Adaptation to aphasia: grammar, prosody and interaction

References

• Antaki, C., Houtkoop-Steenstra, H., & Rapley, M. (2000). ‘“Brilliant. Next question …”: High-grade assessment sequences in the completion of interactional units’. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33, 235–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antaki, C. (2002). ‘“Lovely”: Turn-initial high-grade assessments in telephone closings’. Discourse Studies, 5, 5–23.
   Google Scholar
• Auer, P. (1988). A conversation analytic approach to codeswitching. In M. Heller(Ed.), Codeswitching: Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 187–214). Berlin: Mouton Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Baum, S.R., & Pell, M.D. (1999). The neural basis of prosody: Insights from lesion studies and neuroimaging. Aphasiology, 13, 581–608.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhatt, P. M. (1987). Aspects phonétiques et phonologiques du système intonatif chez deux sujets atteints d'aphasie non fluente sévère. Langues et Linguistique, 13, 1–23.
   Google Scholar
• Beeke, S. (2003). ‘I suppose’ as a resource for the construction of turns at talk in agrammatic aphasia. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 17(4/5), 291–298.
   Google Scholar
• Beeke, S., Wilkinson, R., & Maxim, J. (2003). Exploring aphasic grammar. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 17(2), 81–134
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beeke, S., Wilkinson, R., & Maxim, J. (2001). Context as a resource for the construction of turns at talk. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 15, 79–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beeke, S., Wilkinson, R., & Maxim, J. (2007a). Grammar without sentence structure: A conversation analytic investigation of agrammatism. Aphasiology, 21(3/4), 256–282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beeke, S., Wilkinson, R., & Maxim, J. (2007b). Individual variation in agrammatism: A single case study of the influence of interaction. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 42(6), 629–647.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beeke, S., Wilkinson, R., & Maxim, J. (2009). Prosody as a compensatory strategy in the conversations of people with agrammatism. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 23(2), 133–155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloch, S., & Beeke, S. (2008). Co-constructed talk in the conversations of people with dysarthria and aphasia. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 22(12), 974–990.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Critchley, M. D. (1964). The drift and dissolution of language. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 57, 1189–1198.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1999). Coherent voicing: On prosody in conversational reported speech. In W. Bublitz & U. Lenk (Eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse: How to create it and how to describe it (pp. 11–32). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Ford, C. (2004). Sound patterns in interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (1996). Prosody in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Danly, M., & Shapiro, B. (1982). Speech prosody in Broca's aphasia. Brain and Language, 16, 171–190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danly, M., de Villiers, J., & Cooper, W. (1979). The control of speech prosody in Broca's aphasia. In J. Wolf & D. Klatt (Eds.), Speech communication papers (p. 68). New York: Acoustical Society of America.
   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.
   Google Scholar
• Ford, C. E., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational and pragmatics resources for the management of turns. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 134–184). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gandour, J. (1998a). Phonetics and phonology. In B. Stemmer & H. A. Whitaker (Eds.), Handbook of neurolinguistics (pp. 207–219). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gandour, J. (1998b). Aphasia in tone languages. In P. Coppens, Y. Lebrun, & A. Basso (Eds.), Aphasia in atypical populations (pp. 117–141). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Gandour, J., & Dardarananda, R. (1984a). Voice onset time in aphasia: Thai. II. Production. Brain and Language, 23, 177–204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gandour, J., & Dardarananda, R. (1984b). Prosodic disturbance in aphasia: Vowel length in Thai. Brain and Language, 23, 206–224.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gandour, J., Larsen, J., Dechongkit, S., Ponglorpisit, S., & Khunadorn, F. (1995). Speech prosody in affective contexts in Thai patients with right hemisphere lesions. Brain and Language, 51(3), 422–443.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gandour, J., Petty, S. H., & Dardarananda, R. (1988). Perception and production of tone in aphasia. Brain and Language, 35, 201–240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gandour, J., Ponglorpisit, S., Khunadorn, F., Dechongkit, S., Boongird, P., Boonklam, R., & Potisuk, S. (1992). Lexical tones in Thai after unilateral brain damage. Brain and Language, 43, 275–307.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodglass, H., Fodor, I. G., & Schulhoff, C. (1967). Prosodic factors in grammar – evidence from aphasia. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 10, 5–20.
   Google Scholar
• Goodglass, H., & Kaplan, E. (1983). The assessment of aphasia and related disorders (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lea and Febiger.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (1995). Co-constructing meaning in conversations with an aphasic man. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(3), 233–260.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2000a). Gesture, aphasia and interaction. In D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and gesture (pp. 84–98). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2000b). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (Ed.) (2003). Conversation and brain damage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M.H. (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organisation of assessments. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics, 1(1), 1–52.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1992). Assessments and the construction of context. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 147–189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C., Goodwin, M. H., & Olsher, D. (2002). Producing sense with nonsense syllables: Turn and sequence in conversations with a man with severe aphasia. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 56–80). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Günthner, S. (1999). Polyphony and the “layering of voices” in reported dialogues: An analysis of the use of prosodic devices in everyday reported speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 685–708.
   Web of Science ®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(4/5), 365–405.
   Google Scholar
• Heeschen, C., & Schegloff, E. A. (2003). Aphasic agrammatism as interactional artefact and achievement. In C. Goodwin (Ed.), Conversation and brain damage (pp. 231–282). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heilman, K. M., Bowers, D., Speedie, L., & Coslett, H. B. (1984). Comprehension of affective and nonaffective prosody. Neurology, 34, 917–921.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolk, H., & Heeschen, C. (1990). Adaptation symptoms and impairment symptoms in Broca's aphasia. Aphasiology, 4, 221–231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolk, H. H. J. & Heeschen, C. (1992). Agrammatism, paragrammatism and the management of language. Language and Cognitive Processes, 7, 89–129.
   Google Scholar
• Laakso, M. (2012). Aphasia as an example of how communication disorder affects interaction. In M. Egbert, & A. Deppermann (Eds.), Hearing aids communication: Integrating social interaction, audiology and user centered design to improve communication with hearing loss and hearing technologies (pp. 138–145). Mannheim: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
   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
• Lerner, G. H. (1991). On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society, 20, 441–458.
   Google Scholar
• Lind, M. (2002). The use of prosody in interaction: Observations from a case study of a Norwegian speaker with a non-fluent type of aphasia. In F. Windsor, M. L. Kelly, & N. Hewlett (Eds.), Investigations in clinical phonetics and linguistics (pp. 373–389). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Lind, M. (2007). Prosodic contextualization of minimal responses to yes/no-questions in aphasic talk-in-interaction: A descriptive single-case study of a Norwegian aphasic speaker. Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology, 32(1), 9–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marotta, G., Barbera, M., & Bongioanni, P. (2008). Prosody and Broca's aphasia: An acoustic analysis. Slifo-Studi Linguistici e Filologici On-line, 6, 79–98.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall, R.C. (2002). Having the courage to be competent: Persons and families living with aphasia. Journal of Communication Disorders, 35, 139–152.
   Google Scholar
• Max, L., & Onghena, P. (1999). Some issues in the statistical analysis of completely randomized and repeated-measures designs for speech, language and hearing research. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 42, 261–270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarthy, M. J. (2002). Good listenership made plain: British and American non-minimal response tokens in everyday conversation. In R. Reppen, S. Fitzmaurice, & D. Biber (Eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation (pp. 49–71). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Niemi, J. (1998). Modularity of prosody: Autonomy of phonological quantity and intonation in aphasia. Brain and Language, 61(1), 45–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oelschlaeger, M. L., & Damico, J. S. (1998). Joint productions as a conversational strategy in aphasia. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 12, 459–480.
   Google Scholar
• O'Keefe, A., & Adolphs, S. (2008). Response tokens in British and Irish discourse: Corpus, context and variational pragmatics. In K. Schneider & A. Barron (Eds.), Variational pragmatics: A focus on regional varieties in pluricentric languages (pp. 69–98). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Pell, M. D. (1999). Fundamental frequency encoding of linguistic and emotional prosody by right hemisphere-damaged speakers. Brain and Language, 69, 161–192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pell, M. D., & Baum, S. R. (1997). The ability to perceive and comprehend intonation in linguistic and affective contexts by brain-damaged adults. Brain and Language, 57(1), 80–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perkins, M. R. (2005). Clinical pragmatics: An emergentist perspective. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 19(5), 363–366.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage (Qualitative Research Methods 35).
   Google Scholar
• Rhys, C. S. (2005). Gaze and the turn: A non-verbal solution to an interactive problem. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 19(5), 419–431.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhys, C. S. (in print). Choosing not to repair: “sorry” as a warrant for interactional progress. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryalls, J. H. (1982). Intonation in Broca's aphasia. Neuropsychologia, 20, 355–360.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organisation: 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., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327.
   Google Scholar
• Schirmer, A., Alter, K., Kotz, S. A., & Friederici, A. D. (2001). Lateralization of prosody during language production: A lesion study. Brain and Language, 76, 1–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seddoh, S. A. K. (1999). Intonation and speech timing: Association or dissociation? Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106(4), 2246.
   Google Scholar
• Seddoh, S. A. K. (2002). How discrete or independent are “affective prosody” and “linguistic prosody”? Aphasiology, 16, 683–692.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seddoh, S. A. K. (2004). Prosodic disturbance in aphasia: Speech timing versus intonation production. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 18(1), 17–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro, B. E., & Danly, M. (1985). The role of the right hemisphere in the control of speech prosody in propositional and affective contexts. Brain and Language, 25, 19–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Van Lancker, D. (1980). Cerebral lateralization of pitch cues in the linguistic signal. Papers in Linguistics, 13, 201–277.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, R. (1999). Sequentiality as a problem and resource for intersubjectivity in aphasic conversation: Analysis and implications for therapy. Aphasiology, 13, 327–343.
   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). 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 and Medicine, 4(1), 79–97.
   Google Scholar