A new PhD student started in InterDisc in the Spring. Her name is Charlotte Marie Bisgaard Klemmensen. She is Danish and teaches at a gymnasium in Aalborg.
Linguistic impairment and aphasia: Towards a new cross-disciplinary analytical perspective
Unfortunately, people with brain injuries are more than likely to be excluded from societal everyday life. This study is not directed towards the damage, but towards integrating brain injury. Therefore, the research questions are limited to questions about inclusion and the life-world of aphasia. ‘Aphasia’ is characterized by challenges in the production of speech. A variety of applied pragmatic approaches to language disorders exist. In addition, many other units than linguistic units are central to meaning-making, such as embodied talk, multimodal units such as gesturing, pointing, gazing and bodily posture, the handling of objects, etc.. Data excerpts from a collaborative study will be investigated in order to explore the pros and cons of a new cross-interdisciplinary approach between ‘augmented’ conversation analysis and an applied integrational linguistics perspective. For the empirical part, I will draw on a study of aphasic communication. The study investigates routines and emotion displays mainly in a care home setting, where some of the participants have severe acquired brain injury. Situations in which affect and emotion is relevant, for example cases of compliance and non-compliance to having memorized something “wrong” or ”correctly”, will be investigated. Critical emotional displays seem to depend on circumstantial factors – which situation, persons, purpose or the challenge there is at stake (to win the argument versus being polite etc.) – rather than retrievable interactional/organizational patterns. The organization of talk after trauma is often characterized as ‘atypical’ in its organizational patterns. ‘Atypical communication’ represents the current data-driven analytical discourse in rehabilitation studies and health communication. However, is ’sense-making’ best approached as ‘persons’ experienced understandings’? Could micro-social factors, macro-social factors and the history of a person’s interactional behaviour be used to investigate communicative habits as they are displayed under various circumstances? Finally, could a new approach help distinguish the experienced communication as practiced by the participants from the analyst’s interpretations?