Conclusion

Chapter

Abstract

Modern health and social care defines itself as patient-centered and other-oriented, at least ideologically (Sarangi in Text and Talk 27:567–584, 2007). This book’s analytical approach aligns with this discursive turn. In consequence, the experiential side of health and social care has been sought explored. Social practice studies have contributed to conceptualizing a participant perspective analytically (Sacks et al. in Language 50:696–735, 1974; Schegloff in Am. J. Sociol. 97:1295–1345, 1992). However, this book has conceptualized a participant perspective based on an IL–PT-inspired ontology, which distinctly contextualizes the individual participant perspective.

Keywords

Patient-centeredness Other-orientation Health and social care New participants’ perspective Integrational linguistics 

References

  1. Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Dickerson, P., Rae, J., Stribling, P., Dautenhahn, K., & Werry, I. (2005). Autistic children’s co-ordination of gaze and talk: Re-examining the “asocial” autist. In K. Richards & P. Seedhouse (Eds.), Applying conversation analysis (pp. 19–37). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Frith, U. (2003). Autism: Explaining the enigma (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Goodwin, C. (Ed.). (2003). Conversation and brain damage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 8–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Isaksen, J., & Brouwer, C. (2015). Assessments in outcome evaluation in aphasia therapy: Substantiating the claim. Journal of International Research in Communication Disorders, 6(1), 71–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Nielsen, C. (2011). Towards applied integrationism: Integrating autism in teaching and coaching sessions. Language Sciences, 33(4), 593–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simple systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Sarangi, S. (2007). The anatomy of interpretation: Coming to terms with the analyst’s paradox in professional discourse studies. Text and Talk, 27(5/6), 567–584.Google Scholar
  10. Schegloff, E. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295–1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sterponi, L. (2004). Construction of rules, accountability and moral identity by high-functioning children with autism. Discourse Studies, 6, 207–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Wallace, S., Worrall, L., Rose, T., Dorze, G., Isaksen, J., Pak, A., et al. (2016). Which outcomes are most important to people with aphasia and their families? An international nominal group technique study framed within the ICF. Disability and Rehabilitation, 39(14), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication and PsychologyAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations