Exploring aphasic grammar 2: do language testing and conversation tell a similar story?

Abstract

This paper investigates the grammatical difficulties of an English-speaking person with non-fluent aphasia using clinical assessments based on picture description and story telling. The same individual's conversation grammar, which was investigated in detail in a linked article is reviewed here, and the notion that interactional grammatical phenomena may not necessarily be visible in elicited language data is explored. Data analysis shows that the aphasic speaker's grammar looks considerably different in the context of clinical assessment than it does in conversation. Analysis of elicited grammar reveals that the majority of utterances produced are subject-verb-object (SVO) type sentences, whereas prior analysis of conversation data indicated patterns of interactional grammatical phenomena that differ from such sentence types. It is suggested that language tests and conversation provide complementary but essentially different information about grammatical abilities. The clinical implications of this finding are discussed.

Redesigning therapy for agrammatism: Initial findings from the ongoing evaluation of a conversation-based intervention study

“…However, it is also possible that carryover is not supported because materials and tasks are based on utterances stripped of natural interactional context. Thus, recent research has demonstrated that utterances produced by agrammatic speakers in everyday conversation differ significantly from utterances elicited by assessment and therapy tasks (Beeke, Wilkinson, & Maxim, 2007a, 2003aEdwards, 2000;Kolk & Heeschen, 1992;Wilkinson, 1995). This is because tests target decontextualized language, isolated from an interactional context of real-life talk about needs, opinions, and experiences.…”

“…It should be noted that we do not necessarily expect to see changes in performance on language tests post therapy; the strategies being taught are contextual, and we already know that utterances elicited by decontextualised tests differ significantly from those produced in conversation (Beeke et al, 2003a(Beeke et al, , 2007aEdwards, 2000). In order to show convincing therapeutic gains, we have begun to develop a quantitative measure of change over time in conversation, as none currently exists.…”

“…The application to aphasiology of Conversation Analysis (CA), a qualitative research method, shows that utterances produced by speakers with agrammatism engaged in everyday conversation with a family member differ significantly from utterances produced in response to decontextualised assessment and therapy tasks (Beeke et al, 2003a). Beeke, Wilkinson, and Maxim (2007b) have demonstrated that conversational grammar in speakers with agrammatism consists of utterances built from elements (e.g.…”

Executive dysfunction as an explanatory basis for conversation symptoms of aphasia: A pilot study

“…A further benefit of studying conversation is that certain grammatical behaviours that have previously been interpreted as direct symptoms of an underlying linguistic deficit may actually arise from the interactional context in which they are produced (Beeke, Wilkinson, & Maxim, 2003). Grammatical structures allow the listener to anticipate pragmatic, structural, and linguistic sequences.…”

Adaptation theory and non-fluent aphasia in English

“…Experimental data have been interpreted within different theoretical frameworks, for example, generative grammar (e.g., Friedmann & Grodzinsky, 1997;Grodzinsky, 2000;Hagiwara, 1995;Ouhalla 1993), surface descriptive grammar (Edwards 2000;Edwards, Garman, & Knott, 1993), conversational analysis (Beeke, Wilkinson & Maxim, 2003), a psycholinguistic processing framework (Ellis & Young, 1996). A different interpretation of the same phenomena has been proposed by Kolk and Heeschen (Kolk, 1987;Kolk & Heeschen, 1990, who view fluent and non-fluent aphasic speech from a different perspective.…”