Mobilizing device-mediated contributions in interaction involving beginner users of eye-gaze-accessed speech-generating devices
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/rcsi.19764Keywords:
social interaction, multimodality, participation, intellectual disability, speech generating deviceAbstract
Interaction mediated by speech-generating devices (SGDs) may promote participation and independence for non-speaking children, but developing skills to use the SGD is time consuming and demanding. The present conversation analysis study aimed to identify features of interactional projects that mobilized SGD-mediated responses by two children with intellectual disability who were beginner-level users. The children and their professional communication partners were video recorded when interacting in an institutional setting. The analysis shows that SGD-mediated responses were mobilized by multimodal and sequentially organized actions combining different types of spoken initiatives, SGD modelling, and embodied resources that facilitated SGD use and hence participation. These results indicate a need for communication partners to use a wide range of practices to facilitate SGD-mediated interaction.
References
Antaki, C. & Kent, A. (2012). Telling people what to do (and, sometimes, why): Contingency, entitlement and explanation in staff requests to adults with intellectual impairments. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(6–7), 876–889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.014
Bailey, R., Parette, H., Stoner, J., Angell, M. & Carroll, K. (2006). Family members’ perceptions of augmentativer and alternative communication device use. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 37(1), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461
Binger, C. & Light, J. (2007). The effect of aided AAC modeling on the expression of multi-symbol messages by preschoolers who use AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610600807470
Binger, C., Maguire-Marshall, M. & Kent-Walsh, J. (2011). Using aided AAC models, recasts, and contrastive targets to teach grammatical morphemes to children who use AAC. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54(1), 160–176. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388
Borgestig, M., Rytterström, P. & Hemmingsson, H. (2017). Gaze-based assistive technology used in daily life by children with severe physical impairments - parents’ experiences. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 20(5), 301–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/17518423.2016.1211769
Borgestig, M., Sandqvist, J., Parsons, R., Falkmer, T. & Hemmingsson, H. (2016). Eye gaze performance for children with severe physical impairments using gaze-based assistive technology: A longitudinal study. Assistive Technology, 28(2), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2015.1092182
Caron, J. & Light, J. (2016). ‘Social media has opened a world of “open communication”’: Experiences of adults with cerebral palsy who use augmentative and alternative communication and social media. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 32(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2015.1052887
Clarke, M. & Wilkinson, R. (2007). Interaction between children with cerebral palsy and their peers 1: Organizing and understanding VOCA use Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(4), 336–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610701390350
Clarke, M. T., Soto, G. & Nelson, K. (2017). Language learning, recasts, and interaction involving AAC: background and potential for intervention. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 33(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2016.1278130
Clayman, S. E. & Heritage, J. (2002). Questioning presidents: Journalistic deference and adversarialness in the press conferences of US presidents Eisenhower and Reagan. Journal of Communication, 52(4), 749–775. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02572.x
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (2018). Prosody and phonetics. In Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Craven, A. & Potter, J. (2010). Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12(4): 419–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610370126
Engelke, C. R. & Higginbotham, D. J. (2013). Looking to speak: On the temporality of misalignment in interaction involving an augmented communicator using eye-gaze technology. Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders, 4(1), 95–122. https://doi.org/10.1558/jircd.v4i1.95
Freese, J. & Maynard, D. W. (1998). Prosodic features of bad news and good news in conversation. Language in Society, 27(2), 195–219. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500019850
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489–1522. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X
Higginbotham, D. J. & Wilkins, D. P. (1999). Slipping through the timestream. In D. Kovarsky, J. Duchan & M. Maxwell (eds), Constructing (In)competence: Disabling Evaluations in Clinical and Social Interaction (pp.49–82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hoff, E. & Shatz, M. (2009). Blackwell Handbook of Language Development. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hörmeyer, I. & Renner, G. (2013). Confirming and denying in co-construction processes: A case study of an adult with cerebral palsy and two familiar partners. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 29(3), 259–271. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2013.813968
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G.H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp. 13–31). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing.
Lanfranchi, S. & Carretti, B. (2016). Improving Working Memory in Learning and Intellectual Disabilities. S.l.: Frontiers Media SA.
Light, J. and D. McNaughton (2014). Communicative competence for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication: a new definition for a new era of communication? Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30(1): 1–18.
Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Linell, P., Hofvendahl, J. & Lindholm, C. (2003). Multi-unit questions in institutional interactions: Sequential organizations and communicative functions. An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 23(4), 539–571. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.021
Mondada, L. (2014). Conventions for multimodal transcription. Retrieved 20 March 2018 from https://franzoesistik.philhist.unibas.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/franzoesistik/mondada_multimodal_conventions.pdf
Pinto, M. & Gardner, H. (2014). Communicative interaction between a non-speaking child with cerebral palsy and her mother using an iPadTM. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 30(2), 207–220.
Pomeranz, A. (1985). Pursuing a response. In J. Heritage & M. Atkinson (eds), Structures of Social Action (pp. 152–164). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rackensperger, T., Krezman, C., McNaughton, D., Williams, M. & D’Silva, K. (2005). ‘When I first got it, I wanted to throw it off a cliff ’: The challenges and benefits of learning AAC technologies as described by adults who use AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21(3), 165–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610500140360
Savolainen, I., Klippi, A., Tykkyläinen, T., Higginbotham, J. & Launonen, K. (2020). The structure of participants’ turn-transition practices in aided conversations that use speech output technologies. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2019.1698652
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sicoli, M. A. (2010). Shifting voices with participant roles: Voice qualities and speech registers in Mesoamerica. Language in Society, 39(4), 521–553. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404510000436
Sigurd Pilesjö, M. & Rasmussen, G. (2011). Exploring interaction between a non-speaking boy using aided AAC and his everyday communication partners: features of turn organizing and turn design. Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.1558/jircd.v2i2.183
Sigurd Pilesjö, M. & Norén, N. (2017). Teaching communication aid use in everyday conversation. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 33(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659017702204
Solem, M. S. & Skovholt, K. (2019). Teacher formulations in classroom interactions. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 63(1), 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2017.1324904
Soto, G. & Clarke, M. T. (2017). Effects of a conversation-based intervention on the linguistic skills of children with motor speech disorders who use augmentative and alternative communication. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 60(7), 1980–1998. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_JSLHR-L-15-0246
Stevanovic, M. & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
Stivers, T. & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing Response. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258
Tegler, H., Demmelmaier, I., Blom Johansson, M. & Norén, N. (2020). Creating a response space in multiparty classroom settings for students using eye-gaze accessed speech-generating devices. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2020.1811758
Theobald, M. (2019). Scaffolding storytelling and participation with a bilingual child in a culturally and linguistically diverse preschool in Australia. Research on Children and Social Interaction, 3(1–2), 224–247. https://doi.org/10.1558/rcsi.37294
Von Tetzchner, S. & Basil, C. (2011). Terminology and notation in written representations of conversations with augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 27(3), 141–149. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2011.610356
Zinken, J. & Ogiermann, E. (2011). How to propose an action as objectively necessary: The case of Polish trzeba x (‘One needs to x’). Research on Language and Social Interaction, 44(3), 263–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2011.591900
