Singing behaviour in a client with traumatic brain injury: a conversation analysis investigation

References

• Aaltonen, T., & Laakso, M. (2010). Halting aphasic interaction: Creation of intersubjectivity and spousal relationship in situ. Communication and Medicine, 7, 95–106. doi: 10.1558/cam.v7i2.115
   Google Scholar
• Arundale, R. B. (2010). Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2078–2105. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (1999). Transcript notation-structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Aphasiology, 13, 243–249. doi: 10.1080/026870399402073
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckman, H. B., & Frankel, R. M. (1984). The effect of physician behaviour on the collection of data. Annals of Internal Medicine, 101, 692–696. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-101-5-692
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beeke, S., Maxim, J., & Wilkinson, R. (2007). Using conversation analysis to assess and treat people with aphasia. Seminars in Speech and Language, 28, 136–147. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-970571
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Beeke, S., Sirnam, M., Beckley, F., Maxim, J., Edwards, S., Best, W., & Swinburn, K. (2018). Better conversations with aphasia: A learning resource. Retrieved from http://www.ucl.ac.uk/betterconversations/aphasia
   Google Scholar
• Beeke, S., Wilkinson, R., & Maxim, J. (2007). Individual variation in agrammatism: A single case study of the influence of interaction. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 42, 629–647. doi: 10.1080/13682820601160087
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bilmes, J. (1985). Why that now?” Two kinds of conversational meaning. Discourse Processes, 8, 319–355. doi: 10.1080/01638538509544620
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Body, R., & Parker, M. (2005). Topic repetitiveness after traumatic brain injury: An emergent, jointly managed behaviour. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 19, 379–392. doi: 10.1080/02699200400027189
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogart, E., Togher, L., Power, E., & Docking, K. (2012). Casual conversations between individuals with traumatic brain injury and their friends. Brain Injury, 26, 221–233. doi: 10.3109/02699052.2011.648711
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. Human Studies, 8, 3–55. doi: 10.1007/BF00143022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Church, A. (2004). Preference revisited. RASK: International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 21, 111–129.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H., & Tree, J. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84, 73–111. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Croteau, C., & Le Dorze, G. (2006). Overprotection, “speaking for”, and conversational participation: A study of couples with aphasia. Aphasiology, 20, 327–336. doi: 10.1080/02687030500475051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Croteau, C., Vychytil, A., Larfeuil, C., & Le Dorze, G. (2004). “Speaking for” behaviours in spouses of people with aphasia: A descriptive study of six couples in an interview situation. Aphasiology, 18, 291–312. doi: 10.1080/02687030344000616
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damico, J., Tetnowski, J., Lynch, K., Hartwell, J., Weill, C., Heels, J., & Simmons-Mackie, N. (2015). Facilitating authentic conversation: An intervention employing principles of constructivism and conversation analysis. Aphasiology, 29, 400–421. doi: 10.1080/02687038.2014.945388
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denman, A., & Wilkinson, R. (2011). Applying conversation analysis to traumatic brain injury: Investigating touching another person in everyday social interaction. Disability and Rehabilitation, 33, 243–252. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2010.511686
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denzin, N. K. (1999). Cybertalk and the method of instances. In S. Jones (Ed.), Doing internet research: Critical issues and methods for examining the net (pp. 107–125). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Drew, P. (1997). ‘Open’class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 69–101. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(97)89759-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drew, P., & Holt, E. (1998). Figures of speech: Figurative expressions and the management of topic transition in conversation. Language in Society, 27, 495–522. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500020200
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enfield, N. J. (2013). Relationship thinking: Agency, enchrony, and human sociality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Enfield, N. J., & Sidnell, J. (2017). The concept of action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frankel, T., & Penn, C. (2007). Perseveration and conversation in TBI: Response to pharmacological intervention. Aphasiology, 21, 1039–1078. doi: 10.1080/02687030701198395
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freese, J., & Maynard, D. W. (1998). Prosodic features of bad news and good news in conversation. Language in Society, 27, 195–219. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500019850
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frick, M. (2013). Singing and codeswitching in sequence closings. Pragmatics, 23, 243–273. doi: 10.1075/prag.23.2.03fri
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedland, D., & Miller, N. (1998). Conversation analysis of communication breakdown after closed head injury. Brain Injury, 12, 1–14. doi: 10.1080/026990598122818
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galski, T., Tompkins, C., & Johnston, M. V. (1998). Competence in discourse as a measure of social integration and quality of life in persons with traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 12, 769–782. doi: 10.1080/026990598122160
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic books.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 18, 213–231.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon and Schuster.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face interaction. Oxford: Aldine.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (1987). Forgetfulness as an interactive resource. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 115–131. doi: 10.2307/2786746
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (1995). Co-constructing meaning in conversations with an aphasic man. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28, 233–260. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2803_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2002). Time in action. Current Anthropology, 43, 19–35. doi: 10.1086/339566
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2003a). Conversational frameworks for the accomplishment of meaning in aphasia. In C. Goodwin (Ed.), Conversation and brain damage (pp. 90–116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2003b). Pointing as situated practice. In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture and cognition meet (pp. 217–241). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2004). A competent speaker who can’t speak: The social life of aphasia. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 14, 151–170. doi: 10.1525/jlin.2004.14.2.151
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2006). Human sociality as mutual orientation in a rich interactive environment: Multimodal utterances and pointing in aphasia. In N. Enfield & S. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction (pp. 97–126). Oxford: Berg.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse & Society, 18, 53–73. doi: 10.1177/0957926507069457
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2010). Constructing meaning through prosody in aphasia. In D. Barth-Weingarten, E. Reber, & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in interaction (pp. 373–394). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283–307. doi: 10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.00143
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanson, E. K., Beukelman, D. R., & Yorkston, K. M. (2013). Communication support through multimodal supplementation: A scoping review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 29, 310–321. doi: 10.3109/07434618.2013.848934
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayano, K. (2013). Question design in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 395–414). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Heeschen, C., & Schegloff, E. (1999). Agrammatism, adaptation theory, conversation analysis: On the role of so-called telegraphic style in talk-in-interaction. Aphasiology, 13, 365–405. doi: 10.1080/026870399402145
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heeschen, C., & Schegloff, E. (2003). Aphasic agrammatism as an interactional artifact and achievement. In C. Goodwin (Ed.), Conversation and brain damage (pp. 231–283). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hellermann, J. (2009). Practices for dispreferred responses using no by a learner of English. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47, 95–126. doi: 10.1515/iral.2009.005
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1988). Explanations as accounts: A conversation analytic perspective. In J. Heritage & C. Antaki (Eds.), Analyzing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1989). Current developments in conversation analysis. In D. Roger & P. Bull (Eds.), Conversation: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 21–47). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2005). Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In K. Finch & R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 103–147). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2008). Conversation analysis as social theory. In B. Turner (Ed.), The new Blackwell companion to social theory (pp. 300–320). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1973). A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: Overlapped tag-positioned address terms in closing sequences. Semiotica, 9, 47–96. doi: 10.1212/semi.1973.9.1.47
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1979). A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance/declination. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 79–96). New York: Irvington Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Klippi, A. (2015). Pointing as an embodied practice in aphasic interaction. Aphasiology, 29, 337–354. doi: 10.1080/02687038.2013.878451
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kovarsky, D., Curran, M., & Nichols, N. (2009). Laughter and communicative engagement in interaction. Seminars in Speech and Language, 30, 27–36. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1104532
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kovarsky, D., Kimbarow, M., & Kastner, D. (1999). The construction of incompetence during group therapy with traumatically brain injured adults. In D. Kovarsky, J. Duchan, & M. Maxwell (Eds.), Constructing (in) competence: Disabling evaluations in clinical and social interaction (pp. 291–312). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Kovarsky, D., Schiemer, C., & Murray, A. (2011). Humor, rapport, and uncomfortable moments in interactions with adults with traumatic brain injury. Topics in Language Disorders, 31, 325–335. doi: 10.1097/TLD.0b013e3182358e98
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kovarsky, D., Shaw, A., & Adingono-Smith, M. (2007). The construction of identity during group therapy among adults with traumatic brain injury. Communication and Medicine, 4, 53–66. doi: 10.1515/CAM.2007.029
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lerner, G. H. (1996). Finding” face” in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 303–321. doi:10.2307/2787073
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. H. (2002). Turn-sharing: The choral co-production of talk-in-interaction. In C.E. Ford, B.A. Fox, & S.A. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 225-256). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lock, S., Wilkinson, R., Bryan, K., Maxim, J., Edmundson, A., Bruce, C., & Moir, D. (2001). Supporting partners of people with aphasia in relationships and conversation (SPPARC). International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 36, 25–30. doi: 10.3109/13682820109177853
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maynard, D. W. (1997). The news delivery sequence: Bad news and good news in conversational interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30, 93–130. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3002_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merrison, A. J. (2011). Doing aphasia-are you with me?’: Analysing facework around issues of (non-) competence. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group (Eds.), Discursive approaches to politeness, 8 (pp. 221–245). Boston: DeGruyter Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Mikesell, L. (2009). Conversational practices of a frontotemporal dementia patient and his interlocutors. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42, 135–162. doi: 10.1080/08351810902864552
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mikesell, L. (2010a). Examining perseverative behaviors of a frontotemporal dementia patient and caregiver responses: The benefits of observing ordinary interactions and reflections on caregiver stress. In A. W. Mates, L. Mikesell, & M.S. Smith (Eds.), Language, Interaction and Frontotemporal Dementia: Reverse Engineering the Social Mind (pp. 85-113). Connecticut: Equinox.
   Google Scholar
• Mikesell, L. (2010b). Repetitional responses in frontotemporal dementia discourse: Asserting agency or demonstrating confusion? Discourse Studies, 12, 465–500. doi: 10.1177/1461445610370127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(3), 261–290.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oelschlaeger, M., & Damico, J. S. (1998b). Spontaneous verbal repetition: A social strategy in aphasic conversation. Aphasiology, 12, 971–988. doi: 10.1080/02687039808249464
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oelschlaeger, M. L., & Damico, J. S. (1998a). Joint productions as a conversational strategy in aphasia. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 12, 459–480. doi: 10.3109/02699209808985238
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shaped. In J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structure of social action (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A., & Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 210–228). New York: Blackwell Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Purves, B. A. (2009). The complexities of speaking for another. Aphasiology, 23, 914–925. doi: 10.1080/02687030802514946
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, G. (2013). That’s my story! resisting disabling processes in a therapeutic activity. Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders, 4, 273. doi: 10.1558/jircd.v4i2.273
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68, 939–967.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross-Swain, D. (1996). RIPA-2: Ross information processing assessment. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
   Google Scholar
• Roter, D., & Hall, J. (1992). Doctors talking to patients/patients talking to doctors: Improving communication in medical visits. Westport, CT: Auburn House.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70, 1075–1095. doi: 10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 71–93). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 101–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of “coherence” in talk-in-interaction. In B. Dorval (Ed.), Conversational organization and its development, 38 (pp. 51–77). Norwood: Ablex Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1999). Discourse, pragmatics, conversation, analysis. Discourse Studies, 1, 405–435. doi: 10.1177/1461445699001004002
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2006). Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language, and the arena in which culture is enacted. In N. Enfield & S. Levinson (Eds.), The roots of human sociality (pp. 70–96). Oxford: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: Volume 1: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., & Lerner, G. H. (2009). Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh-questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42, 91–115. doi: 10.1080/08351810902864511
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327. doi: 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
   Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J. (2011). Conversation analysis: An introduction. London: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Simmons-Mackie, N., & Damico, J. S. (2013). Social role negotiation in aphasia therapy: Competence, incompetence, and conflict. In D. Kovarsky, J. Duchan, & M. Maxwell (Eds.), Constructing (in) competence: Disabling evaluations in clinical and social interaction (pp. 313–342). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Simmons‐Mackie, N., & Damico, J. S. (2008). Exposed and embedded corrections in aphasia therapy: Issues of voice and identity. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 43, 5–17. doi: 10.1080/13682820701697889
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simmons-Mackie, N., Damico, J. S., & Damico, H. L. (1999). A qualitative study of feedback in aphasia treatment. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 8, 218–230. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360.0803.218
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simmons-Mackie, N., Raymer, A., Armstrong, E., Holland, A., & Cherney, L. R. (2010). Communication partner training in aphasia: A systematic review. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 91, 1814–1837. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.08.026
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simmons-Mackie, N. N., & Damico, J. S. (1997). Reformulating the definition of compensatory strategies in aphasia. Aphasiology, 11, 761–781. doi: 10.1080/02687039708250455
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevanovic, M., & Frick, M. (2014). Singing in interaction. Social Semiotics, 24, 495–513. doi: 10.1080/10350330.2014.929394
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2005). Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 38, 131–158. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41, 31–57. doi: 10.1080/08351810701691123
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner, S., & Whitworth, A. (2006). Conversational partner training programmes in aphasia: A review of key themes and participants’ roles. Aphasiology, 20, 483–510. doi: 10.1080/02687030600589991
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, R. (2007). Managing linguistic incompetence as a delicate issue in aphasic talk-in-interaction: On the use of laughter in prolonged repair sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 542–569. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, R. (2010). Interaction-focused intervention: A conversation analytic approach to aphasia therapy. Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders, 1, 45–68. doi: 10.1558/jircd.v1i1.45
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, R. (2015). Conversation and aphasia: Advances in analysis and intervention. Aphasiology, 29, 257–268. doi: 10.1080/02687038.2014.974138
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, R., Beeke, S., & Maxim, J. (2003). Adapting to conversation: On the use of linguistic resources by speakers with fluent aphasia in the construction of turns at talk. In C. Goodwin (Ed.), Conversation and brain damage (pp. 59–89). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, R., Bryan, K., Lock, S., & Sage, K. (2010). Implementing and evaluating aphasia therapy targeted at couples’ conversations: A single case study. Aphasiology, 24, 869–886. doi: 10.1080/02687030903501958
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yorkston, K. M., & Beukelman, D. R. (1984). Assessment of intelligibility of dysarthric speech. Austin: Pro-ed.
   Google Scholar