Article published in:
The Conversation Frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction
Edited by Esther Pascual and Sergeiy Sandler
[Human Cognitive Processing 55] 2016
► pp. 323–342

The use of interactive structures as communicative strategy in Dutch and Portuguese aphasic speakers

| VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| Federal University of Santa Maria, Brazil
This is a comparative study involving conversational data from Brazilian Portuguese and Netherlands Dutch speakers with agrammatic aphasia, a linguistic impairment after acquired brain damage. These speakers typically communicate through reduced syntactic structures. We found the four participants in our study to creatively manipulate their elliptical repertoire to exploit shared interactive knowledge. They used non-quotative direct speech for expressing mental and emotional states and states of affairs, as well as narrative events and grammatical concepts. Both the Dutch and Brazilian participants typically combined fictive direct speech with the topic-comment structure, sometimes expressed as a fictive question-answer pair. We argue that this particular use of elliptical repertoire represents a communicative strategy to manage interactive requirements when facing linguistic limitations.
Keywords: agrammatism, conditionality, direct speech, fictive interaction, fictive question-answer pairs, topic-comment structure
Published online: 01 November 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.16ver
References
Armstrong, E., & Ulatowska, H
(2007) Making stories: Evaluative language and the aphasia experience. Aphasiology, 21, 673–774. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bánréti, Z
(2010) Recursion in aphasia. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 24(11), 906–914. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B
(1987) Competition, variation and language learning. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 157–193). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bates, E., Wulfeck, B., & MacWhinney, B
(1991) Crosslinguistic research in aphasia: An overview. Brain and Language, 41, 123–148. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beeke, S., Maxim, J., & Wilkinson, R
(2007) Using conversation analysis to assess and treat people with aphasia. Seminars in Speech and Language, 28(2), 136–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beeke, S.,Wilkinson, R., & Maxim, J
(2002) Interaction and grammar in aphasia: A comparison of conversation and language testing in a nonfluent speaker. Brain and Language, 83(1), 190–192.Google Scholar
Belford, E.M
(2006) Topicalização de objetos e deslocamento de sujeitos na fala carioca: Um estudo sociolingüístico [Topicalization of objects and movement of subjects in Carioca dialect: A sociolinguistic study]. Master’s thesis, Faculdade de Letras, Rio de Janeiro: UFRJ.Google Scholar
Berko-Gleason, J., Goodglass, H., Obler, M., Green, E., Hyde, M.R., & Weintraub, S
(1980) Narrative strategies of aphasic and normal speaking subjects. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 370–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C
(1987) Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H.H., & Gerrig, R.J
(1990) Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66, 764–805. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Roo, E., Kolk, H., & Hofstede, B
(2003) Structural properties of syntactically reduced speech: A comparison of normal speakers and Broca’s aphasics. Brain and Language, 86, 99–115. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Doesborgh, S.J.C
(2004) Assessment and treatment of linguistic deficits in aphasic patients. PhD dissertation, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Givón, T
(1979) On understanding grammar. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1985) Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 187–219). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodglass, H., & Kaplan, E
(1983) The assessment of aphasia and related disorders. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C
(2003) Conversation and brain damage. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gundel, J.K
(1988) Universals of topic-comment structure. In M. Hammond, E. Moravczik, & J. Wirth (Eds.), Studies in syntactic typology (pp. 209–239). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J
(1978) Conditionals are topics. Language, 54, 564–589. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heeschen, C., & Schegloff, E.A.S
(1999) Agrammatism, adaptation theory, conversation analysis. On the role of so-called telegraphic style in talk-in-interaction. Aphasiology, 13, 365–405. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hofstede, B.T.M., & Kolk, H
(1994) The effects of task variation on the production of grammatical morphology in Broca’s aphasia: A multiple case study. Brain and Language, 46, 278–328. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, J
(2001) The dimensions of topic-comment. Linguistics, 39, 641–681. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kleppa, L
(2008) Agramatismo sob o ponto de vista da Teoria da Adaptação [Agrammatism from an Adaptation Theory perspective]. Anais do Seta, 2, 261–265.Google Scholar
(2009) Fala reduzida em sujeitos afásicos e outros registros [Elliptic speech by aphasic speakers and in other registers]. Estudos Linguísticos, 38(2), 249–258.Google Scholar
(2010) Estilo reduzido em sujeitos agramáticos, não-afásicos, telegramas e manchetes [Elliptic style in agrammatic speakers, telegrams and headlines]. Revista L@el em (Dis)curso, 2, 93–108.Google Scholar
(2014) Estruturas de tópico-comentário na fala reduzida de um sujeito afásico [Topic-comment structures in the elliptic speech of an aphasic speaker]. Estudos Linguísticos, 43(2), 926–939.Google Scholar
Kolk, H
(2006) How language adapts to the brain: An analysis of agrammatic aphasia. In L. Progovac, K. Paesani, E. Casielles, & E. Barton (Eds.), The syntax of nonsententials. Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 29–258). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kolk, H., & Van Grunsven, M.J.F
(1985) Agrammatism as a variable phenomenon. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 2, 347–384. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kolk, H., & Heeschen, C
(1990) Adaptation symptoms and impairment symptoms in Broca’s aphasia. Review. Aphasiology, 4, 221–231. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kolk, H
(1995) A time-based approach to agrammatic production. Brain and Language, 50, 282–303. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Does agrammatic speech constitute a regression to child language? A three-way comparison between agrammatic, child, and normal ellipsis. Brain and Language, 77, 340–350. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Agrammatism. In R.D. Kent (Ed.), The MIT encyclopedia of communication disorders (pp. 231–233). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W., & Waletzky, J
(1967) Narrative analysis. In J. Helm (Ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts (pp. 12–44). Seattle: University of Washington Press. Reprinted in the Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7, 3–38, 1997.Google Scholar
Labov, W
(1972) Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pensylvania Press.Google Scholar
Li, C.N., & Thompson, S.A
(1976) Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In C.N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 457–489). New York: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E
(1989) The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maslova, E.A., & Bernini, G
(2006) Sentence topics in the languages of Europe and beyond. In G. Bernini et al. (Eds.), Pragmatic organization of discourse in the languages of Europe (pp. 67–120). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mathis, T., & Yule, G
(1994) Zero quotatives. Discourse Processes 18, 63–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Menn, L., & Obler, L.K
(Eds.) (1990) Agrammatic aphasia: A cross-language narrative sourcebook. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, I
(2001) Secondary topic as a relation in information structure. Linguistics, 39, 1–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pascual, E
(2002) Imaginary trialogues: Conceptual blending and fictive interaction in criminal courts. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
(2006a) Questions in legal monologues: Fictive interaction as argumentative strategy in a murder trial. Text & Talk, 26(3), 383–402. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006b) Fictive interaction within the sentence: A communicative type of fictivity in grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2), 245–267. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pascual, E., Królak, E., & Janssen, Th. A.J.M
(2013) Direct speech compounds: Evoking socio-cultural scenarios through fictive interaction. Cognitive Linguistics 24(2), 345–366. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pascual, E
(2014) Fictive interaction: The conversation frame in thought, language, and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pontes, E
(1987) O tópico no Português do Brasil [Topic in Brazilian Portuguese]. Campinas: Editora Pontes.Google Scholar
Primus, B
(1993) Word order and information structure: A performance-based account of topic positions and focus positions. In J. Jacobs, A. van Stechow, W. Sternefeld, & Th. Venneman (Eds.), Syntax: Ein Internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, 1 [Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research] (pp. 880–896). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiter, M.B
(2008) Speaking in ellipsis. The effect of a compensatory style of speech on functional communication in chronic agrammatism. PhD Dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Ruiter, M.B., Kolk, H., & Rietveld, T.C.M
(2010) Speaking in ellipses: The effect of a compensatory style of speech on functional communication in chronic agrammatism. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation: An International Journal, 20(3), 423–458. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saffran, E.M., Berndt, R., & Schwartz, M.F
(1989) Quantitate analysis of aphasic sentence production: Further development and new data. Brain and Language, 37, 440–479. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steen, G.J
(2011) Genre between the humanities and the sciences. In M. Callies, W.R. Keller, & A. Lohöfer (Eds.), Bi-directionality in the cognitive sciences: Avenues, challenges, and limitations (pp. 21–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Streit-Olness, G., & Stewart, C
(2007) Assigning prominence to information through narrative evaluation: The effects of aphasia severity. Brain and Language, 103, 8–249. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D
(1989) Talking voices. Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tesak, J., & Dittmann, J
(1991) Telegraphic style in normals and aphasics. Linguistics, 29, 1111–1137. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Webster, J., Franklin, S., Howard, D
(2001) An Investigation of the Interaction between Thematic and Phrasal Structure in Nonfluent Agrammatic Subjetcs. Brain and Language, 78, 197–211. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, R
(2009) Projecting a reference in aphasic talk and normal talk. Discourse Processes, 46(2–3), 206–225. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, R., Beeke, S., & Maxim, J
(2010) Formulating actions and events with limited linguistic resources: Enactment and iconicity in agrammatic aphasic talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 57–84. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A
(2002) Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Pascual, Esther, Aline Dornelas & Todd Oakley
2017. When “Goal!” means ‘soccer’. Pragmatics & Cognition 24:3 ► pp. 315 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 may 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.