Abstract
The approach of language psychology is grounded in the persons communicating; where as the approach of discursive psychology is grounded in social interaction. There is a lack of scientific knowledge on the social/communicative/interactional challenges of communication difficulties and brain injury in everyday life. A sense-making-in-practice approach may help form a new discourse.
How may a new analytical approach be designed? May ‘communication’ be described as ‘participation abilities’, using the framework from language psychology combined with discursive psychology and the conventions of ethnomethodology?
I draw on Roy Harris’ integrational linguistics’ approach (1998; 2009) to communication and communication abilities as I investigate how agreement on a micro-level is accomplished through participation and initiatives in interactions (Goodwin, 2003). I examine excerpts from a study I have been part of where the participants mainly are persons with acquired brain damage and occupational therapists.
I will discuss how a new approach to sense-making practice may be designed in order to study more closely a participants’ perspective in unique situations as they arise. I am interested in ‘integration’ and ‘understanding’ as a performing of activities.
Goodwin, C. (2003). Conversational frameworks for the accomplishment of meaning in
aphasia. In: Goodwin, C. (ed.), Conversation and brain damage (90-116). Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Harris, R. (1998). Introduction to integrational linguistics. Oxford. Pergamon.
Harris, R. (2009). Notes and papers 2006-2008. Gamlingay. Bright Pen.
How may a new analytical approach be designed? May ‘communication’ be described as ‘participation abilities’, using the framework from language psychology combined with discursive psychology and the conventions of ethnomethodology?
I draw on Roy Harris’ integrational linguistics’ approach (1998; 2009) to communication and communication abilities as I investigate how agreement on a micro-level is accomplished through participation and initiatives in interactions (Goodwin, 2003). I examine excerpts from a study I have been part of where the participants mainly are persons with acquired brain damage and occupational therapists.
I will discuss how a new approach to sense-making practice may be designed in order to study more closely a participants’ perspective in unique situations as they arise. I am interested in ‘integration’ and ‘understanding’ as a performing of activities.
Goodwin, C. (2003). Conversational frameworks for the accomplishment of meaning in
aphasia. In: Goodwin, C. (ed.), Conversation and brain damage (90-116). Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Harris, R. (1998). Introduction to integrational linguistics. Oxford. Pergamon.
Harris, R. (2009). Notes and papers 2006-2008. Gamlingay. Bright Pen.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Publication date | 2016 |
Publication status | Published - 2016 |
Event | COMET16 - Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark Duration: 4 Jul 2016 → 6 Jul 2016 http://www.communication.aau.dk/research/dihm/events/comet2016/ |
Conference
Conference | COMET16 |
---|---|
Location | Aalborg University |
Country/Territory | Denmark |
City | Aalborg |
Period | 04/07/2016 → 06/07/2016 |
Internet address |
Keywords
- language psychology
- video analysis
- video data
- discourse analysis
- inclusion
- augmented conversation analysis
- atypical communication
- aquired brain injury
- interaction