Cover not available
Part of
Interacting with Objects: Language, materiality, and social activity
Edited by Maurice Nevile, Pentti Haddington, Trine Heinemann and Mirka Rauniomaa
[Not in series 186] 2014
► pp. 125–144

Photo sharing as a joint activity between an aphasic speaker and others

| University of Tampere
| University of Helsinki
| University of Tampere
The chapter concerns the usages of a digital camera and digital photographs as augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) methods in interaction between aphasic and non-challenged speakers. It focuses on the way in which a universal tool (the ‘ubi-tech’ method) can contribute to the fluency of spontaneous everyday interactions. The video-recorded conversation is analysed with conversation analytical methods. We highlight the way in which sharing photographs on the display of a digital camera affects the organisation of social activity through bringing in additional semiotic resources that empower the person with aphasia. The digital camera and photos also assist in manifesting the epistemic status of a knowing participant who otherwise tends to be limited by communicative constraints.
Published online: 12 September 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.186.06aal
References (59)
Aaltonen, T. (2010). Mind-reading, a method for understanding the fragmented story of an aphasic man. In M. Hyvärinen, L-C. Hydén, M. Saarenheimo, & M. Tamboukou (Eds.), Beyond narrative coherence (pp. 49–66). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aaltonen, T., & Raudaskoski, S. (2011). Storyworld evoked by hand-drawn maps. Social Semiotics, 21(2), 317–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Annable, G., Goggin, G., & Stienstra, D. (2007). Accessibility, disability, and inclusion in information technologies: Introduction. The Information Society, 23, 145–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arminen, I. (2005). Institutional interaction: Studies of talk at work. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Arminen, I., Auvinen, P., & Palukka, H. (2010). Repairs as the last orderly provided defense of safety in aviation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 443–465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arminen, I., & Weilenmann, A. (2009). Mobile presence and intimacy – reshaping of social actions in mobile contextual configuration. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1905–1923. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, J.M., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Google Scholar
Beukelman, D., Fager, S., Ball, L., & Dietz, A. (2007). AAC for adults with acquired neurological conditions: A review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(3), 230–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beukelman, D., & Mirenda, P. (2005). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. (3rd edition). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Blackstone, S., Williams, M., & Wilkins, D. (2007). Key principles underlying research and practice in AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(3), 191–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloch, S., & Wilkinson, R. (2004). The understandability of AAC: A conversation analysis study of acquired dysarthria. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20(4), 272–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Callon, M. (2008). Economic markets and the rise of interactive agencements: From prosthetic agencies to habilitated agencies. In T. Pinch, & R. Swedberg (Eds.), Living in a material world: Economic Sociology meets Science and Technology Studies (pp. 29–56). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Clarke, M., & Wilkinson, R. (2008). Interaction with cerebral palsy and their peers 2: Understanding initiated VOCA-mediated turns. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24, 3–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. (1997). ‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 69–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1995). Co-constructing meaning in conversation with an aphasic man. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(3), 233–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2003). Conversational frameworks for the accomplishment of meaning in aphasia. In C. Goodwin (Ed.), Conversation and brain damage (pp. 90–116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haakana, M., & Kurhila, S. (2009). Other-correction in everyday interaction: Some comparative aspects. In M. Haakana, M. Laakso, & J. Lindström (Eds.), Talk in interaction: Comparative dimensions (pp. 152–179). Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research: Analyzing social interaction in everyday life. London: Sage. Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, D.J., Shane, H., Russell, S., & Caves, K. (2007). Access to AAC: Present, past, and future. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(3), 243–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holland, A. (1982). Observing functional communication of aphasic adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47, 50–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, I. (2001). Conversation and technology from telephone to the internet. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1987). On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In G. Button, & J.R.E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 86–100). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
. (1996). On the poetics of ordinary talk. Text and Performance Quarterly, 16(1), 1–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R.K., Hough, M.S., King, K.A., Vos, P., & Jeffs, T. (2008). Functional communication in individuals with chronic severe aphasia using augmentative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24(4), 269–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kagan, A. (1998). Supported conversation for adults with aphasia: Methods and resources for training conversation partners. Aphasiology 12(9), 816–830. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klippi, A. (1996). Conversation as an achievement in aphasics. Studia fennica linguistica 6. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Kurhila, S. (2001). Correction in talk between native and non-native speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1083–1110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laakso, M. (1997). Self-initiated repair by fluent aphasic speakers in conversation. Studia Fennica Linguistica 8. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Laakso. M. (2003). Collaborative construction of repair in aphasic conversation: An interactive view on the extended speaking turns of Wernicke’s aphasics. In C. Goodwin (Ed.), Conversation and brain damage (pp. 163–188). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laakso, M., & Klippi, A. (1999). A closer look at the “hint and guess” sequences in aphasic conversation. Aphasiology, 13(4–5), 345–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laakso, M., & Sorjonen, M-L. (2010). Cut-off or particle – ways of initiating self-repair in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1151–1172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laakso, M., & Tykkyläinen, T. (2009). Gendered practices of negotiation? Comparing girls and boys’ practices of making proposals in same-sex peer play. In M. Haakana, M. Laakso, & J. Lindström (Eds.), Talk in interaction: Comparative dimensions (pp. 279–298). Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Laine, M., & Martin, N. (2006). Anomia: Theoretical and clinical aspects. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Lasker, J.P., Garret, K.L., & Fox, L.E. (2007). Severe aphasia. In D.R. Beukelman, K.L. Garrett, & K.M. Yorkston (Eds.), Augmentative communication strategies for adults with acute or chronic medical conditions (pp. 163–206).Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Lindström, A., & Mondada, L. (2012). Assessments in social interaction: Introduction to the special issue. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(2), 299–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McKelvey, M.L., Dietz, A.R., Hux, K., Weissling, K., & Beukelman, D.R. (2007). Performance of a person with chronic aphasia using personal and contextual pictures in a visual scene display prototype. Journal of Medical Speech\-Language Pathology, 15(3), 305–317.Google Scholar
Milroy, L.. & Perkins, L. (1992). Repair strategies in aphasic discourse: Towards a collaborative model. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics,6(1&2), 27–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2008). Using video for a sequential and multimodal analysis of social interaction: Videotaping institutional telephone calls. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(3), Art. 39.Google Scholar
. (2012). The embodied and negotiated production of assessments in instructed actions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(2), 329–361. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oelschlaeger, M.L., & Damico, J.S. (2000). Partnership in conversation: A study of word search strategies. Journal of Communication Disorders, 33, 205–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perkins, L. (2003). Negotiating repair in aphasic conversation: Interactional issues. In C. Goodwin (Ed.), Conversation and brain damage (pp. 147–162). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1980). Telling my side: ‘Limited access’ as a ‘fishing’ device. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 186–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pullin. G. (2009). Design meets disability. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Raudaskoski, S. (2009). Tool and machine: The affordance of the mobile phone. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1441. Tampere: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
Rauniomaa, M., & Keisanen, T. (2012). Two multimodal formats for responding to requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(6–7), 829–842. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation, Language, 50(4), 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van de Sandt-Koenderman, M.W.M.E. (2004). High-tech AAC and aphasia: Widening horizons? Aphasiology, 18(3), 245–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givón (Ed.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 12: Discourse and syntax (pp. 231–246). New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., & Sidnell, J. (2005). Introduction: Multimodal interaction. Semiotica, 156(1–4), 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (2011). Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, R. (1995). Aphasia: Conversation analysis of a non-fluent aphasic person. In M. Perkins, & S. Howard (Eds.), Case-studies in clinical linguistics (pp. 271–292). London: Whurr.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, R., Bloch, S., & Clarke, M. (2011). On the use of graphic resources in interaction by people with communication disorders. In J. Streeck, C. Goodwin, & C. LeBaron (Eds.), Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world (pp. 152–168). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Oloff, Florence & Katharina König
2024. Face-to-Face & digital: Die interaktive und multimodale Herstellung digitalisierter Handlungsräume in Kopräsenz. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 52:1 ► pp. 150 ff. DOI logo
Avgustis, Iuliia & Florence Oloff
2023. Getting (Others) Involved with Smartphones: Participation in Showing Sequences in Multiparty Settings. In Complexity of Interaction, ► pp. 297 ff. DOI logo
Robles, Jessica S., Stephen M. DiDomenico & Joshua Raclaw
2021. Chapter 2.1. Using objects and technologies in the immediate environment as resources for managing affect displays in troubles talk. In How Emotions Are Made in Talk [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 321], ► pp. 101 ff. DOI logo
DiDomenico, Stephen M., Joshua Raclaw & Jessica S. Robles
2020. Attending to the Mobile Text Summons: Managing Multiple Communicative Activities Across Physically Copresent and Technologically Mediated Interpersonal Interactions. Communication Research 47:5 ► pp. 669 ff. DOI logo
Isaac, Adrienne R. & Heidi E. Hamilton
2019. Agency and epistemic authority in question-answer sequences between art museum guides and visitors diagnosed with dementia. Linguistics Vanguard 5:s2 DOI logo
Baier, Carissa K., Jerry K. Hoepner & Thomas W. Sather
2018. Exploring Snapchat as a dynamic capture tool for social networking in persons with aphasia. Aphasiology 32:11 ► pp. 1336 ff. DOI logo
Björk-Willén, Polly
2016. Peer Collaboration in Front of Two Alphabet Charts. In Friendship and Peer Culture in Multilingual Settings [Sociological Studies of Children and Youth, 21], ► pp. 143 ff. DOI logo
Greer, Tim
2016. Multiple Involvements in Interactional Repair: Using Smartphones in Peer Culture to AugmentLingua FrancaEnglish. In Friendship and Peer Culture in Multilingual Settings [Sociological Studies of Children and Youth, 21], ► pp. 197 ff. DOI logo
Raclaw, Joshua, Jessica S. Robles & Stephen M. DiDomenico
2016. Providing Epistemic Support for Assessments Through Mobile-Supported Sharing Activities. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49:4 ► pp. 362 ff. DOI logo
Theobald, Maryanne, Amanda Bateman, Gillian Busch, Megan Laraghy & Susan Danby
2016. “I’m Your Best Friend”: Peer Interaction and Friendship in a Multilingual Preschool. In Friendship and Peer Culture in Multilingual Settings [Sociological Studies of Children and Youth, 21], ► pp. 171 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 september 2024. 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.