Projecting a Reference in Aphasic Talk and Normal Talk

Abstract

In this article, a form of intra-turn projection is analyzed where the first component of a compound turn-constructional unit (TCU) containing a phrase, such as “the one (who/that),” projects that a reference (e.g., to a person or to an entity, such as a film) is due to be produced in a later component. This type of utterance is described by linguists as a pseudo-cleft construction or as a paraphrase of the pseudo-cleft construction. It is observed that the use of this form of a compound TCU allows a speaker to highlight a person or entity in terms of some displayed relevance or uniqueness for the speaker or the interaction at that point. The use of this type of TCU is analyzed in the talk of a speaker with aphasia (a language disorder acquired following brain damage) and also in the talk of normal (i.e., non-communication disordered) speakers. One notable feature of the examples in this dataset is that the projected reference regularly engenders a word search, and it is argued that this may be linked to a turn design feature of this type of TCU whereby the reference is projected to occur as the possibly terminal item of the unit. A second feature is that in some cases a speaker can be seen to deploy certain turn-constructional practices that have a consequence of delaying the talk in the unfolding utterance arriving at the possibly terminal item slot within the final TCU component where the projected reference is due to be produced. The analysis highlights how features of language production, such as the production of a name, can be seen not only as the outcome of neuropsychological processes but also of interactional practices.

Notes

¹Derek and Jane are pseudonyms. Names of people and places mentioned by Derek or Jane in the transcribed extracts that might identify them have also been made into pseudonyms.

²As assessed at the first and last data collection points using the Western Aphasia Battery (Kertesz, 1982).

³For ease of reference, the term “pseudo-cleft” is used here.

⁴Derek's use of a recognitional descriptor here as part of his repair attempt when the name Ewan is difficult for him to produce itself leads to repair because it contains another name (Karen), which Derek also has problems in producing. This pattern in the talk of aphasic speakers whereby repair attempts can themselves generate repair attempts is one way in which these speakers' talk often displays a kind of “right branching” pattern (see Wilkinson, Beeke, & Maxim, 2003).

⁵It is perhaps when the relative clause begins (e.g., the who in “the one who” in Extract 2) that the recipient monitoring the production of the turn in real time is able to anticipate the unfolding utterance as likely to be a pseudo-cleft compound turn-constructional unit and, thus, to make sense of the general reference noun phrase within the component as functioning to project a specific reference to follow.

⁶This delivery of information, which moves from unspecific to specific across different components within a turn-constructional unit, has similarities to how news can be delivered in stages across turns in a sequence. In an analysis of pre-announcement sequences, Terasaki (2004) observed that a pre-announcement first pair part (which can take a form such as “Y'wanna know who I got stoned with a few w(h)eeks ago? hh!”) “sets up a serial delivery of the news in which semantically-unspecified lexical items are initially presented and then subsequently replaced or specified in the Announcement turn” (p. 199). As with the general reference noun phrases in my examples, lexical items such as “who” in the pre-announcement turn are hearable by recipients as a type of “forward” or “cataphoric” reference (Terasaki, 2004), which projects a more semantically specific form to follow.

⁷As with wh- clefts in conversation, therefore, the initial component in these turn-constructional units functions “as a locus of what may be called ‘interactional focus,’ as opposed to the ‘ideational focus’ given to the utterance following the BE copula” (Kim, 1995, p. 274).

⁸See Halliday and Matthiessen (2004) on “exclusiveness” as a semantic feature of the examples of pseudo-clefts they discuss. Another method that can be used in the preliminary component to display the person or entity as special or unique (or the speaker's stance toward the person or entity as special or unique) is the deployment of “extreme case formulations” (Pomerantz, 1986) such as “never ever” (Extract 1) and “more than anybody” (Extract 2). See also “always” in Extract 3, line 09.

⁹For instances of names—in particular, person names—being the focus of word searches in naturally occurring talk, see C. Goodwin (1987), M. H. Goodwin and Goodwin (1986), and Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks (1977).

¹⁰Word searches are a common feature of aphasic talk. See, for example, Oelschlaeger and Damico (2003) for an examination of the phenomenon in English-speaking people with aphasia, and Helasvuo, Laakso and Sorjonen (2004) and Lind (2002) for analyses of word searches in the talk of Finnish aphasic speakers and a Norwegian aphasic speaker respectively.

¹¹The use of this construction by Jane in a conversation where Derek has been using it may be an example of the conversation partner adopting some similar linguistic usages to those evident in the talk of the person with aphasia (for another example of this phenomenon, see Wilkinson, Beeke, & Maxim, 2003). However, conscious or not such a practice might be, one possible consequence is the achievement of some convergence (cf. Giles, Coupland, & Coupland, 1991) between the aphasic and non-aphasic speakers, at least temporarily.

¹²The title of the film, Iris, refers to its main character, the author Iris Murdoch. Here, although both the name of the film and the author are pursued, it is the film title that is the primary trouble source (note that Jane's utterance in line 16 is “tch ‘ve forgotten the name” not “her name,” and that in line 35 it is the title of the film that is produced first before the name of the person).

¹³For other examples of Derek inserting talk into his ongoing utterances at this stage of his recovery, see Wilkinson, Gower, Beeke, and Maxim (2007).

¹⁴The use of this turn-constructional format by Derek, the aphasic speaker, was particularly evident in the 7–month, post-stroke data set. Why certain turn formats, such as the one analyzed here, may apparently be used recurrently at certain stages of recovery and less or not at all at other stages requires further investigation. One possibility is that the recurrent use of turn constructions such as the type analyzed here may be a form of adaptation (Wilkinson, Beeke, & Maxim, 2003) whereby an aphasic speaker produces turns-at-talk using the limited repertoire of linguistic resources available in ways that attempt to lessen possible delays and disruptions to his or her talk such as that brought about by repair. As this set of linguistic resources grows as a result, for example, of neural recovery, the types of turn practices recurrently relied on by the speaker may also change (Wilkinson, Gower, Beeke, & Maxim, 2007).

¹⁵The progressive realization of the TCU toward its possible end is, of course, subject to various interactional contingencies that may alter its projected course. These interactional contingencies can include the actions of recipients who are by no means necessarily only passive listeners with no effect on the unfolding utterance (see C. Goodwin, 1979).

¹⁶It may also be the case that producing talk within the TCU about the person or entity before the name for that person or entity is due can assist the speaker in producing the name through some form of self-cueing. A recipient may also be able to infer from this talk information about the identity of the reference that can be drawn on if and when he or she attempts to produce that reference, for example, as a candidate completion to a word search launched by the speaker.