Conversation after right hemisphere brain damage: Motivations for applying conversation analysis

References

• Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. ( Eds.) (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beeke, S., Maxim, J., & Wilkinson, R. (2007a). Using conversation analysis to assess and treat people with aphasia. Seminars in Speech and Language, 28, 136–147.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Beeke, S., Wilkinson, R., & Maxim, J. (2003a). Exploring aphasic grammar 1: a single case analysis of conversation. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 17, 81–107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beeke, S., Wilkinson, R., & Maxim, J. (2003b). Exploring aphasic grammar 2: do language testing and conversation tell a similar story? Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 17, 109–134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beeke, S., Wilkinson, R., & Maxim, J. (2007b). Grammar without sentence structure: a conversation analytic investigation of agrammatism. Aphasiology, 21, 256–282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Body, R., & Parker, M. (2005). Topic repetitiveness after traumatic brain injury: an emergent, jointly managed behaviour. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 19, 379–392.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brady, M., Armstrong, L., & Mackenzie, C. (2005). Further evidence on topic use following right hemisphere brain damage: procedural and descriptive discourse. Aphasiology, 19, 731–747.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brady, M., Mackenzie, C., & Armstrong, L. (2003). Topic use following right hemisphere brain damage during three semi-structured conversational discourse samples. Aphasiology, 17, 881–904.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chantraine, Y., Joanette, Y., & Ska, B. (1998). Conversational abilities in patients with right hemisphere damage. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 11, 21–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Côté, H., Payer, M., Giroux, F., & Joanette, Y. (2007). Towards a description of clinical communication impairment profiles following right-hemisphere damage. Aphasiology, 21, 739–749.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson, A. (1994). The influence of aphasia, familiarity and activity on conversational repair. Aphasiology, 8, 143–157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frankel, T., & Penn, C. (2007). Perseveration and conversation in TBI: response to pharmacological intervention. Aphasiology, 21, 1039–1078.
   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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1990). Interstitial argument. In A. Grimshaw ( Ed.), Conflict talk (pp. 85–117). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heeschen, C., & Schegloff, E. A. (1999). Agrammatism, adaptation theory, conversation analysis: on the role of so-called ‘telegraphic style’ in talk-in-interaction. Aphasiology, 13, 365–405.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heeschen, C., & Schegloff, E. A. (2003). Aphasic agrammatism as interactional artifact and achievement. In C. Goodwin ( Ed.), Conversation and brain damage (pp. 231–282). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hird, K., & Kirsner, K. (2003). The effect of right cerebral hemisphere damage on collaborative planning in conversation: an analysis of intentional structure. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 17, 309–315.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holt, E., & Drew, P. (2005). Figurative pivots: the use of figurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 38, 35–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan, J. A., Brownwell, H. H., Jacobs, J. R., & Gardener, H. (1990). The effects of right hemisphere damage on the pragmatic interpretation of conversational remarks. Brain and Language, 38, 315–333.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy, M.R. T. (2000). Topic scenes in conversations with adults with right-hemisphere brain damage. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9, 72–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy, M.R. T., Strand, E. A., Burton, W., & Peterson, C. (1994). Analysis of first-encounter conversations of right-hemisphere-damaged adults. Clinical Aphasiology, 22, 67–80.
   Google Scholar
• Laakso, M. (2003). Collaborative construction of repair in aphasic conversation: an interactive view on the extended speaking turns of persons with Wernicke’s aphasia. In C. Goodwin ( Ed.), Conversation and brain damage (pp. 163–188). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laakso, M., & Klippi, A. (1999). A closer look at the ‘hint and guess’ sequences in aphasic conversation. Aphasiology, 13, 345–363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehman Blake, M. (2005). Right hemisphere syndrome. In L. L. LaPointe ( Ed.), Aphasia and related neurogenic language disorders. 3rd ed. (pp. 213–224) New York: Thieme.
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. H. (1996). On the ‘semi-permeable’ character of grammatical units in conversation: conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson ( Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 238–276). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lesser, R. (2003). When conversation is not normal: the role of conversation analysis in language pathology. In C. L. Prevignano, & P. J. Thibault ( Eds.), Discussing conversation analysis: The work of EmmanuelA. Schegloff (pp. 141–155). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Lindsay, J., & Wilkinson, R. (1999). Repair sequences in aphasic talk: a comparison of aphasic-speech and language therapist and aphasic-spouse conversations. Aphasiology, 13, 305–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackenzie, C., Begg, T., Lees, K. R., & Brady, M. (1999). The communication effects of right brain damage on the very old and the not so old. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 12, 79–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackenzie, C., Brady, M., Begg, T., & Lees, K. R. (2001). Communication ability following right brain damage: the family perspective. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 3, 81–95.
   Google Scholar
• Maynard, D. W. (1980). The placement of topic changes in conversation. Semiotica, 30, 263–290.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milroy, L., & Perkins, L. (1992). Repair strategies in aphasic discourse: towards a collaborative model. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 6, 27–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, P. S. (1999). Right hemisphere damage: Disorders of communication and cognition. San Diego: Singular.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, P. S. (2001). Toward a definition of RHD syndrome. Aphasiology, 15, 913–918.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oelschlaeger, M. L., & Damico, J. S. (2003). Word searches in aphasia: a study of the collaborative responses of communication partners. In C. Goodwin ( Ed.), Conversation and brain damage (pp. 211–227). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Perkins, L. (2003). Negotiating repair in aphasic conversation. In C. Goodwin ( Ed.), Conversation and brain damage (pp. 147–162). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rehak, A., Kaplan, J. A., & Gardener, H. (1992). Sensitivity to conversational deviance in right-hemisphere-damaged patients. Brain and Language, 42, 203–217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Vol. II, edited by G. Jefferson. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1989). Reflections on language, development, and the interactional nature of talk-in-interaction. In M. Bornstein, & J. S. Bruner ( Eds.), Interaction in human development (pp. 139–153). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26, 99–128.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: one intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson ( Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1999). Discourse, pragmatics, conversation, analysis. Discourse Studies, 1, 405–435.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2003a). Conversation analysis and communication disorders. In C. Goodwin ( Ed.), Conversation and brain damage (pp. 21–55). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2003b). Response. In C. L. Prevignano, & P. J. Thibault ( Eds.), Discussing conversation analysis: The work of Emmanuel A. Schegloff (pp. 157–164). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organisation of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 298–327.
   Google Scholar
• Sherratt, S. M., & Penn, C. (1990). Discourse in a right-hemisphere brain-damaged subject. Aphasiology, 4, 539–560.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stemmer, B. (1999). Discourse studies in neurologically impaired populations: a quest for action. Brain and Language, 68, 402–418.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Togher, L., & Hand, L. (1998). Use of politeness markers with different communication partners: an investigation of five subjects with traumatic brain injury. Aphasiology, 12, 755–770.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Lancker Sidtis, D., & Postman, W. A. (2006). Formulaic expressions in spontaneous speech of left- and right- hemisphere-damaged subjects. Aphasiology, 20, 411–426.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanhalle, C., Lemieux, S., Joubert, S., Goulet, P., Ska, B., & Joanette, Y. (2000). Processing of speech acts by right hemisphere brain–damaged patients: an ecological approach. Aphasiology, 14(11), 1127–1142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weed, E. (2008). Theory of mind impairment in right hemisphere damage: a review of the evidence. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 414–424.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, R. (2006). Applying conversation analysis to aphasic talk: From investigation to intervention. Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée, 11(2), 99–110.
   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). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, R., Gower, M., Beeke, S., & Maxim, J. (2007). Adapting to conversation as a language impaired speaker: changes in aphasic turn construction over time. Communication & Medicine, 4, 79–97.
   Google Scholar