Abstract for Agrammatism, Adaptation Theory, and Conversation Analysis: On the Role of so-called Telegraphic Style in Talk-in-Interaction
Claus Heeschen and Emanuel A. Schegloff:
"Agrammatism, Adaptation Theory,
Conversation Analysis: On the Role of
so-called Telegraphic Style in Talk-in-
Interaction," Aphasiology, 13, 1999,
365-405.
In this paper, a specific aphasiological
problem is approached by means of
conversation analysis: the varying
manifestations of agrammatism in the
speech of one patient. According to the
adaptation theory by Kolk and Heeschen,
(most) agrammatics have the option to speak
either in complete sentences (with the usual
problems familiar to any aphasiologist) or to
resort to systematically simplified
expressions ('telegraphic style'). Two
episodes from a conversation between an
agrammatic patient and her best friend are
analysed - one episode in which the patient
uses hardly any 'telegrams' and one in which
telegraphic expressions figure more centrally.
The core questions are: What is achieved by
resorting to telegraphic style in talk-in-
interaction? and; How far does the healthy co-
participant organize her conduct contingent
on the varying practices in the patient's
speech? A first answer suggests that
telegraphic style is a resource for mobilizing
the co-participant to become more engaged
and to provide more help and is deployed
specifically to exploit this feature. In the
analytic explication of the episodes, turn by
turn, turn component by turn component is
addressed in some detail, thereby not
disregarding any observation as irrelevant a
priori. It is this procedure that is central to the
potential contribution of CA to aphasiology. In
the course of the explication further questions
emerge: Is the notion of 'telegram'
meaningful within an interaction-oriented
approach? Is there variation in the patient's
speech not only across occasions, but also
across co-participants and across settings?
The process of analysis of the episodes is
informed by two domains of data: prior
aphasiological knowledge and the experience
and expertise of conversation analysts with
talk and conduct in interaction among
language-unimpaired speakers. Combining
the two lines of research is not
straightforward: it might lead to complex
multivalent characterizations of some
occurrences in the data, specifically those
related to the question of how far the co-
participant treats the patient as 'impaired' and
how far she avoids the exposure of linguistic
deficiencies in the patient.
Close window