A conceptual analysis of communicative spontaneity

Abstract

Communicative spontaneity is reported to present a signi cant problem for individuals with high support needs. Examination of literature addressing communicative spontaneity reveals conceptually opposing views of the phenomenon. Both the binary and the continuum conceptualisations are examined in this paper in speci c relation to their logical consistency, explanatory power and limitations. It is argued that the continuum conceptualisation offers much greater explanatory power and facilitates understanding of communicative spontaneity. Several approaches to the operationalisation of the continuum approach are considered and contrasted. Limitations and problems with existing approaches to the operationalisation of spontaneity are explored and an alternative proposed.

Spontaneity of Communication in Individuals with Autism

“…Third, it is difficult to practically identify interoceptive stimuli (Sigafoos and Reichle 1993), and this makes the measurement of those stimuli problematic. Finally, there is a lack of detail provided on operationalizing Halle's continuum (Carter and Hotchkis 2002). Considering these issues, Carter and Hotchkis (2002) concluded that Halle's model seems to be more useful as an explanatory tool for conceptualizing continuum theory rather than a practical instrument for the measurement of spontaneity.…”

“…Second, the degree of spontaneity is measured on a continuum in terms of the degree of intrusiveness or obviousness of the controlling stimuli. Finally, adopting a continuum approach to the conceptualization and analysis of spontaneity potentially offers much greater insight into the circumstances under which communication occurs and may have important implications for intervention (Carter and Hotchkis 2002). However, operationalizing this continuum model is problematic.…”

“…Attempting to control large numbers of variables in instructional environments could also be problematic. Finally, Carter and Hotchkis (2002) noted that the very large number of variables that can be considered separately in the model did not facilitate the development of a metric to summarize the level of spontaneity for a communicative act. Thus, while the model offers a way of examining a wide range of antecedent variables associated with communication, it is not easy to operationalize as a measure of spontaneity.…”

“…Thus, spontaneity of communication can be viewed in terms of the relationship between antecedents and behavior. Within this framework, spontaneity has been conceptualized within two perspectives-binary and continuum (Carter and Hotchkis 2002). Binary Conceptualization Carter and Hotchkis (2002) stated that when spontaneity is seen as an all-or-none phenomenon (i.e., either the behavior is spontaneous or not), it is within the framework of a binary conceptualization.…”

“…Within this framework, spontaneity has been conceptualized within two perspectives-binary and continuum (Carter and Hotchkis 2002). Binary Conceptualization Carter and Hotchkis (2002) stated that when spontaneity is seen as an all-or-none phenomenon (i.e., either the behavior is spontaneous or not), it is within the framework of a binary conceptualization. Communication in the presence of a defined antecedent (e.g., a partner question) is considered to be reactive (not spontaneous or initiated), while communication in the absence of the defined antecedent is considered to be spontaneous or initiated.…”