The structure of participants’ turn-transition practices in aided conversations that use speech-output technologies

Abstract

Using the concepts and principles of conversation analysis (CA), this paper examines the everyday unscripted spontaneous conversations between 4 boys who communicate with the aid of a speech-generating device (SGD), and their mothers. The analyses focused on describing the conversationalists' various actions in aided turn-transition processes resulting in a 33-part turntransition structure used to accomplish aided turn initiation. Despite the challenges to conversational progress, the participants did not consider the slow conversational speed a challenge. Both the mothers and their children were orientated to progression of the aided conversation by creating interaction practices to achieve successful turn-transitions. By understanding the structural characteristics of fluent aided conversations, it may be possible to develop communication strategies and device features that promote fluent interactions.

Creating a response space in multiparty classroom settings for students using eye-gaze accessed speech-generating devices

“…Producing an SGD-mediated contribution is time consuming. In their detailed analysis of SGD-mediated interaction in home settings, Savolainen, Klippi, Tykkyl€ ainen, Higginbotham, and Launonen (2020) found that the process of constructing an SGD contribution took up to 81 s. A few studies have analyzed in detail how the participants handle this lengthy production process. On the one hand, Savolainen et al (2020) found that the communication partners (i.e., mothers) used collaborate practices; they waited in silence or participated in non-competing activities while their children constructed their SGD contributions.…”

“…In their detailed analysis of SGD-mediated interaction in home settings, Savolainen, Klippi, Tykkyl€ ainen, Higginbotham, and Launonen (2020) found that the process of constructing an SGD contribution took up to 81 s. A few studies have analyzed in detail how the participants handle this lengthy production process. On the one hand, Savolainen et al (2020) found that the communication partners (i.e., mothers) used collaborate practices; they waited in silence or participated in non-competing activities while their children constructed their SGD contributions. On the other hand, previous research also demonstrated how the prolonged time producing an SGDmediated contribution could lead to temporal misalignments (i.e., sequential collapse of shared reference and mutual understanding) between the communication partner and the participant relying on the SGD, which resulted in misunderstandings (Clarke & Wilkinson, 2009;Higginbotham & Wilkins, 1999).…”

Linguistic and temporal resources of pre-stored utterances in everyday conversations

“…Their turns also overlapped with spoken turns (Excerpt 3b), or they synchronized their action according to the social context, as Kalle did when he timed his comment with the closing of the door (Excerpt 3c). Some evidence suggests that the turn-transitions of this study appeared to occur in overlapping or latching with the prior turn (48% of turn-transitions) more often than in another study, in which both PS and SBS utterances were used (32 % of the turn-transitions) (see Savolainen et al, 2020). Further research is needed to determine the reasons for this difference.…”

“…By analysing why the PS utterance turns occurred where they did in the sequences, we also recognized that the participants were oriented to furthering the flow of conversations, as other studies of aided and spoken conversations have reported as well (Sacks et al, 1974;Savolainen et al, 2020). During their turn-transitions, the speaking partners allotted time to search for the PS utterance and the aided communicators anticipated their turn by beginning their preparations during their speaking partner's turn, which helped the aided communicators to latch their turn onto a spoken turn (Excerpts 1).…”

“…Second, PS utterances are faster to produce and demand fewer activations than SBS utterances (Clarke, 2016; Todman, 2000). Children and adults who use communication devices orient to furthering conversations in the same manner as their speaking partners (Higginbotham et al, 2016; Savolainen et al, 2020). PS utterances offer aided communicators a tool to minimize the delay between words that would otherwise not only affect their communicative fluency in many ways, but would also affect the length of their conversations (Koole and Mak, 2014; Wisenburn and Higginbotham, 2009).…”