Book contents
- Dementia and Language
- Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics
- Dementia and Language
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Transcript notation key
- Part 1 Introduction
- Part 2 Dementia and Diagnostics
- Part 3 Dementia and Conversational Strategies
- 5 Using “Now What” to Discursively Compensate for Frontotemporal Dementia-related Challenges: A Longitudinal Case Study
- 6 Being Sociable
- 7 On the Use of Tag Questions by Co-participants of People with Dementia
- 8 Initiating and Pursuing a Topical Agenda with Limited Communicative Resources
- Part 4 Dementia and Epistemics
- Part 5 Communicative Challenges in Everyday Social Life
- Index
- References
8 - Initiating and Pursuing a Topical Agenda with Limited Communicative Resources
from Part 3 - Dementia and Conversational Strategies
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 November 2024
Book contents
- Dementia and Language
- Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics
- Dementia and Language
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Transcript notation key
- Part 1 Introduction
- Part 2 Dementia and Diagnostics
- Part 3 Dementia and Conversational Strategies
- 5 Using “Now What” to Discursively Compensate for Frontotemporal Dementia-related Challenges: A Longitudinal Case Study
- 6 Being Sociable
- 7 On the Use of Tag Questions by Co-participants of People with Dementia
- 8 Initiating and Pursuing a Topical Agenda with Limited Communicative Resources
- Part 4 Dementia and Epistemics
- Part 5 Communicative Challenges in Everyday Social Life
- Index
- References
Summary
Limited communicative resources due to dementia-related memory problems can be consequential for opportunities to claim epistemic rights and initiate and pursue communicative projects for persons living with dementia. This conversation analytic case study of a video-recorded homecare visit between Koki and his homecare nurse focuses on an extended negotiation concerning a factual disagreement related to a practical problem. The study explores how Koki manages to mobilize remaining communicative resources for initiating and pursuing a topical agenda, as well as how the caregiver recognizes and supports these initiatives. The analysis describes how a person with dementia manages to influence the course of action and, in collaboration with the interlocutor, succeeds in achieving two interrelated projects, one being within an epistemic domain and the other within a deontic domain. Koki’s persistent use of first actions, with repeated and upgraded knowledge claims, as well as embodied and verbal displays of a practical problem, contributes to influencing both the topical agenda and action agenda. The analysis shows how an attentive interlocutor may collaborate in identifying a practical problem and finding a solution to it, and thereby assist the person with dementia in taking control over his everyday life despite limited communicative resources.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Dementia and LanguageThe Lived Experience in Interaction, pp. 175 - 194Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Antaki, C. and Crompton, R. J. (2015) ‘Conversational practices promoting a discourse of agency for adults with intellectual disabilities.’ Discourse & Society, 26(6): 645–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antaki, C. and Webb, J. (2019) ‘When the larger objective matters more: Support workers’ epistemic and deontic authority over adult service‐users.’ Sociology of Health & Illness, 41(8): 1549–1567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Backhaus, P. (2018) ‘Reclaiming agency in resident–staff interaction: A case study from a Japanese eldercare facility.’ Discourse Studies, 20(2): 205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooker, D. and Kitwood, T. (2019) Dementia Reconsidered, Revisited: The Person Still Comes First. London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (1997) ‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 28(1): 69–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. and Kendrick, K. H. (2018) ‘Searching for trouble: Recruiting assistance through embodied action.’ Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 1(1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmertsen, S. and Heinemann, T. (2010) ‘Realization as a device for remedying problems of affiliation in interaction.’ Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(2): 109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. (2017) ‘Distribution of agency.’ In Enfield, N.J. and Kockelman, P. (eds.) Distributed Agency. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 9–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. and Kockelman, P. (2017) ‘Editors’ Preface.’ In Enfield, N.J. and Kockelman, P. (eds.) Distributed Agency. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. xi–xv.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrara, K. (1994) ‘Repetition as rejoinder in therapeutic discourse: Echoing and mirroring.’ In Johnstone, B. (ed.) Repetition in Discourse: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (2 vols.). Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 66–84.Google Scholar
Hamilton, H. E. (2019) Language, Dementia and Meaning Making. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, T. (2011) ‘From home to institution: Roles, relations and the loss of autonomy in the care of old people in Denmark.’ In Backhaus, P. (ed.) Communication in Elderly Care: Crosscultural Perspectives. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 90–111.Google Scholar
Hepburn, A. and Bolden, G.B. (2013) ‘The conversation analytic approach to transcription.’ In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (eds.) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 57–76.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984) ‘A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement.’ In J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 299–345.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Clayman, S. (2011) Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions (Vol. 44). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Raymond, G. (2005) ‘The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction.’ Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1): 15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hydén, L. C. and Örulv, L. (2009) ‘Narrative and identity in Alzheimer’s disease: A case study.’ Journal of Aging Studies, 23(4): 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hydén, L. C. and Samuelsson, C. (2019) ‘“So they are not alive?”: Dementia, reality disjunctions and conversational strategies.’ Dementia, 18(7–8): 2662–2678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jansson, G., Plejert, C. and Lindholm, C. (2019) ‘The social organization of assistance in multilingual interaction in Swedish residential care.’ Discourse Studies, 21(1): 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1972) ‘Side sequences.’ In Sudnow, D. (ed.) Studies in Social Interaction. New York: The Free Press, pp. 295–331.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004) ‘Glossary of transcript symbols.’ Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 24–31.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. H. and Drew, P. (2016) ‘Recruitment: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction.’ Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landmark, A. M. D., Nilsson, E., Ekström, A. and Svennevig, J. (2021) ‘Couples living with dementia managing conflicting knowledge claims.’ Discourse Studies, 23(2): 191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1979) ‘Activity types and language.’ Linguistics, 17(5–6): 365–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindholm, C. (2015) ‘Parallel realities: the interactional management of confabulation in dementia care encounters.’ Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(2): 176–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindholm, C. (2016) ‘Boundaries of participation in care home settings: Use of the Swedish token jaså by a person with dementia.’ Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 30(10): 832–848.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindholm, C. and Stevanovic, M. (2022) ‘Challenges of trust in atypical interaction.’ Pragmatics & Society, 13(1): 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, A. (1999) ‘Language as social action: Grammar, prosody, and interaction in Swedish conversation (Grammatik, prosodi och interaktion i svenska samtal)’, Doctoral dissertation, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Lindström, A. (2005) ‘Language as social action: A study of how senior citizens request assistance.’ In Hakulinen, A. and Selting, M. (eds.) Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 209–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linell, P. (2009) Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
Mazeland, H. (2019) ‘Activities as discrete organizational domains.’ In Reber, E. and Gerhardt, C. (eds.) Embodied Activities in Face-to-Face and Mediated Settings: Social Encounters in Time and Space. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 29–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKhann, G. M., Knopman, D. S., Chertkow, H. et al. (2011) ‘The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease: Recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease.’ Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 7(3): 263–269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nilsson, E. (2017) ‘Fishing for answers: Couples living with dementia managing trouble with recollection.’ Educational Gerontology, 43(2): 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, E., Ekström, A. and Majlesi, A. R. (2018) ‘Speaking for and about a spouse with dementia: A matter of inclusion or exclusion?’ Discourse Studies, 20(6): 770–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Österholm, J. H. and Samuelsson, C. (2015) ‘Orally positioning persons with dementia in assessment meetings.’ Ageing & Society, 35(2): 367–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persson, T. and Wästerfors, D. (2009) ‘“Such trivial matters”: How staff account for restrictions of residents’ influence in nursing homes.’ Journal of Aging Studies, 23(1): 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1980) ‘Telling my side: “Limited access” as a “fishing” device.’ Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4): 186–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984) ‘Pursuing a response.’ In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 152–164.Google Scholar
Rossi, G. and Zinken, J. (2017) ‘Social agency and grammar.’ In Enfield, N. J. and Kockelman, P. (eds.) Distributed Agency. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryvicker, M. (2009) ‘Preservation of self in the nursing home: Contradictory practices within two models of care.’ Journal of Aging Studies, 23(1): 12–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1968) ‘Sequencing in conversational openings 1.’ American Anthropologist, 70(6): 1075–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrauf, R. W. (2020) ‘Epistemic responsibility – Labored, loosened, and lost: Staging Alzheimer’s disease.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 168: 56–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Selting, M. (1996) ‘Prosody as an activity-type distinctive cue in conversation: The case of so-called “astonished” questions in repair initiation.’ In Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Selting, M. (eds.) Prosody in Conversation: Interactional Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 231–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, M. (2013) ‘Deontic rights in interaction: A conversation analytic study on authority and cooperation’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki, Helsinki.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M. and Peräkylä, A. (2012) ‘Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide.’ Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(3): 297–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, M. and Peräkylä, A. (2014) ‘Three orders in the organization of human action: On the interface between knowledge, power, and emotion in interaction and social relations.’ Language in Society, 43(2): 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., Mondada, L. and Steensig, J. (eds.) (2011) The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation (Vol. 29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svennevig, J. (2003) ‘Echo answers in native/non-native interaction.’ Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 13(2): 285–309.Google Scholar
Svennevig, J. (2013) ‘Reformulation of questions with candidate answers.’ International Journal of Bilingualism, 17(2): 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svennevig, J. and Hamilton, H. (2022) ‘Fostering storytelling by persons with dementia in multiparty conversation.’ In Røyneland, U. and Blackwood, R. (eds.) Multilingualism across the Lifespan. London: Routledge, pp. 169–188.Google Scholar
Svennevig, J. and Landmark, A. M. (2019) ‘Accounting for forgetfulness in dementia interaction.’ Linguistics Vanguard, 5(s2): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svennevig, J., Hansen, P., Simonsen, H. G. and Landmark, A. M. D. (2019) ‘Code-switching in multilinguals with dementia: Patterns across speech contexts.’ Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 33(10–11): 1009–1030.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, V., Webb, J., Dowling, S. and Gall, M. (2019) ‘Direct and indirect ways of managing epistemic asymmetries when eliciting memories.’ Discourse Studies, 21(2): 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar