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
- Part 4 Dementia and Epistemics
- Part 5 Communicative Challenges in Everyday Social Life
- 12 Language and Cognition in Conversations with a Person with Alzheimer’s Disease
- 13 Using Digital Communication Support in Interaction Involving People with Dementia
- 14 “It’s More than Eating, It’s a Social Situation”
- 15 Social Quizzes for People Living with Dementia
- Index
- References
15 - Social Quizzes for People Living with Dementia
How Enactment Impacts Interaction
from Part 5 - Communicative Challenges in Everyday Social Life
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 November 2024
By
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
- Part 4 Dementia and Epistemics
- Part 5 Communicative Challenges in Everyday Social Life
- 12 Language and Cognition in Conversations with a Person with Alzheimer’s Disease
- 13 Using Digital Communication Support in Interaction Involving People with Dementia
- 14 “It’s More than Eating, It’s a Social Situation”
- 15 Social Quizzes for People Living with Dementia
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter uses conversation analysis to investigate how different quiz formats facilitate or impede participation in group quizzes for people living with dementia. Quizzes are an important way to prompt social interaction and engage people living with dementia. However, their reliance on memory and cognition can present difficulties for staff and players alike. Despite quizzes being based on a question–answer format, the way they are enacted can vary in the following ways: question formulation and type; the type of appropriate answer (i.e., is there one, or more than one, possible correct answer?); the social structure of the quiz (Is the quiz played in teams or individually? Do players self-select to answer or do so in a mediated turn allocation format?); the way the players are spatially organised. All these variations impact the degree to which players can engage with the activity and with one another. Through the examination of different types of quiz format, this chapter outlines and make recommendations for quiz structures which facilitate high participation and uptake, and low threats to face. Data are taken from a corpus of ten quizzes recorded in four different group settings in England.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Dementia and LanguageThe Lived Experience in Interaction, pp. 336 - 355Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
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
Arundale, R. B. (2010) ‘Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and interactional achievement.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8): 2078–2105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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 Heritage, J. (eds.) (1992) Talk at Work: Language Use in Institutional and Work-Place Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Interaction. Oxford: Aldine.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1986) ‘Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments.’ Human Studies, 9(2–3): 205–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graty, C. (2013) Taking Part: Activities for People with Dementia (Vol. 14). London: Alzheimer’s Society.Google Scholar
Haakana, M. (2001) ‘Laughter as a patient’s resource: Dealing with delicate aspects of medical interaction.’ Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 21(1–2): 187–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayano, K. (2012) ‘Question design in conversation.’ In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (eds.) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 395–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984) ‘A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement.’ In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 299–345.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012) ‘Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge.’ Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1): 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. and Clayman, S. (2011) Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions (Vol. 44). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Greatbatch, D. (1989). ‘On the institutional character of institutional talk: The case of news interviews.’ In Forstorp, P. A. (ed.) Discourse in Professional and Everyday Culture. Linkoping: Department of Communication Studies, University of Linkoping, Sweden, pp. 47–98 [Reprinted in D. Boden and D. H. Zimmerman (eds.) Talk and Social Structure. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 93–137.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Watson, D. R. (1979) ‘Formulations as conversational objects.’ In G. Psathas (ed.) Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, pp. 123–162.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1984) ‘Transcription notation.’ In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–16.Google Scholar
Jones, D., Drew, P., Elsey, C., Blackburn, D., Wakefield, S., Harkness, K. and Reuber, M. (2016) ‘Conversational assessment in memory clinic encounters: Interactional profiling for differentiating dementia from functional memory disorders.’ Aging & Mental Health, 20(5): 500–509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, D., Wilkinson, R., Jackson, C. and Drew, P. (2020) ‘Variation and interactional non-standardization in neuropsychological tests: The case of the Addenbrooke’s cognitive examination.’ Qualitative Health Research, 30(3): 458–470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Light, D. and Delves, J. (2011) ‘A guide to setting up a memory café.’ REPoD (Rotarians Easing Problems of Dementia). www.repod.org.uk/downloads/REPoD-mc-guide.pdf.Google Scholar
Lindholm, C. (2008) ‘Laughter, communication problems and dementia.’ Communication & Medicine, 5(3): 3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindholm, C. and Wray, A. (2011) ‘Proverbs and formulaic sequences in the language of elderly people with dementia.’ Dementia, 10(4): 603–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehan, H. (1979) Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984) ‘Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes’. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–101.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992) Lectures on Conversation (Vol. 2), ed. Jefferson, G. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. E. and Jefferson, G. (1974) ‘A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.’ Language, 50: 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2013) ‘Ten operations in self-initiated, same-turn repair.’ Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, 30: 41–70.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. and Sacks, H. (1973) ‘Opening up closings.’ Semiotica, 8(4): 289–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, M. and Peräkylä, A. (2012) ‘Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide.’ Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3): 297–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, M. and Svennevig, J. (2015) ‘Introduction: Epistemics and deontics in conversational directives.’ Journal of Pragmatics, (78): 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swan, J. (2004) ‘The value of recreational activities within a care setting.’ Nursing and Residential Care, 6: 440–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, J., Lindholm, C. and Williams, V. (2020). ‘Interactional strategies for progressing through quizzes in dementia settings.’ Discourse Studies, 22(4): 503–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, V., Gall, M., Mason-Angelow, V., Read, S. and Webb, J. (2023) ‘Misfitting and social practice theory: Incorporating disability into the performance and (re)enactment of social practices.’ Disability & Society, 38:776–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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