Participating with limited communication means: Conversation analytical perspectives on the interactional management of participation structures

References

• Antaki, C., & Wilkinson, R. (2012). Conversation analysis and the study of atypical populations. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 533–550). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Anward, J. (2003). Own words. On achieving normality through paraphasias. In C. Goodwin (Ed.), Conversation and brain damage (pp. 189–210). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brouwer, C. E. R., Hougaard, A., & Hougaard, G. R. (2008). Pegetavler — en kommunikativ ressource og begrænsning. Dansk Audiologopaedi, 44 (4), 36–39.
   Google Scholar
• Byng, S., & Duchan, J. (2005). Social model philosophies and principles: Their applications to therapies for aphasia. Aphasiology, 19 (10–11), 906–922.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duchan, J. F. (2004). Where is the person in the ICF? Advances in Speech-Language Pathology, 6 (1), 63–65.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, A. W., & Young, A. W. (1988). Human cognitive neuropsychology. Hove, East Sussex: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Finlay, W. M. L., Walton, C., & Antaki, C. (2011). Giving feedback to care staff about offering choices to people with intellectual disabilities. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis. Intervention and change in institutional talk (pp. 161–183). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1981). Footing. In E. Goffman (Ed.), Forms of talk (pp. 124–159). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
   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. (2000). 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. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2004). A competent speaker who can’t speak: The social life of aphasia. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 14 (2), 151–170.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (2004). Participation. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 222–44). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research. Analysing social interaction in everyday life. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, L. R., & Stax, H.-P. (2005). Logopædisk kompetence: interaktion i testtagning. Dansk Audiologopaedi, 41 (4), 31–41.
   Google Scholar
• Klippi, A. (1996). Conversation as an Achievement in Aphasics. Studia Fennica Linguistica 6. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
   Google Scholar
• Klippi, A. (2015). Pointing as embodied practice in aphasic interaction. Aphasiology, 29 (3), 337–354.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laakso, M. (1997). Self-initiated repair by fluent aphasic speakers in conversation. Studia Fennica Linguistica 8. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
   Google Scholar
• Laakso, M., & Klippi, A. (1999). A closer look at the ‘hint-and-guess’-sequences in aphasic conversation. Aphasiology, 13 (4–5), 345–363.
   Web of Science ®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 Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Lind, M. (2005). Conversation – more than words. A Norwegian case study of the establishment of a contribution in aphasic interaction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, 213–239.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (1988). Putting linguistics on a proper footing: explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation. In P. Drew & A. Wootton (Eds.), Erving Goffman. Exploring the interaction order (pp. 161–227). Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lock, S., Wilkinson, R., & Bryan, K. (2001). Supporting partners of people with aphasia in relationships and conversation (SPPARC). Bicester: Speechmark Press.
   Google Scholar
• Norén, N., Samuelsson, C., & Plejert, C. (Eds.) (2013a). Aided Communication in Everyday Interaction. Guildford: J & R Press.
   Google Scholar
• Norén, N., Samuelsson, C., & Plejert, C. (2013b). Dialogical perspectives on aided communication. In N. Norén, C. Samuelsson & C. Plejert (Eds.) Aided communication in everyday interaction (pp. 1–22). Guildford: J & R Press.
   Google Scholar
• Plejert, C., & Samuelsson, C. (2008). Recycling in clinical interaction involving children with and without language impairment. Communication and Medicine, 5(2), 69–80.
   Google Scholar
• Plejert, C., Samuelsson, C., & Anward, J. (2010). Att få sista ordet. Om avslutande av sekvenser i samtal med personer med kommunikativa funktionshinder. Språk och interaktion, 19(2), 249–263.
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, G. (2010). ‘Going mental’: The risks of assessment activities (in teenage talk). Discourse Studies, 12 (6), 739–761.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, G. (2016). The international classification of disability, functioning and health (ICF) — An example of research methods and language in describing ‘social functioning’ in medical research. Pragmatics and Society, 7(2), 217–238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, G., Hazel, S., & Mortensen, K. (2014). Special issue: A body of resources — CA studies of social conduct. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 1–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raudaskoski, P. (2013). From understanding to participation: A relational approach to embodied practices. In T. Keisanen, E. Kärkkäinen, M. Rauniomaa, P. Siitonen & M. Siromaa (Eds.), Multimodal discourses of participation (pp. 103–21). Jyväskylä: AFinLA.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50 (4), 696–735.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samuelsson, C., Plejert, C., Nettelbladt, U., & Anward, J. (2010). The role of interactional prosody in language testing activities in Swedish. In V. Stojanovik & J. Setter (Eds), Speech prosody in atypical populations: Assessment and remediation (pp. 45–69). Guildford: J & R Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (2012). The handbook of conversation analysis: Blackwell handbooks in linguistics. Chicester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Simmons-Mackie, N. N. (2000). Social approaches to the management of aphasia. In L. Worrall & C. Frattali (Eds.), Neurogenic communication disorders. A functional approach (pp. 162–187). New York, NY: Thieme.
   Google Scholar
• Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron C. (2011). Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, R. (1999). Introduction (To Special Issue on Conversation Analysis). Aphasiology, 13 (4–5), 251–258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, R. (2011). Changing interactional behaviour: Using conversation analysis in intervention programmes for aphasic conversation. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis. Intervention and change in institutional talk (pp. 32–53). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, R. (Ed.) (2015). Conversation and aphasia: Advances in analysis and intervention. (Special Issue). Aphasiology, 29 (3), 257–421.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. (2013). How to use the ICF: A practical manual for using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Exposure draft for comment. October 2013. Geneva: WHO.
   Google Scholar
• Worrall, L., & Frattali, C. (Eds.) (2000). Neurogenic communication disorders. A functional approach. New York, NY: Thieme.
   Google Scholar