The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Aphasia and topic initiation in conversation: a case study
Abstract
Background: Aphasiologists often research, assess and treat linguistic impairment and its consequences for daily life separately. Studies that link the language used by people with aphasia to routine communicative activities may expand the linguistic forms treated as relevant for successful communication by people with aphasia. Previous research has suggested that initiating topics in conversation can be problematic for people with aphasia, but it has not been widely investigated. Aims: This paper uses Conversation Analysis to examine how a person with aphasia initiated topics in everyday conversation. It describes the utility of and‐prefacing for topic initiation. Methods & Procedures: A person with chronic aphasia (‘Valerie’) was recruited to participate and was video‐recorded speaking with four conversation partners. Approximately 3.5 h of recordings were collected, and transcribed according to conversation analytic conventions. Topic initiations in this data set were identified and analysed using conversation analytic procedures. Outcomes & Results: It was found that topic initiations often led to trouble, and that Valerie recurrently used and‐prefaced turns when initiating topics (e.g.and how was your turkey?). This paper argues that and‐prefacing was an advantageous method for initiating topics because it smoothed the conversational discontinuities that this action creates. Conclusions & Implications: These findings are consistent with previous observations about the hazardousness of topic initiation for people with aphasia. Valerie's use of and‐prefacing suggests that conjunctions and other turn prefaces may be useful for promoting successful communication by people with aphasia during everyday conversation. Future investigation should identify if and how other people with aphasia use turn prefacing when initiating topics, and whether this changes over time.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Explicit indications of sequential relationships are accomplished using turn beginning elements (e.g., conjunctions; see Schegloff, 2004; see also Barnes, Ferguson, and Candlin, 2013, on aphasia)”
From Dysarthria and other-initiated repair in everyday conversation (2020) · cites this paper as Barnes, Ferguson, and Candlin, 2013
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 27
- Aaltonen T., 2010, Halting aphasic interaction: creation of intersubjectivity and spousal relationship in situ, Communication and Medicine, 7, 95, 10.1558/cam.v7i2.95 · DOI
- 10.1558/jircd.v2i2.215 · DOI
- 10.1558/jircd.v3i1.27 · DOI
- Bastiaanse R., 2002, The Verb and Sentence Test
- 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.03.002 · DOI
- 10.1177/1461445609346770 · DOI
- Brookshire R. H., 1993, Discourse Comprehension Test
- 10.1007/BF00143022 · DOI
- Heritage J., 1984, Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology
- 10.1017/S0047404500017656 · DOI
- Kertesz A., 2006, The Western Aphasia Battery—Revised
- 10.1080/026870399402136 · DOI
- 10.1080/02687039408248671 · DOI
- Maynard D. W., 2003, Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings
- 10.1177/1461445606061797 · DOI
- Schegloff E. A., 1990, Conversational Organization and its Development, 51
- 10.1086/230911 · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9780511791208 · DOI
- 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 · DOI · Paper page
- Svennevig J., 1999, Getting Acquainted in Conversation: A Study of Initial Interactions
- Thompson C. K., 2008, Aphasia Rehabilitation: The Impairment and Its Consequences, 3
- 10.1080/026870399402127 · DOI
- 10.1558/jircd.v1i1.45 · DOI
- Wilkinson R., 2003, Conversation and Brain Damage, 59, 10.1093/oso/9780195129533.003.0003 · DOI
- 10.3109/17549507.2011.551140 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.07.206 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dysarthria and other-initiated repair in everyday conversation
Bloch, S., & Barnes, S. (2020) · Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics · doi:10.1080/02699206.2019.1705915 · Cited by 13
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Barnes, S. E., Candlin, C. N., & Ferguson, A.
- Affiliations
- Macquarie University (AU)
- University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Barnes, Scott E.
- Venue
- International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-10-19
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 102-114
- ISSN
- 1368-2822 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-6984
- OpenAlex
- W1492231478
- Cited by
- 28
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 11.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
- Keywords
- aphasia, topic initiation, conjunctions, everyday conversation, chronic aphasia, turn-taking
- MeSH terms
- Aged, 80 and over, Aphasia, Communication Disorders, Female, Homes for the Aged, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Neuropsychological Tests, Nursing Homes, Semantics, Speech Perception, Speech Production Measurement, Verbal Behavior, Video Recording, Comprehension
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review