Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics of Active Social Inclusion
Edited by Yoshiko Matsumoto and Heidi E. Hamilton
[Pragmatics and Society 15:1] 2024
► pp. 157–177

Singling out

A method of group inclusion for residents living with dementia

ORCID logo | University of Southern Denmark
This EMCA (Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis) study concerns carers’ multimodal methods for including residents living with dementia in social activities in remote locations. It illustrates how groups of residents are pre-arranged and how the residents are subsequently singled out one by one through requests to come along. Though the request may be the second one, it may be designed as a first request. Subsequently, carers employ multimodal methods to solicit moving and to escort the singled-out residents.
The paper concludes that carers’ methods are employed with a view to difficulties resulting from dementia and to pre-empt confusion in the residents. However, the methods may lead to exclusion. Except for one instance, this is not problematized by the residents. The paper argues that some residents may understand they will be included next or in a while. For other residents, forthcoming activities are not relevant unless extra efforts are made to reintroduce their relevance to them.
Keywords: singling out, multimodality, dementia, group formation, inclusion, recipient design
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methods
  • 3.Research in interaction involving dementia
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Ordering the escort
      • 4.1.1Pre-faces of escorts proper
      • 4.1.2Solicitations to start moving
      • 4.1.3The formation of escorted sub-groups
    • 4.2Exclusion of residents
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 22 January 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.23049.ras
References (29)
References
Alzheimerforeningen. 2011. Forstå Demens. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag Alzheimerforeningen.Google Scholar
Antaki, Charles, Mick L. Finlay, Chris Walton, and Louise Pate. 2008. “Offering Choice to People with an Intellectual Impairment: An Interactional Study.” Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 521: 1165–1175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bastings, Anne Davis. 2009. Forget Memory. Creating Better Lives for People with Dementia. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara, and Trine Heinemann. 2015. “The Alignment of Manual and Verbal Displays in Requests for the Repair of an Object.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 48 (3): 342–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gülich, Elisabeth, and Katrin Lindemann. 2010. “Communicating Emotion in Doctor-Patient Interaction: A Multidimensional Single-Case Analysis.” In Prosody in Interaction, ed. by Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Elisabeth Reber, and Margret Selting, 269–294. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Götell, Eva, Steven Brown, and Sirkka-Liisa Ekman. 2002. “Caregiver Singing and Background Music in Dementia Care.” Western Journal of Nursing Research 24 (2): 195–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, Heidi. 2019. Language, Dementia and Meaning Making. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hepburn, Alexa, and Galina Bolden. 2012. “The Conversation Analytic Approach to Transcription.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 57–76. Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Danielle. 2013. “A Family Living with Alzheimer’s Disease: The Communicative Challenges.” dementia 14(5): 1–19.Google Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 1977. “Spatial Organization in Social Encounters: The F-formation System.” In Studies in Behavior of Social Interaction, ed. by Adam Kendon, 209–238. Lisse, Holland: Peter DeRidder Press.Google Scholar
Kykyri, Virpi-Liisa, Anu Karvonen, Jarl Wahlström, Jukka Kaartinen, Markku Penttonen, and Jaakko Seikkula. 2016. “Soft Prosody and Embodied Attunement in Therapeutic Interaction: A Multimethod Case Study of a Moment of Change.” Journal of Constructivist Psychology 30 (3): 211–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laine, Matti, Minna Laakso, Elina Vuorinen, and Juha Rinne. 1998. “Coherence and Informativeness of Discourse in Two Dementia Types.” Journal of Neurolinguistics 111: 79–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H., and Geoffrey Raymond. 2021. “Body Trouble: Some Sources of Difficulty in the Progressive Realization of Manual Action.” Research in Language and Social Interaction 54 (3): 277–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindholm, Camilla. 2015. “Parallel Realities: The Interactional Management of Confabulation in Dementia Care Encounters.” Research in Language and Social Interaction 48 (2): 176–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Majlesi, Ali Reza, and Anna Ekström. 2016. “Baking Together – the Coordination of Actions in Activities Involving People with Dementia.” Journal of Aging Studies 381: 37–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Majlesi, Ali Reza, and Charlotta Plejert. 2016. “Embodiment in Tests of Cognitive Functioning: A Study of an Interpreter-mediated Dementia Evaluation.” dementia 11–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marstrand, Anne Katrine, and Jan Svennevig. 2018. “A preference for non-invasive touch in caregiving contexts.” Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality 1(2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W., and Steven E. Clayman. 1991. “The Diversity of Ethnomethodology.” Annual Review of Sociology 171: 385–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2013. “Interactional Space and the Study of Embodied Talk-in-Interaction.” In Space in Language and Linguistics, ed. by Peter Auer, Martin Hilpert, Anja Stukenbrock, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi, 247–275. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. by Jim M. Atkinson, and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, Gitte. 2018. “On the Social Constraints of Having a World.” RASK: International Journal of Language and Communication 71: 79–107.Google Scholar
. 2020. “Singing as a Resource in Conversations Involving Persons with Dementia.” In Atypical Interaction: The Impact of Communicative Impairments within Everyday Talk, ed. by Ray Wilkinson, John Rae, and Gitte Rasmussen, 161–193. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2023). “The Significance of EM/CA Studies in Multimodal Interaction Involving Blindness and Visual Impairment in the Field of ‘Atypical Interaction Research.’ Chap. 11. In The Practical Accomplishment of Blind People’s Ordinary Activities. Directions in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, ed. by Brian Due, 227–243. Routledge.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, Gitte, Elisabeth M. Andersen, and Elisabeth D. Kristiansen. 2019. “Working out Availability, Unavailability, and Awayness in Social Face-to-Face Encounters: The Case of Dementia.” Discourse Studies 21(3): 258–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1995. Lectures on Conversation. Part 1, lec. 1. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel. 1997. “Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair.” Discourse Processes 231: 1–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steensig, Jakob. 2020. “Conversation Analysis and Affiliation and Alignment.” In The Concise Encycleopedia of Applied Linguistics, ed. by Carol A. Chapelle, 248–253. Hobroken/West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wigram, Tony, Inge N. Pedersen, and Lars O. Bonde. 2002. A Comprehensive Guide to Music Therapy: Theory, Clinical Practice, Research, and Training. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar