A multimodal analysis of enactment in everyday interaction in people with aphasia

Abstract

Background: "Multimodal communication" is a relatively common term in aphasia research. However, the scope of studies on multimodal interaction in aphasia is generally restricted to one or two multimodal resources, and the type of discourse analysed is often not representative of authentic interaction. Finally, the interpersonal (versus referential) functions of multimodal resources are frequently overlooked. Aims: The purpose of this study was to explore the multimodal realisation of enactments by people with aphasia in everyday interaction. Methods & Procedures: Authentic interactions of six people with aphasia interacting with communication partners of their choice were systematically analysed. Frameworks originating from nonbrain-damaged studies were applied to examine the characteristics and functions of linguistic, multimodal, and stance-taking resources used to realise enactments. Outcomes & Results: Even though the participants used the same multimodal resources as non-brain-damaged communicators, the frequencies and characteristics were different. The relationship between multimodal resources and interpersonal functions was different as well. Conclusions: People with aphasia use the same multimodal resources as non-brain-damaged communicators, indicating their retained strengths. However, their higher use of intonation, gesture, andto a lesser extentfacial expression indicates that these may be important "meaning making" resources for them, which could be utilised more in therapeutic endeavours. ARTICLE HISTORY

Multimodal stance-taking – A systematic literature review

“…Some articles mention the use of polyphonic strategies in stance expressions, i.e. the way speakers or signers present multiple stances from different viewpoints at the same time, which may or may not be contradicting (Kärkkäinen, 2012;Soulaimani, 2018;Groenewold and Armstrong, 2019;Donzelli, 2020).…”

“…When speakers draw on enactment to represent someone else's stance, they can simultaneously use visual resources, such as manual gestures (Kärkkäinen, 2012;Soulaimani, 2018;Groenewold and Armstrong, 2019;Donzelli, 2020), squinting of the eyes and head shakes (Kärkkäinen, 2012) to disaffiliate with the reported stance.…”