Integrating emotion in the case of aphasia

Aktivitet: Foredrag og mundtlige bidragKonferenceoplæg


This lecture investigates interaction in a care home setting, where some of the participants have severe acquired brain injury. Aphasia is investigated in situations where affect and emotion are relevant, for example, cases of compliance and non-compliance to “wrong” or ”correct” memory and other cases of persuasion (Pomerantz 1984; Goodwin et al. 2012). The data excerpts presented are transcripts based on participant video observation (Horsbøl & Raudaskoski 2016). The main interest is to scrutinize the interactional consequences of arguing with aphasia (Goodwin 2000). This study is part of a collaborative study of aphasic communication (Raudaskoski 2013; Krummheuer 2015; Nielsen 2015). Studies of aphasic talk often characterize it as ‘atypical’ in organizational patterns. Currently, ‘atypical communication’ represents data-driven analytical discourse in rehabilitation studies and health communication (Perkins 2003; Wilkinson 2011). Unfortunately, people with brain injuries are more than likely to be excluded from societal everyday life. Therefore, the research questions are limited to questions about the life-world of aphasia and the interactional consequences which may lead to inclusion/exclusion. Many other units than linguistic units are central to meaning-making with persons with acquired brain injury, ABI (Goodwin 2003a): Embodied talk, multimodal units such as gesturing, pointing, gazing and bodily posture, the handling of objects etc. (Goodwin 2000; Raudaskoski 2010). However, critical emotional displays seem to depend on circumstantial factors - which situation, persons, purpose or the challenge there is at stake (to win the argument versus being polite etc.) - rather than retrievable interactional/organizational patterns. Moreover, the study explores the pros and cons of a possible new cross-interdisciplinary approach between CA and an integrational practice perspective (Goodwin 2003a, 2003b; Harris 1998, 2009). Could trans-situational resources help investigate communicative habits as they are displayed under various circumstances? Finally, could the experienced communication as practiced by the participants be distinguished from the analyst’s interpretations (Sarangi 2007)? These are the questions I explore in my integrational approach to linguistic impairment and aphasia. Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within human interaction. Journal of pragmatics, Vol, 32, 1489-1522. Goodwin, C. (ed.) (2003a). Conversation and brain damage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Goodwin, C. (2003b). Conversational frameworks for the accomplishment of meaning in aphasia. In: Goodwin, C. (ed.), Conversation and brain damage (90-116). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Goodwin, M., Cekaite, A., Goodwin, C. (2012). Emotion as stance. In: Peräkylä, A. & Sorjonen, M. (eds.), Emotion in interaction (16-41). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harris, R. (1998). Introduction to integrational linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon. Harris, R. (2009). Notes and papers 2006-2008. Gamlingay: Bright Pen. Horsbøl, A. & Raudaskoski, P. (2016). Diskurs og praksis: Teori, metode og analyse. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. Krummheuer, A. (2015). Performing an action one cannot do: Participation scaffolding and embodied interaction, Journal of interactional research in communication disorders, Vol, 6, 2, 187-210. Nielsen, C. M. B. (2015). Senhjerneskade i et forståelsesperspektiv. In: Frimann, S., Sørensen, M. & Wentzer, H. (eds.): Sammenhænge i sundhedskommunikation. (247-281). Aalborg: Aalborg Universitetsforlag. Perkins, L. (2003). Negotiating repair in aphasic conversation: Interactional issues. In: Goodwin, C. (ed.).Conversation and brain damage (147-162). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In: Atkinson, M. & Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (56-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Raudaskoski, P. (2010). ‘‘Hi Father’’, ‘‘Hi Mother’’: A multimodal analysis of a significant, identity changing phone call mediated on TV. Journal of pragmatics, Vol. 42, 426-442. Raudaskoski, P. (2013). From understanding to participation: A relational approach to embodied practices. In: Keisanen, T., Kärkkäinen, E., Rauniomaa, M., Siitonen, P. & Siromaa, M. (eds.), Multimodal discourses of participation. AfinLA Yearbook, Vol, 71. 103-121. Sarangi, S. (2007). The anatomy of interpretation: Coming to terms with the analyst’s paradox in professional discourse studies. Text & Talk, Vol 27, 5/6, 567-584. Wilkinson, R. (2011). Changing interactional behavior: Using Conversation Analysis in intervention programs for aphasic conversation. In: Antaki, C. (ed.), Applied Conversation Analysis – intervention and change in institutional talk. (32-53). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Periode21 jul. 2017
Begivenhedstitel15th International Pragmatics Conference
PlaceringBelfast, IrlandVis på kort
Grad af anerkendelseInternational


  • aphasia, communication, IKT, Social Interaction, Communities of Practise
  • integrationism
  • video ethnography
  • interaction analysis
  • Nexus Analysis
  • EMCA