Managing Intersubjectivity in Aphasia

REFERENCES

• Aaltonen, T., & Laakso, M. (2010). Halting aphasic interaction: Creation of intersubjectivity and spousal relationship in situ. Communication & Medicine, 7(2), 95–106.
   Google Scholar
• Barnes, S. E., Candlin, C. N., & Ferguson, A. (2013). Aphasia and topic initiation: A case study. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 48(1), 102–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes, S. E., & Ferguson, A. (in press). Conversation partner responses to problematic talk produced by people with aphasia: Some alternatives to initiating, completing, or pursuing repair. Aphasiology.
   Google Scholar
• Bloch, S., & Wilkinson, R. (2009). Acquired dysarthria in conversation: Identifying sources of understandability problems. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 44(5), 769–783.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolden, G. B. (2006). Little words that matter: Discourse markers “so” and “oh” and the doing of other-attentiveness in social interaction. Journal of Communication, 56(4), 661–688.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolden, G. B. (2008). “So what’s up?”: Using the discourse marker so to launch conversational business. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(3), 302–337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolden, G. B. (2010). “Articulating the unsaid” via and-prefaced formulations of others’ talk. Discourse Studies, 12(5), 5–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2004). Prosody and sequence organization in English conversation. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford ( Eds.), Sound patterns in interaction ( pp. 335–376). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Drew, P., & Holt, E. (1998). Figures of speech: Figurative expressions and the management of topic transition in conversation. Language in Society, 27(4), 495–522.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald, R., Housley, W., & Butler, C. W. (2009). Omnirelevance and interactional context. Australian Journal of Communication, 36(3), 45–64.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner, R. (2001). When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   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
• Helasvuo, M., Laakso, M., & Sorjonen, M. (2004). Searching for words: Syntactic and sequential construction of word search in conversations of Finnish speakers with aphasia. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(1), 1–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2007). Intersubjectivity and progressivity in person (and place) reference. In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers ( Eds.), Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives ( pp. 255–280). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M. (1994). Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: And-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society, 23(1), 1–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1972). Side sequences. In D. Sudnow ( Ed.), Studies in social interaction ( pp. 294–338). New York, NY: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In J. Schenkein ( Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction ( pp. 219–248). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (2007). Preliminary notes on abdicated other-correction. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 445–461.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kagan, A. (1999). Supported conversation for adults with aphasia: Methods and evaluation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
   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, NY: Oxford University Press.
   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
• Lerner, G. H. (1992). Assisted storytelling: Deploying shared knowledge as a practical matter. Qualitative Sociology, 15(3), 247–271.
   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(4/5), 305–325.
   Google Scholar
• Local, J. (2004). Getting back to prior talk: And-uh(m) as a back-connecting device. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. Ford ( Eds.), Sound patterns in interaction: Cross-linguistic studies of phonetics and prosody for conversation ( pp. 377–400). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Lock, S., Wilkinson, R., & Bryan, K. (2001). Supporting partners of people with aphasia in relationships and conversation (SPPARC): A resource pack. Bichester, England: Speechmark.
   Google Scholar
• Maynard, D. W. (2003). Bad news, good news: Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical settings. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mazeland, H., & Huiskes, M. (2001). Dutch “but” as a sequential conjunction: Its use as a resumption marker. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen ( Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics ( pp. 141–169). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Perkins, L. (2003). Negotiating repair in aphasic conversation. In C. Goodwin ( Ed.), Conversation and brain damage ( pp. 147–162). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rhys, C. S. (2013). Choosing not to repair: Sorry as a warrant for interactional progress. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(1), 84–103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D. (2006). Managing trouble responsibility and relationships during conversational repair. Communication Monographs, 73, 137–161
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D. (2013). Overall structural organization. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers ( Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis ( pp. 257–280). Chichester, England: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vol. 1). Cambridge, England: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen ( Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk ( pp. 71–93). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. The American Journal of Sociology, 102(1), 161–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2010). Some other “uh(m)”s. Discourse Processes, 47(2), 130–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327.
   Google Scholar
• Simmons-Mackie, N., Raymer, A., Armstrong, E., Holland, A., & Cherney, L. R. (2010). Communication partner training in aphasia: A systematic review. Archives of Physical & Medical Rehabilitation, 91, 1814–1837.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skelt, L. (2007). Damage control: Closing problematic sequences in hearing-impaired interaction. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 34.1–34.15.
   Google Scholar
• Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tesak, J., & Code, C. (2008). Milestones in the history of aphasia: Theories and protagonists. Hove, England: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, R. (1999). Sequentiality as a problem and resource for intersubjectivity in aphasic conversation: Analysis and implications for therapy. Aphasiology, 13(4/5), 327–343.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, R. (2007). Managing linguistic incompetence as a delicate issue in aphasic talk-in-interaction: On the use of laughter in prolonged repair sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(3), 542–569.
   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, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar