Advertisement

The Nature and Function of Vocalizations in Atypical Communication

  • Laura Di FerranteEmail author
  • Julie Bouchard
Hot Topic

Abstract

Purpose of Review

A survey of current research including people with disorders in which speech is impaired shows that vocalizations are vastly discussed as a communication strategy, used both in isolation or paired with other aids. The principal goal of this paper is to describe the ways researchers are using the term vocalizations and the meanings and functions attributed to it. We also discuss possible future developments for specific research on unaided communication.

Recent Findings

Although research has not focused specifically on the nature and function of vocalizations, several scholars were able to highlight the crucial role of vocalizations in interactions including people with complex communication needs.

Summary

This paper has demonstrated the need for systematizing the discourse on vocalizations both in formal terms and in regard to the object of study itself. Furthermore, it has been shown that vocalizations have a powerful interactional potential, which, if investigated, could be exploited by dedicated training and technology.

Keywords

Vocalizations Augmentative and alternative communication AAC users Unaided communication Complex communication needs Atypical communication 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Laura Di Ferrante and Julie Bouchard declare no conflicts of interest relevant to this manuscript.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    • Wilkinson R, Bloch S, Clarke M. On the use of graphic resources in interaction by people with communication disorders. In: In Streeck J, Goodwin C, LeBaron C, editors. Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world, 152–168: Cambridge University Press; 2011. This study refers to vocalizations and how people with communication disorders use them with graphic resources. Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Glennen SL. Augmentative and alternative communication systems. In: Glennen SL, DeCoste DC, editors. The handbook of augmentative and alternative communication. London: Singular Publishing Group; 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jette AM. The promise of assistive technology to enhance work participation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzx054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Branson D, Demchak M. The use of augmentative and alternative communication methods with infants and toddlers with disabilities: a research review. AAC: Augment Altern Commun. 2009;25(4):274–86.  https://doi.org/10.3109/07434610903384529.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lund SK, Light J. The effectiveness of grammar instruction for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication systems: a preliminary study. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2003;46(5):1110–23 Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14575346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Müller E, Soto G. Conversation patterns of three adults using aided speech: variations across partners. Augment Altern Commun. 2002;18(2):77–90.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610212331281181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    •• Dahlgren Sandberg A, Liliedahl M. Patterns in early interaction between young preschool children with severe speech and physical impairments and their parents. Child Lang Teach Ther. 2008;24(1):9–30.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659007084566This study describes the communicative functions of vocalizations along with other body language means. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bianquin N, Sacchi F, Besio S. Enhancing communication and participation using AAC technologies for children with motor impairments: a systematic review 1. Educ Sci Soc. 2018;1:49–72.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferm U, Ahlsén E, Björck-Åkesson E. Conversational topics between a child with complex communication needs and her caregiver at mealtime. Augment Altern Commun. 2005;21(1):19–40.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610412331270507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hill KJ, Romich B. A. AAC core vocabulary analysis: tools for clinical use. Proceedings of the RESNA 2000 Annual Conference 2000:3:67–69.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Millikin CC. Symbol systems and vocabulary selection strategies. In: Glennen S, DeCoste DC, editors. The handbook of augmentative and alternative communication. London: Singular Publishing Group; 1997.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lancioni GE, Lems S. Using a microswitch for vocalization responses with persons with multiple disabilities. Disabil Rehabil. 2001;23(16):745–8.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280110057677.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pickering L, Di Ferrante L, Bruce C, Friginal E, Pearson P, Bouchard J. An introduction to the ANAWC the AAC and non-AAC workplace corpus. Int J Corpus Linguist. 2019;24(2):229–44.  https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.17088.pic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    • Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O’Reilly MF, Oliva D, Groeneweg J. Enabling a girl with multiple disabilities to control her favorite stimuli through vocalization and a dual- microphone microswitch. J Vis Impair Blind. 2005:179–82 This study defines vocalization, which is used to activate a dual-microphone microswitch to initiate a change of stimuli. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bouchard J. Spelling as a last resort: the use of spelling in workplace interaction by speakers with a speech impairment. In: Pickering L, Friginal E, Staple S, editors. Talking at work. London: Palgrave MacMillan; 2016. p. 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ganz JB, Simpson RL. Effects on communicative requesting and speech development of the picture exchange communication system in children with characteristics of autism. J Autism Dev Disord. 2004;34(4):395–409.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JADD.0000037416.59095.d7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tincani M. Comparing the picture exchange communication system and sign language training for children with autism. Focus Autism Other Dev Disabil. 2004;19(3):152–63.  https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576040190030301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    •• Clarke M, Kirton A. Patterns of interaction between children with physical disabilities using augmentative and alternative communication systems and their peers. Child Lang Teach Ther. 2003;19(2):135–51.  https://doi.org/10.1191/0265659003ct248oaThis study defines vocalizations and analyzes them both quantitatively and in terms of communicative functions. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    •• Sigafoos J, Didden R, O’Reilly M. Effects of speech output on maintenance of requesting and frequency of vocalizations in three children with developmental disabilities. Augment Altern Commun. 2003, 19(1):37–47.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0743461032000056487This study defines vocalizations and analyzes their frequency in presence of digitized speech output. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    • Nunes D, Hanline MF. Enhancing the alternative and augmentative communication use of a child with autism through a parent-implemented naturalistic intervention. Int J Disabil Dev Educ. 2007;54(2):177–97.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10349120701330495This study describes the communicative functions of vocalizations along with other body language means and analyzed their frequency. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Olive ML, de la Cruz B, Davis TN, Chan JM, Lang RB, O’Reilly MF, et al. The effects of enhanced milieu teaching and a voice output communication aid on the requesting of three children with autism. J Autism Dev Disord. 2007;37:1505–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Di Ferrante L. Small talk at work: a corpus-based discourse analysis of AAC and non-AAC device users. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Texas A&M University – Commerce, TX; 2013.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Flipsen P. Speaker-listener familiarity: parents as judges of delayed speech intelligibility. J Commun Dis. 1995;28:3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    D’Innocenzo J, Tjaden K, Greenman G. Intelligibility in dysarthria: effects of listener familiarity and speaking condition. Clin Ling Phon. 2006;20(9):659–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim H, Nanney S. Familiarization effects on word intelligibility in dysarthric speech. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2014;66(6):258–64.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000369799.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Patel R, Schroeder B. Influence of familiarity on identifying prosodic vocalizations produced by children with severe dysarthria. Clin Ling Phon. 2007;21(10):833–48.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02699200701559476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kwiatkowski J, Shriberg LD. Intelligibility assessment in developmental phonological disorders: accuracy of caregiver gloss. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1992;35(5):1095–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Barefoot SM, Bochner JH, Johnson BA, Eigen BA. Rating deaf speakers’ comprehensibility: an exploratory investigation. Am J Speech-Lang Pathol. 1993;2(3):31–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    • Bouchard J, Di Ferrante L, Pickering L, El Khatib N. What can corpora tell us about AAC users’ discourse in the workplace? Manuscript submitted for publication 2019. This study investigates the differences between the discourse produced with vocalization and VOCA by the same four speakers. Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pinto M, Gardner H. Communicative interaction between a non-speaking child with cerebral palsy and her mother using an iPad TM. Child Lang Teach Ther. 2014;30(2):207–20.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659013518338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Odom AC, Upthegrove M. Moving toward employment using AAC: case study. Augment Altern Commun. 1997;13(4):258–62.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07434619712331278078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cagliani RR, Ayres KM, Whiteside E, Ringdahl JE. Picture exchange communication system and delay to reinforcement. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2017;29(6):925–39.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-017-9564-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tincani M, Crozier S, Alazetta L. The picture exchange communication system: effects on manding and speech development for school-aged children with ASD. Educ Train Dev Disabil. 2006;41:177–84.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Millikin CC. personal communication, 2019.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lancioni GE, O’Reilly ME, Oliva D, Coppa MM. A microswitch for vocalization responses to foster environmental control in children with multiple disabilities. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2001;45:271–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O’Reilly ME, Oliva D, Baccani S, Canevaro A. Using simple hand-movement responses with optic microswitches with two persons with multiple disabilities. Res Pract Persons Severe Disabil. 2002;27:276–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O’Reilly ME, Oliva D, Scalini L, Vigo CM, et al. Microswitch clusters to support responding and appropriate posture of students with multiple disabilities: three case evaluations. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26:501–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Antaki C, Wilkinson R. Conversation analysis and the study of atypical populations. In: Sidnell J, Stivers T, editors. The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell; 2013. p. 533–50.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Comunicazione e Ricerca SocialeSapienza Università di RomaRomaItaly
  2. 2.Département des arts et lettresChicoutimi, QuébecCanada

Personalised recommendations