The domain is for sale!
contact: craig AT

Discourse Analysis - CA and Brain Damage

ness37's version from 2018-05-01 14:08


Question Answer
Collaborative meaning makingPWA still had a social world to interact with regardless of their acquired language impairment.
Oelschlager and DamincoStudy recorded PWA and his wife, 38 occurrences of WFD that threatened communicative flow. WFD was indicted by: cut offs, pauses and restarts, gaze away from listener, wh-questions and metalinguistic comments.
Social implications of study Wife sensitively uses rising tone which acts as a suggestion for the word that the PWA was looking for instead of telling him the word = competent co-participant in convo
Clinical relevance of studyWife and PWA work together to resolve a word search and keep the conversation moving, can use each other's turn to build on their own. Explains why PWA are perceived to talk better than how they actually speak
Milroy and PerkinsDemonstrated the importance of shared knowledge for being able to have a convo with a PWA. Paraphrasing was used by the conversation partner to help with repair.
SLT-PWA vs PWA-spouseSLT would not correct errors, checked own understanding of what the PWA had said (paraphrased) and acknowledged any attempts of the target. Spouse corrected speech, told the PWA the word they were looking for, but did slow down own speech
Cunningham and WardFound that training conversation partners had a positive impact on the PWA - studied 4 couples, videotaped their conversations and trained the CP for 5 weeks = targeted non-impaired partner and increased their use of gesture and successful repairs
Ramsberger and MennInvestigated how the non-impaired partner contributes to communicative success. Looked at social vs medical model of disability = shift in views is reflected in assessments and treatment procedures. Example of SLT students retelling story to PWA - shows importance/ critical role of communication partner (not all responsibility/communication burden should be on the PWA)

Recent badges