‘Where are you going?’
Managing wandering in a residential home in Taiwan
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/jircd.24436Keywords:
wandering, non-pharmacological intervention, assisted mobility, dementia, residential home, multimodal conversation analysisAbstract
Background: This study examines caregivers’ use of ‘where are you going?’ in Mandarin and Taiwanese to address residents’ wandering-related actions in routine caregiving interactions.
Method: Using multimodal conversation analysis, video recordings of interactions between Taiwanese residents and caregivers from Taiwan and Vietnam are analyzed.
Results: ‘Where are you going?’ accomplishes the following institutional actions: this turn signals residents’ actions as problematic; simultaneously, it aims to halt residents’ actions, draw residents’ attention, and/or hold residents accountable for their actions. Residents respond in one of four ways, suggesting their distinct understandings of the same turn: [+/– halt] and [+/– account]. The caregivers’ subsequent actions indicate their institutional orientation as caregivers. In particular, helping the residents to walk or move their bodies relies on resident–caregiver collaboration.
Discussion/conclusion: This study demonstrates wandering and its management from an emic (participant-oriented) perspective and presents ‘where are you going?’ as a practical non-pharmacological intervention.
References
Adekoya, A. A., and Guse, L. (2019). Wandering behavior from the perspectives of older adults with mild to moderate dementia in long-term care. Research in Gerontological Nursing, 12(5), 239–247. https://doi.org/10.3928/19404921-20190522-01
Agrawal, A. K., Gowda, M., Achary, U., Gowda, G. S., and Harbishettar, V. (2021). Approach to management of wandering in dementia: Ethical and legal issue. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 43(5), S53–S59. https://doi.org/10.1177/02537176211030979
Backhouse, T., Camino, J., and Mioshi, E. (2018). What do we know about behavioral crises in dementia? A systematic review. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 62(1), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-170679
Bloch, S., and Wilkinson, R. (2004). The understandability of AAC: A conversation analysis study of acquired dysarthria. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20(4), 272–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610400005614
Burch, A. R. (2016). Motivation in interaction: A conversation-analytic perspective (publication no. 10300241). Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at M?noa. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Cekaite, A. (2016). Touch as social control: Haptic organization of attention in adult–child interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 92, 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.11.003
Cipriani, G., Lucetti, C., Nuti, A., and Danti, S. (2014). Wandering and dementia. Psychogeriatrics, 14(2), 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyg.12044
Deppermann, A., and Streeck, J. (2018). The body in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.293.intro
Futrell, M., Melillo, K. D., and Remington, R. (2014). Evidence-based practice guideline: Wandering. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 40(11), 16–24. https://doi.org/10.3928/00989134-20140911-01
Goodwin, C. (2007). Environmentally coupled gestures. In S. D. Duncan, J. Cassell, and E. T. Levy (Eds.), Gesture and the dynamic dimensions of language (pp. 195–212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/gs.1.18goo
Goodwin, C. (2018). Co-operative action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016735
Goodwin, M. H. (2006). Participation, affect, and trajectory in family directive/response sequences. Text & Talk: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies, 26(4–5), 515–543. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.021
Haddington, P., Mondada, L., and Nevile, M. (2013). Being mobile: Interaction on the move. In P. Haddington, L. Mondada, and M. Nevile (Eds.), Interaction and mobility: Language and the body in motion (pp. 3–61). Berlin and Boston: Walter De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110291278.3
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.), Structure of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.020
Hippi, K. (2021). Leading the way: Supporting functionality and autonomous action in providing mobility assistance in a Finnish care home. Gesprächsforschung, 22, 514–543.
Jansson, G., Plejert, C., and Lindholm, C. (2019). The social organization of assistance in multilingual interaction in Swedish residential care. Discourse Studies, 21(1), 67–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445618814040
Keisanen, T. (2012). ‘Uh-oh, we were going there’: Environmentally occasioned noticings of trouble in in-car interaction. Semiotica, 2012(191), 197–222. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2012-0061
Koole, T., and Elbers, E. (2014). Responsiveness in teacher explanations: A conversation analytical perspective on scaffolding. Linguistics and Education, 26, 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.02.001
Lin, P. T. (2015). Taiwanese grammar: A concise reference. Greenhorn Media.
Lindström, A. (2005). Language as social action: A study of how senior citizens request assistance. In A. Hakulinen and M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction (pp. 209–233). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404505210308
Lindström, A., and Heinemann, T. (2009). Good enough: Low-grade assessments in caregiving situations. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 42(4), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903296465
Linell, P. (2016). On agency in situated languaging: Participatory agency and competing approaches. New Ideas in Psychology, 42, 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2015.07.009
Majlesi, A. R., Ekström, A., and Hydén, L.-C. (2021). Sitting down on a chair: Directives and embodied organization of joint activities involving persons with dementia. Gesprächsforschung, 22, 569–590.
Marstrand, A. K., and Svennevig, J. (2018). A preference for non-invasive touch in caregiving contexts. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v1i2.110019
Mondada, L. (2014a). Bodies in action: Multimodal analysis of walking and talking. Language and Dialogue, 4(3), 357–403. https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.4.3.02mon
Mondada, L. (2014b). The temporal orders of multiactivity: Operating and demonstrating in the surgical theatre. In P. Haddington, T. Keisanen, L. Mondada, and M. Nevile (Eds.), Multiactivity in social interaction: Beyond multitasking (pp. 33–78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.187.02mon
Mondada, L. (2017). Walking and talking together: Questions/answers and mobile participation in guided visits. Social Science Information, 56(2), 220–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018417694777
Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878
Mondada, L. (2019). Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.016
Moore, D. H., Algase, D. L., Powell-Cope, G., Applegarth, S., and Beattie, E. R. (2009). A framework for managing wandering and preventing elopement. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease & Other Dementias®, 24(3), 208–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1533317509332625
Padilla, D. V., González, M. T. D., Agis, I. F., Strizzi, J., and Rodríguez, R. A. (2013). The effectiveness of control strategies for dementia-driven wandering, preventing escape attempts: A case report. International Psychogeriatrics, 25(3), 500–504. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610212001810
Pike, K. L. (1967). Etic and emic standpoints for the description of behavior. In K. L. Pike (Ed.), Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior (pp. 37–72). The Hague: Mouton & Co. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111657158.37
Stevanovic, M. (2011). Participants’ deontic rights and action formation: The case of declarative requests for action. Interaction and Linguistic Structures (InLiSt), 52.
Streeck, J. R., Goodwin, C., and LeBaron, C. D. (2011). Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Woods, D. L., Craven, R. F., and Whitney, J. (2005). The effect of therapeutic touch on behavioral symptoms of persons with dementia. Alternative Therapies in Health & Medicine, 11(1). 66–74.
Yueh, H.-I. S. (2017). Identity politics and popular culture in Taiwan: A sajiao generation. London: Lexington Books.
