Right hemisphere damage and other-initiated repair in everyday conversation

References

• Aaltonen, T., & Laakso, M. (2010). Halting aphasic interaction: Creation of intersubjectivity and spousal relationship in situ. Communication & Medicine, 7, 95–106.
   Google Scholar
• Baldo, J. V., Kacinik, N. A., Moncrief, A., Beghin, F., & Dronkers, N. F. (2016). You may now kiss the bride: Interpretation of social situations by individuals with right or left hemisphere injury. Neuropsychologia, 80, 133–141. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.11.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes, S., & Armstrong, E. (2010). Conversation after right hemisphere brain damage: Motivations for applying conversation analysis. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 24, 55–69. doi:10.3109/02699200903349734
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes, S., & Bloch, S. (2019). Why is measuring communication difficult? A critical review of current speech pathology concepts and measures. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 33, 219–236. doi:10.1080/02699206.2018.1498541
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes, S., & Ferguson, A. (2015). Conversation partner responses to problematic talk produced by people with aphasia: Some alternatives to initiating, completing, or pursuing repair. Aphasiology, 29, 315–336. doi:10.1080/02687038.2013.874547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes, S., Toocaram, S., Nickels, L., Beeke, S., Best, W., & Bloch, S. (2019). Everyday conversation after right hemisphere damage: A methodological demonstration and some preliminary findings. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 52, 1–19. doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2019.100850
   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
• Bloch, S., & Wilkinson, R. (2009). Acquired dysarthria in conversation: Identifying sources of understandability problems. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 44, 769–783. doi:10.1080/13682820802546969
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blythe, J., Gardner, R., Mushin, I., & Stirling, L. (2018). Tools of engagement: Selecting a next speaker in Australian aboriginal multiparty conversations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51, 145–170. doi:10.1080/08351813.2018.1449441
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolden, G. B. (2012). Across languages and cultures: Brokering problems of understanding in conversational repair. Language in Society, 41, 97–121. doi:10.1017/S0047404511000923
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dingemanse, M., & Enfield, N. (2015). Other-initiated repair across languages: Towards a typology of conversational structures. Open Linguistics, 1, 96–118. doi:10.2478/opli-2014-0007
   Web of Science ®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
• Ferré, P., Fonseca, R. P., Ska, B., & Joanette, Y. (2012). Communicative clusters after a right-hemisphere stroke: Are there universal clinical profiles? Folia Phoniatrica Et Logopaedica, 64, 199–207. doi:10.1159/000340017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner, R. (2001). When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
   Google Scholar
• Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2017). Transcribing for social research. London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Humphreys, G. W., Bickerton, W., Samson, D., & Riddoch, M. J. (2012). BCoS: Brain behaviour analysis. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Joanette, Y., Ska, B., Cote, H., Ferre, P., LaPointe, L., Coppens, P. et al. (2015). Montreal protocol for the evaluation of communication (MEC). Sydney, Australia: ASSBI Resources.
   Google Scholar
• Kendrick, K. H. (2015). Other-initiated repair in English. Open Linguistics, 1, 164–190. doi:10.2478/opli-2014-0009
   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. doi:10.1044/1058-0360.0901.72
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehman Blake, M. (2017). Right hemisphere pragmatic disorders. In L. Cummings (Ed.), Research in clinical pragmatics (pp. 243–266). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.
   Google Scholar
• Lehman Blake, M. (2018). The right hemisphere and disorders of cognition and communication: Theory and clinical practice. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Lehman Blake, M., Frymark, T., & Venedictov, R. (2013). An evidence-based systematic review on communication treatments for individuals with right hemisphere brain damage. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 22, 146–160. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2012/12-0021)
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehman Blake, M., & Lesniewicz, K. (2005). Contextual bias and predictive inferencing in adults with and without right hemisphere brain damage. Aphasiology, 19, 423–434. doi:10.1080/02687030444000868
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehman, M. T, & Tompkins, C. A. (2000). Inferencing in adults with right hemisphere brain damage: An analysis of conflicting results. Aphasiology, 14(5–6), 485–499.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. H. (2003). Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society, 32, 177–201. doi:10.1017/S004740450332202X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackenzie, C., & Brady, M. (2008). Communication difficulties following right-hemisphere stroke: Applying evidence to clinical management. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 2, 235–247. doi:10.1080/17489530802615336
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, F., Margutti, P., & Takano, S. (2011). Judgments concerning the valence of inter-turn silence across speakers of American English, Italian, and Japanese. Discourse Processes, 48, 331–354. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2011.558002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D. (2006). Managing trouble responsibility and relationships during conversational repair. Communication Monographs, 73, 137–161. doi:10.1080/03637750600581206
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D. (2014). What “what?” tells us about how conversationalists manage intersubjectivity. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47, 109–129. doi:10.1080/08351813.2014.900214
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 101–114. doi:10.2307/2786745
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. The American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1295–1345. doi:10.1086/229903
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Some practices of referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. In B. Fox (Ed.), Studies in anaphora (pp. 437–485). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes, 23, 499–545. doi:10.1080/01638539709545001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2004). On dispensibility. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 37, 95–149. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2013). Ten operations in self-initiated, same-turn repair. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 41–70) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sherratt, S. (2007). Right brain damage and the verbal expression of emotion: A preliminary investigation. Aphasiology, 21, 320–339. doi:10.1080/02687030600911401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherratt, S., & Bryan, K. (2012). Discourse production after right brain damage: Gaining a comprehensive picture using a multi-level processing model. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 25, 213–239. doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2012.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2004). “No no no” and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research, 30(2), 260–293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tompkins, C. A., Lei, C.-M., & Zezinka, A. (2015). The nature and implications of right hemisphere language disorders. In A. E. Hillis (Ed.), The handbook of adult language disorders (2nd ed., pp. 491–517). New York, US: Psychology Press.
   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. doi:10.1080/02687030500538148
   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, 1127–1142. doi:10.1080/02687030050174665
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar