case of two children with autism spectrum disorder

Authors

  • Lisa Vössing Bielefeld University
  • Friederike Kern Bielefeld University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/jircd.24423

Keywords:

conversation analysis, pragmatic competence, qualitative research, conversational partner, co-construction, autism spectrum disorder

Abstract

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.

Author Biographies

  • Lisa Vössing, Bielefeld University

    Lisa Vössing is a speech and language therapist and a research associate at Bielefeld University, Germany. Her research interest concerns communicative competence across various communicative disorders, especially autism spectrum disorder. Lisa’s PhD project focuses on the assessment of communicative competence of autistic children by using, among others, a CA-informed approach.

  • Friederike Kern, Bielefeld University

    Friederike Kern is a professor of German linguistics and their didactics at Bielefeld University, Germany. Her research interests include multimodal aspects of discourse acquisition and language socialization in everyday and classroom interactions, and the interactive organization of learning and teaching. Recent publications include the co-editing of a book on Prosody and multimodality (2021) and a special issue on children’s inclusion and exclusion (in Research on Children and Social Interaction, vol. 6, no. 1). Friederike’s current research focuses on interaction with autistic children in pedagogical settings (Heller and Kern, 2021).

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

Published

2023-05-26

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Vössing, L., & Kern, F. (2023). The co-construction of pragmatic competencies in different settings: The case of two children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders, 14(2), 195-219. https://doi.org/10.1558/jircd.24423