Advertisement

Language and Communication Disorders as an Area of Study

Chapter

Abstract

Traditionally, problems with language and communication have been approached through a discourse of disabledness or deficiency. In contract, this book explores and challenges this understanding, turning the spotlight on divergent discourses in current research in language and communication disorders (LCDs). Two cases are compared for this purpose: autism and aphasia. Studies in autism presuppose the mind to be an impersonal decoding machine. On the other hand, studies in aphasia presuppose the social to be the essence of human existence. In this view, co-construction of meaning and participation have replaced the individualist stance. In consequence, aphasia studies are enhancing a discourse of abledness while traditional autism studies are advocating a discourse of disabledness. Accordingly, explanation for the development in aphasia studies is sought.

Keywords

Conditions for description Metaphorical terminology Ontology Clinical discourse Everyday discourse 

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders DSM-5 (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: APA Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antaki, C., & Wilkinson, R. (2013). Conversation analysis and the study of atypical populations. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 533–550). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Aphasiology. (1999). Special issue. Conversation Analysis, 13(4–5), 251–258.Google Scholar
  4. Aphasiology. (2015). Special issue. Conversation and Aphasia: Advances in Analysis and Intervention, 29(3), 257–268.Google Scholar
  5. Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”? Cognition, 21(19), 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Björne, P. (2007). A possible world. PhD dissertation. Lund University, Cognitive Studies 134, Lund.Google Scholar
  8. Brinkmann, S. (Ed.). (2010). Det diagnosticerede liv. Aarhus: Forlaget Klim.Google Scholar
  9. Bøttcher, D., & Dammeyer, J. (2010). Handicappsykologi: En grundbog om arbejdet med mennesker med funktionsnedsættelser. København: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
  10. Duncker, D. (2011). On the empirical challenge to integrational studies in language. Language Sciences, 33(4), 533–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. First, M., Frances, A., & Pincus, H. (2004). DSM-IV-TR guide book. Vancouver: American Psychiatric Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Fleming, D. (1995). The search for an integrational account of language: Roy Harris and conversation analysis. Language Sciences, 17(1), 73–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frith, U. (2003). Autism: Explaining the enigma (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Gergen, K. (2015). Toward a relational humanism. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 54(2), 149–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodwin, C. (Ed.). (2003a). Conversation and brain damage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Goodwin, C. (2003b). Conversational frameworks for the accomplishment of meaning. In C. Goodwin (Ed.), Conversation and brain damage (pp. 90–116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Harris, R. (1996). Signs, language and communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Harris, R. (1998). Introduction to integrational linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  20. Harris, R. (2004). Integrationism, language, mind and world. Language Sciences, 26(6), 727–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harris, R. (2009). Integrating autism. Integrationist notes and papers 2006–2008 (pp. 13–16). Gamlingay: Bright Pen.Google Scholar
  22. Korkiakangas, T., Dindar, K., Laitila, A., & Kärnä, E. (2016). The Sally-Anne test: An interactional analysis of a dyadic assessment. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 51(6), 685–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krummheuer, A. (2015). Performing an action on cannot do: Participation, scaffolding and embodied interaction. Journal of International Research in Communication Disorders, 6(2), 187–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leslie, A. (1987). Pretense and representation: The origins of “theory of mind”. Psychological Review, 94(4), 412–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leudar, I., & Costall, A. (Eds.). (2011). Against theory of mind. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Love, N. (2007). Are languages digital codes? Language Sciences, 29(5), 690–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McIlvenny, P. (1995). Seeing conversations: Analysing sign language talk. In P. ten Have & G. Psathas (Eds.), Situated order: Studies in the social organisation of talk and embodied activities (pp. 129–150). Washington, DC: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  28. McIlvenny, P., & Raudaskoski, P. (1994). Sign language and deaf interaction: A preliminary study of sign talk in Northern Finland. In I. Ahlgren, B. Bergman, & M. Brennan (Eds.), Perspectives in sign language usage (pp. 269–291). Durham: The International Sign Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
  29. Nielsen, C. (2011). Towards applied integrationism: Integrating autism in teaching and coaching sessions. Language Sciences, 33(4), 593–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nielsen, C. (2013). Integrating the mind: An analysis of the methaphorical terminology in autism research. Guldbæk: Anvendt Ny Integrationel Lingvistik.Google Scholar
  31. Nielsen, C. (2015). Senhjerneskade i et forståelsesperspektiv. S. Frimann, M. Sørensen, & H. Wentzer (Eds.), Sammenhænge i sundhedskommunikation. (pp. 247–281). Aalborg: Aalborg Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
  32. Pablé, A., & Hutton, C. (2015). Signs, meaning and experience. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Rae, J., & Ramey, M. (2015). Parents resources for facilitating the activities of children with autism at home. In J. N. Lester & M. O’Reilly (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of child mental health: Discourse and conversation studies (pp. 459–479). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. Raudaskoski, P. (2013). From understanding to participation: A relational approach to embodied practices. In T. Keisanen, E. Kärkkäinen, M. Rauniomaa, P. Siitonen, & M. Siromaa. (Eds.), Multimodal discourses of participation, AfinLA yearbook (Vol. 71, pp. 103–121). Jyväskylä: Suomen Soveltavan Kielitieteen Yhdistyks (AFinLA). ISSN 0781-0318.Google Scholar
  36. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schegloff, E., Sacks, H., & Jefferson, G. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Simmons-Mackie, N., & Damico, J. (2008). Exposed and embedded corrections in aphasia therapy: Issues of voice and identity. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 43(1), 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sterponi, L. (2004). Construction of rules, accountability and moral identity by high-functioning children with autism. Discourse Studies, 6(2), 207–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sterponi, L., & de Kirby, K. (2016). A multidimensional reappraisal of language in autism—Insights from a discourse analytic study. Special issue: Discourse and conversation analytic approaches to the study of autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism Developmental Disorders, 46, 394–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tammet, D. (2006). Born on a blue day: Inside the extraordinary mind of an autistic savant. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
  43. Toolan, M. (1996). Total speech: An integrational linguistic approach to language. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Wilkinson, R. (1999a). Introduction. Aphasiology, 13(4–5), 251–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wilkinson, R. (1999b). Sequentiality as a problem and a resource for intersubjectivity in aphasic conversation: Analysis and implications for therapy. Aphasiology, 13(4–5), 327–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wilkinson, R. (2011). Changing interactional behavior: Using conversation analysis in intervention programmes for aphasic conversation. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk (pp. 32–53). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wilkinson, R. (2015). Conversation and aphasia: Advances in analysis and intervention. Aphasiology, 29(3), 257–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wilkinson, R., Lock, S., Bryan, K., & Sage, K. (2011). Interaction-focused intervention for acquired language disorders: Facilitating mutual adaptation in couples where one partner has aphasia. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 13(1), 74–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. World Health Organization. (2001). The international classification of functioning, disability and health ICF. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
  50. World Health Organization. (2013). How to use the ICF: A practical manual for using the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
  51. World Health Organization. (2015). International classification of health interventions ICHI. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
  52. World Health Organization. (2016). International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems ICD-10 (10th ver., 2016 ed.). Geneva: WHO (Origin. 1992).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication and PsychologyAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations