The interactional organization of aphasia naming testing

References

• Adams, C., Cooke, R., Crutchley, A., Hesketh, A. & Reeves, D. (2001). ACE (6-11): Assessment of Comprehension and Expression (6–11). Windsor: NFER-Nelson
   Google Scholar
• 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
• Bastiaanse, R., Edwards, S., & Rispens, J. (2002). The Verb and Sentence Test (VAST). Thames Valley Test Company, Bury St. Edmonds, UK
   Google Scholar
• Brownell, R. (2000). Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications
   Google Scholar
• Dell, G. S., Schwartz, M. F., Martin, N., Saffran, E. M., & Gagnon, D. A. (1997). Lexical access in aphasic and nonaphasic speakers. Psychological Review, 104, 801–838
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druks J. & Masterson, J. (2000). An Object and Action Naming Battery. Hove: Psychology Press
   Google Scholar
• Heeschen, C. & Schegloff, E.A. (2003). Aphasic agrammatism as interactional artifact and achievement. In C. Goodwin (Ed.), Conversation and Brain Damage (pp. 231–282). New York: Oxford University Press
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2004). Conversation analysis and institutional talk: Analysing data. In. D. Silverman (Ed.) Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice (pp. 161–182). London: Sage
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2012a). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 30–52
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2012b). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45, 1, 1–29
   Google Scholar
• Horton, S. (2003). A study of therapy for language impairment in aphasia: Description and analysis of sessions in day-to-day practice. Unpublished PhD thesis, City University, London.
   Google Scholar
• Horton, S. (2008). Learning-in-interaction: Resourceful work by people with aphasia and therapists in the course of language impairment therapy. Aphasiology, 22, 985–1014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (2000). Interaction and the standardized survey interview: The living questionnaire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan, E., Goodglass, H., & Weintraub, S. (2001). Boston Naming Test. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
   Google Scholar
• Kay, J., Lesser, R. & Coltheart, M. (1992). Psycholinguistic Assessments of Language Processing in Aphasia (PALPA). Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum
   Google Scholar
• Levelt, W. J. M., Praamstra P., Meyer, A. S., Helenius, P., & Salmelin, R. (1998). An MEG study of picture naming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 553–567
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marlaire, C. & Maynard, D.W. (1990). Standardized testing as an interactional phenomenon. Sociology of Education, 63, 83–101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maynard, D.W. & Marlaire, C. (1992). Good reasons for bad testing performance: the interactional substrate of educational exams. Qualitative Sociology, 15, 177–202
   Google Scholar
• McKenna, P. & Warrington, E. K. (1983). Graded Naming Test. Windsor: NFER-Nelson
   Google Scholar
• Mehan, H. (1979). ‘What time is it, Denise?’: Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory Into Practice, 18, 285–294
   Google Scholar
• Muskett, T., Body, R. & Perkins, M. (2012). Uncovering the dynamic in static assessment interaction. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 28, 87–99
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organisation of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In: G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp. 15–21). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50, 4, 696–735
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1295–1345
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E.A. (1999). Discourse, pragmatics, conversation, analysis. Discourse Studies, 1, 405–435
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E.A. (2003). Conversation analysis and communication disorders. In: C. Goodwin (Ed.), Conversation and Brain Damage (pp. 21–55). New York: Oxford University Press
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E.A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair for conversation. Language, 53, 361–382
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
   Google Scholar
• Simmons-Mackie, N., Damico, J. S., & Damico, H. L. (1999). A qualitative study of feedback in aphasia treatment. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 8, 218–230
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinclair, J.M. & Coulthard, R. M.. (1975). Toward an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. New York: Oxford University Press
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, R. (2011). Changing interactional behaviour: Using conversation analysis in intervention programmes for aphasic conversation. In: C. Antaki (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis: Changing institutional practices (pp. 32–53). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
   Google Scholar
• Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. (1977) Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeductional Battery. Allen, Texas, DLM Publishers
   Google Scholar