Beeke Suzanne, Capindale Sam, Cockayne Lin
Language and Cognition Department, Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London , London, UK.
Talk Speech and Language Therapy Ltd ., Bristol, UK.
Clin Linguist Phon. 2020 Nov 1;34(10-11):933-953. doi: 10.1080/02699206.2020.1728580. Epub 2020 Mar 2.
This study explores repair practices deployed by the interlocutor of a speaker with Wernicke's aphasia, their relationship to types of aphasic difficulty, and how mutual understanding and the progression of talk is maintained. A 75-year-old woman with Wernicke's aphasia of 16 months duration and her friend video recorded 36 minutes of conversation at home. Using conversation analytic methods two patterns of other-repair by the non-aphasic interlocutor were identified. The first practice was turn completion, which occurred in the context of self-initiated word search by the person with aphasia. The second was correction in the context of trouble with reference to person or place, manifested as an erroneous word, mis-selection of a gendered pronoun, or use of a pronoun where a person's name was expected. This correction was mainly overt, completed via a short side sequence dealing with the repair, although a few examples were embedded, where a word or phrase was replaced with a corrected form without overtly drawing attention to the correction. None of the examples included an account for the error. Unlike in typical talk, the person with aphasia did not repeat or use the corrected form in subsequent talk. For this dyad, correction and completion function as interactionally acceptable collaborative repair strategies, maintaining progressivity and a focus on topic development rather than on repair itself. There is no evidence that other-correction is dispreferred, which accords with recent findings for typical interaction but differs from other studies of aphasic talk. Correction should not be dismissed out of hand as a negative interactional practice when talking to someone with Wernicke's aphasia.
本研究探讨了与韦尼克失语症患者对话者所采用的修复策略,这些策略与失语症困难类型的关系,以及相互理解和对话进展是如何得以维持的。一名患有韦尼克失语症16个月的75岁女性与其朋友在家中对36分钟的对话进行了视频录制。运用会话分析方法,识别出了非失语症对话者进行他人修复的两种模式。第一种策略是话轮完成,发生在失语症患者自行发起的词汇搜索情境中。第二种是在涉及人物或地点出现问题的情境下进行纠正,表现为错误用词、性别代词的错误选择,或者在应该使用人名时使用了代词。这种纠正主要是显性的,通过处理修复的简短辅助序列来完成,不过也有一些例子是嵌入式的,即用正确形式替换一个单词或短语,而没有明显地让人注意到这种纠正。所有例子中都没有对错误进行解释。与典型对话不同的是,失语症患者在后续对话中没有重复或使用纠正后的形式。对于这一对话组合而言,纠正和完成起到了互动上可接受的协作修复策略的作用,维持了进展性并将重点放在话题发展而非修复本身。没有证据表明他人纠正不受欢迎,这与近期关于典型互动的研究结果一致,但与其他失语症对话研究不同。在与韦尼克失语症患者交谈时,不应将纠正作为一种负面的互动行为而立即摒弃。