A multimodal analysis of enactment in everyday interaction in people with aphasia

Figures & data

Table 1. Participant characteristics.

P	Gender	Age (years)	BDAE severity rating	Hemiparesis (right-sided)	Videos analysed (n)	Conversation partners	Total duration videos (minutes)	Enactments produced (n)
1	Male	57	1	Yes	3	Friend (n= 3)	126	14
2	Male	64	1	Yes	4	Son (3 times); daughter	38	12
3	Male	62	3	No	4	Colleague (twice), friend (n= 2)	62	12
4	Female	66	2	No	4	Husband (twice); daughter (twice)	115	15
5	Female	38	2	Yes	2	Husband, friend	100	23
6	Female	57	1	Yes	1	Sister-in-law	41	36

Table 2. PWA’s speech characteristic scores for the BDAE-3 rating scale profile of speech characteristics (Goodglass et al., 2001) that could be assessed based on the interactional data. P: participant. Note that Paraphasia in running speech is only rated if phrase length is 4 or more (Goodglass et al., 2001).

	Speech characteristic
	Articulatory agility	Phrase length	Grammatical form	Melodic line	Paraphasia in running speech	Word finding relative to fluency
Participant	(1: Unable to form speech sounds, 7: Never impaired)	(1: 1 word, 7: 7 words)	(1: No syntactic word groupings, 7: Normal range of syntax, normal facility with grammatical words)	(1: Word-by-word or aprosoidc, 7: Normal prosody)	(1: Present in every utterance, 7: Absent)	(1: Fluent but empty speech, 7: Output primarily content words)
P1	3	2	2	3	NA	6
P2	2	3	3	3	NA	6
P3	2	7	7	7	2	4
P4	2	7	4	1	6	7
P5	2	3	2	4	NA	5
P6	4	3	2	4	NA	5

Table 3. Scheme for analysis used for this study (adapted from Stec (2016) and Debras (2015)).

Category	Variable	Values
Linguistic information	Enacted character	Self Addressee Absent third party Generic/prototypical Inanimate/animal Multiple
	Person reference	Present Absent
	Reporting verb	Present Absent
Multimodal resources	Character intonation	Present NA Unclear Absent
	Gesture	Character viewpoint Other Absent
	Character facial expression	Present NA (e.g., inanimate) Unclear Absent
	Gaze	Maintained with addressee Away from addressee Late change away from the addressee Late change towards the addressee Quick shift Unclear
	Posture change	Horizontal Vertical Sagittal Unclear None
Stance-taking	Affiliation with enacted character	Affiliation Disaffiliation NA Unclear

Table 4. Enacted characters.

Enacted character	n	%
Self	43	38.4
Addressee	1	0.9
Absent third party	44	39.3
Generic/prototypical	9	8.0
Inanimate/animal	3	2.7
Unspecified	2	1.8
Multiple	10	8.9

Table 5. Person reference and reporting verbs in enactments.

Quoting predicate	n	%
None	63	56.3
Only person reference	21	18.8
Only reporting verb	5	4.5
Person reference and reporting verb	23	20.5

Table 6. Multimodal resources used to realise enactments.

Resource	Value	n	%
Character intonation	Present	87	77.7
	NA	9	8.0
	Unclear	2	1.8
	Absent	14	12.5
Gesture	Character viewpoint	42	37.5
	Other	16	14.3
	Absent	54	48.2
Character facial expression	Present	58	51.8
	NA	1	0.9
	Unclear	12	10.7
	Absent	41	36.6
Gaze	Maintained with addressee	36	32.1
	Away from addressee	28	25.0
	Late change away from addressee	6	5.4
	Late change towards addressee	21	18.8
	Quick shift	18	16.1
	Unclear	3	2.7
Posture change	Horizontal	20	17.9
	Vertical	6	5.4
	Sagittal	23	20.5
	Unclear	0	0
	None	63	56.3

Table 7. Number of multimodal articulators used in enactments produced by PWA involving different linguistic markers.

	Bare (n= 63)		Only person reference (n= 21)		Only reporting verb (n= 5)		Person reference and reporting verb (n= 23)
Number of active articulators	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Zero	0	0,00%	1	4,76%	0	0,00%	2	8,70%
One	10	15,87%	4	19,05%	0	0,00%	4	17,39%
Two	12	19,05%	3	14,29%	1	20,00%	4	17,39%
Three	21	33,33%	7	33,33%	2	40,00%	6	26,09%
Four	18	28,57%	5	23,81%	2	40,00%	7	30,43%
Five	2	3,17%	1	4,76%	0	0,00%	0	0,00%

Table 8. Relationship between linguistic markers of enactment and mean number of articulators used by PWA.

Quoting predicate	Number of articulators
	M	SD
Absent	2.84	1.11
Only person reference	2.67	1.32
Only reporting verb	3.20	0.84
Person reference and reporting verb	2.52	1.34

Table 9. Frequencies and percentages of enactments involving multimodal resources for PWA and NBD communicators (reported by Stec (2016, p. 149)).

	Enactments produced by PWA involving resource		Enactments produced by NBD participants involving resource (Stec, 2016)
Resource	n	%	n	%
Character intonation	87	77.7	389	55.3
Gesture	42	37.5	145	20.6
Character facial expression	58	51.8	336	47.7
Meaningful use of gaze	73	65.3	503	71.4
Posture change	49	43.8	596	84.7

Table 10. Mean number of articulators used to realise enactment by PWA vs. NBD participants (reported by Stec, 2016, p. 150).

Participants	Number of articulators
	M	SD
PWA	2.76	1.187
NBD (Stec, 2016)	2.80	1.205

Table 11. Relationship between intonation and stance.

Intonation	Disaffiliation (n= 40)	Affiliation (n= 58)	NA (n= 4)	Unclear (n= 10)
Absent	7.5%	19.0%	0%	0.0%
Present	77.5%	77.6%	75%	80.0%
Unclear	2,5%	1.7%	0%	0.0%
NA	12.5%	1.7%	25%	20.0%

Table 12. Relationship between gesture and stance.

Gesture	Disaffiliation (n= 40)	Affiliation (n= 58)	NA (n= 4)	Unclear (n= 10)
No gesture	42.5%	46.6%	50.0%	80.0%
CVP gesture	45.0%	34.5%	50.0%	20.0%
Other gesture	12.5%	19.0%	0%	0%

Goodglass, H., Kaplan, E., & Barresi, B. (2001). The Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE) (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Lippincott Williamson & Wilkins.

 Google Scholar

Stec, K. (2016). Visible quotation: The multimodal expression of viewpoint. Groningen: University of Groningen.

 Google Scholar

Debras, C. (2015). Stance-taking functions of multimodal constructed dialogue during spoken interaction. Paper presented at the GESPIN 4, Nantes, France.

 Google Scholar