Terminology and Notation in Written Representations of Conversations with Augmentative and Alternative Communication

References

• Baker, B. (1982). Minspeak: A semantic compaction system that makes self expression easier for communicatively disabled individuals. Byte, 7, 186–202.
   Google Scholar
• Balandin, S. (2002). Message from the President. The ISAAC Bulletin, 67, 2.
   Google Scholar
• Bates, E., Benigni, L., Bretherton, I., Camaioni, L., & Volterra, V. (1979). The emergence of symbols: Cognition and communication in infancy. New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blau, A. F. (1987). A response to Fuller and Lloyd: Toward an augmentative and alternative communication symbol taxonomy: A proposed superordinate classification. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 3, 97–99.
   Google Scholar
• Bliss, C. K. (1965). Semantography (Blissymbolics). Sydney: Semantography Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Bryen, D. N., Heake, G., Semenuk, A., & Segal, M. (2010). Improving Web access for individuals who rely on augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 26, 21–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collier, B., McGhie-Richmond, D., & Self, H. (2010). Exploring communication assistants as an option for increasing communication access to communities for people who use augmentative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 26, 48–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper, L., Balandin, S., & Trembath, D. (2009). The loneliness experiences of young adults with cerebral palsy who use alternative and augmentative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 25, 154–164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman, L. A. (1977). Formational properties of American Sign Language. In L. A. Friedman (Ed.), On the other hand: New perspectives on American Sign Language ( pp. 13–57). New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fried-Oken, M. (1987). Terminology in augmentative communication. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 18, 188–191.
   Google Scholar
• Fuller, D. R., & Lloyd, L. L. (1991). Toward a common usage of iconicity terminology. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 7, 215–220.
   Google Scholar
• Fuller, D. R., Lloyd, L. L., & Schlosser, R. W. (1992). Further development of an augmentative and alternative communication symbol taxonomy. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 8, 67–76.
   Google Scholar
• Grove, N., & Tucker, S. (2003). Narratives in manual sign by children with intellectual impairments. In S. von Tetzchner & N. Grove (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: Developmental issues ( pp. 229–255). London, UK: Whurr/Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Hedvall, P.-O., & Rydeman, B. (2010). An activity systemic approach to augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 26, 230–241.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hjelmquist, E., & Sandberg, A.D. (1996). Sounds and silence: Interaction in aided language use. In S. von Tetzchner & M. H. Jensen (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: European perspectives ( pp. 137–152). London: Whurr/Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Iacono, T. (2002). Editorial: Words. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 215–216.
   Google Scholar
• International Phonetic Association (1999). Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A guide to the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, R. (1981). The Picture Communication Symbols. Solana Beach, CA: Mayer-Johnson.
   Google Scholar
• Kraat, A. W. (1985). Communication interaction between aided and natural speakers: A state of the art report. Toronto: Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled.
   Google Scholar
• Küntay, A., & Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1998). Conversational narratives of children: Occasions and structures. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7, 113–120.
   Google Scholar
• Kuntze, M. (2001). The Berkeley Transcription System. In S. von Tetzchner & J. Clibbens (Eds.), Understanding the theoretical and methodological bases of augmentative and alternative communication ( pp. 60–63). Toronto: International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication.
   Google Scholar
• Lloyd, L. L. (1985). Comments on terminology. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 1, 95–97.
   Google Scholar
• Lloyd, L. L., & Blischak, D. M. (1992). AAC terminology policy and issues update. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 8, 104–109.
   Google Scholar
• Lloyd, L. L., & Fuller, D. R. (1986). Toward an augmentative and alternative communication symbol taxonomy: A proposed superordinate classification. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 2, 165–171.
   Google Scholar
• Lloyd, L. L., & Kangas, K. A. (1988). AAC terminology policy and issues. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 4, 54–57.
   Google Scholar
• Lloyd, L. L., & Kangas, K. A. (1990). AAC terminology policy and issues update. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 6, 167–170.
   Google Scholar
• Lloyd, L. L., Quist, R. W., & >Windsor, J. (1990). A proposed augmentative and alternative communication model. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 6, 172–183.
   Google Scholar
• Mirenda, P. (1991). Terminology about people: Comments on Lloyd and Kangas (1990). Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 67, 59–60.
   Google Scholar
• Musselwhite, C. R. (1987). Further comments on terminology. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 3, 164–165.
   Google Scholar
• Sundqvist, A., & Rönnberg, J. (2010). A qualitative analysis of email interactions of children using augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 26, 255–266.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutton, A. (2010). Staying on the cutting edge. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 26, 223–225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trembath, D., Balandin, S., Stancliffe, R. J., & Togher, L. (2010). “Communication is everything”: The experiences of volunteers who use AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 26, 75–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trudeau, N., Sutton, A., Morford, J. P., Côte-Giroux, P., Pauze, A.-M., & Vallée, V. (2010). Strategies in construction and interpretation of graphic-symbol sequences by individuals who use AAC systems. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 26, 299–312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Tetzchner, S., & Jensen, M. H. (1996). Introduction. In S. von Tetzchner & M. H. Jensen (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: European perspectives ( pp. 1–18). London, UK: Whurr/Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• von Tetzchner, S., & Martinsen, H. (1996). Words and strategies: Communicating with young children who use aided language. In S. von Tetzchner & M. H. Jensen (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: European perspectives ( pp. 65–88). London: Whurr/Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Waksvik, K. (1985). Readers forum. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 1, 52–54.
   Google Scholar
• Wisenburn, B., & Higgimbotham, D. J. (2009). Participant evaluations of rate and communication efficacy of an AAC application using natural language processing. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 25, 78–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zangari, C., Lloyd, L. L., & Vicker, B. (1994). Augmentative and alternative communication: An historic perspective. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 10, 27–59.
   Google Scholar