Advertisement

The Nature and Function of Vocalizations in Atypical Communication

Abstract

Purpose of Review

A survey of current research including people with disorders in which speech is impaired shows that vocalizations are vastly discussed as a communication strategy, used both in isolation or paired with other aids. The principal goal of this paper is to describe the ways researchers are using the term vocalizations and the meanings and functions attributed to it. We also discuss possible future developments for specific research on unaided communication.

Recent Findings

Although research has not focused specifically on the nature and function of vocalizations, several scholars were able to highlight the crucial role of vocalizations in interactions including people with complex communication needs.

Summary

This paper has demonstrated the need for systematizing the discourse on vocalizations both in formal terms and in regard to the object of study itself. Furthermore, it has been shown that vocalizations have a powerful interactional potential, which, if investigated, could be exploited by dedicated training and technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

References

    Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

    1. 1.

      • Wilkinson R, Bloch S, Clarke M. On the use of graphic resources in interaction by people with communication disorders. In: In Streeck J, Goodwin C, LeBaron C, editors. Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world, 152–168: Cambridge University Press; 2011. This study refers to vocalizations and how people with communication disorders use them with graphic resources.

    2. 2.

      Glennen SL. Augmentative and alternative communication systems. In: Glennen SL, DeCoste DC, editors. The handbook of augmentative and alternative communication. London: Singular Publishing Group; 1997.

    3. 3.

      Jette AM. The promise of assistive technology to enhance work participation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzx054.

    4. 4.

      Branson D, Demchak M. The use of augmentative and alternative communication methods with infants and toddlers with disabilities: a research review. AAC: Augment Altern Commun. 2009;25(4):274–86. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434610903384529.

    5. 5.

      Lund SK, Light J. The effectiveness of grammar instruction for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication systems: a preliminary study. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2003;46(5):1110–23 Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14575346.

    6. 6.

      Müller E, Soto G. Conversation patterns of three adults using aided speech: variations across partners. Augment Altern Commun. 2002;18(2):77–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610212331281181.

    7. 7.

      •• Dahlgren Sandberg A, Liliedahl M. Patterns in early interaction between young preschool children with severe speech and physical impairments and their parents. Child Lang Teach Ther. 2008;24(1):9–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659007084566This study describes the communicative functions of vocalizations along with other body language means.

    8. 8.

      Bianquin N, Sacchi F, Besio S. Enhancing communication and participation using AAC technologies for children with motor impairments: a systematic review 1. Educ Sci Soc. 2018;1:49–72.

    9. 9.

      Ferm U, Ahlsén E, Björck-Åkesson E. Conversational topics between a child with complex communication needs and her caregiver at mealtime. Augment Altern Commun. 2005;21(1):19–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610412331270507.

    10. 10.

      Hill KJ, Romich B. A. AAC core vocabulary analysis: tools for clinical use. Proceedings of the RESNA 2000 Annual Conference 2000:3:67–69.

    11. 11.

      Millikin CC. Symbol systems and vocabulary selection strategies. In: Glennen S, DeCoste DC, editors. The handbook of augmentative and alternative communication. London: Singular Publishing Group; 1997.

    12. 12.

      Lancioni GE, Lems S. Using a microswitch for vocalization responses with persons with multiple disabilities. Disabil Rehabil. 2001;23(16):745–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280110057677.

    13. 13.

      Pickering L, Di Ferrante L, Bruce C, Friginal E, Pearson P, Bouchard J. An introduction to the ANAWC the AAC and non-AAC workplace corpus. Int J Corpus Linguist. 2019;24(2):229–44. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.17088.pic.

    14. 14.

      • Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O’Reilly MF, Oliva D, Groeneweg J. Enabling a girl with multiple disabilities to control her favorite stimuli through vocalization and a dual- microphone microswitch. J Vis Impair Blind. 2005:179–82 This study defines vocalization, which is used to activate a dual-microphone microswitch to initiate a change of stimuli.

    15. 15.

      Bouchard J. Spelling as a last resort: the use of spelling in workplace interaction by speakers with a speech impairment. In: Pickering L, Friginal E, Staple S, editors. Talking at work. London: Palgrave MacMillan; 2016. p. 55–77.

    16. 16.

      Ganz JB, Simpson RL. Effects on communicative requesting and speech development of the picture exchange communication system in children with characteristics of autism. J Autism Dev Disord. 2004;34(4):395–409. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JADD.0000037416.59095.d7.

    17. 17.

      Tincani M. Comparing the picture exchange communication system and sign language training for children with autism. Focus Autism Other Dev Disabil. 2004;19(3):152–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576040190030301.

    18. 18.

      •• Clarke M, Kirton A. Patterns of interaction between children with physical disabilities using augmentative and alternative communication systems and their peers. Child Lang Teach Ther. 2003;19(2):135–51. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265659003ct248oaThis study defines vocalizations and analyzes them both quantitatively and in terms of communicative functions.

    19. 19.

      •• Sigafoos J, Didden R, O’Reilly M. Effects of speech output on maintenance of requesting and frequency of vocalizations in three children with developmental disabilities. Augment Altern Commun. 2003, 19(1):37–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/0743461032000056487This study defines vocalizations and analyzes their frequency in presence of digitized speech output.

    20. 20.

      • Nunes D, Hanline MF. Enhancing the alternative and augmentative communication use of a child with autism through a parent-implemented naturalistic intervention. Int J Disabil Dev Educ. 2007;54(2):177–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10349120701330495This study describes the communicative functions of vocalizations along with other body language means and analyzed their frequency.

    21. 21.

      Olive ML, de la Cruz B, Davis TN, Chan JM, Lang RB, O’Reilly MF, et al. The effects of enhanced milieu teaching and a voice output communication aid on the requesting of three children with autism. J Autism Dev Disord. 2007;37:1505–13.

    22. 22.

      Di Ferrante L. Small talk at work: a corpus-based discourse analysis of AAC and non-AAC device users. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Texas A&M University – Commerce, TX; 2013.

    23. 23.

      Flipsen P. Speaker-listener familiarity: parents as judges of delayed speech intelligibility. J Commun Dis. 1995;28:3–19.

    24. 24.

      D’Innocenzo J, Tjaden K, Greenman G. Intelligibility in dysarthria: effects of listener familiarity and speaking condition. Clin Ling Phon. 2006;20(9):659–75.

    25. 25.

      Kim H, Nanney S. Familiarization effects on word intelligibility in dysarthric speech. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2014;66(6):258–64. https://doi.org/10.1159/000369799.

    26. 26.

      Patel R, Schroeder B. Influence of familiarity on identifying prosodic vocalizations produced by children with severe dysarthria. Clin Ling Phon. 2007;21(10):833–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699200701559476.

    27. 27.

      Kwiatkowski J, Shriberg LD. Intelligibility assessment in developmental phonological disorders: accuracy of caregiver gloss. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1992;35(5):1095–104.

    28. 28.

      Barefoot SM, Bochner JH, Johnson BA, Eigen BA. Rating deaf speakers’ comprehensibility: an exploratory investigation. Am J Speech-Lang Pathol. 1993;2(3):31–5.

    29. 29.

      • Bouchard J, Di Ferrante L, Pickering L, El Khatib N. What can corpora tell us about AAC users’ discourse in the workplace? Manuscript submitted for publication 2019. This study investigates the differences between the discourse produced with vocalization and VOCA by the same four speakers.

    30. 30.

      Pinto M, Gardner H. Communicative interaction between a non-speaking child with cerebral palsy and her mother using an iPad TM. Child Lang Teach Ther. 2014;30(2):207–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659013518338.

    31. 31.

      Odom AC, Upthegrove M. Moving toward employment using AAC: case study. Augment Altern Commun. 1997;13(4):258–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434619712331278078.

    32. 32.

      Cagliani RR, Ayres KM, Whiteside E, Ringdahl JE. Picture exchange communication system and delay to reinforcement. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2017;29(6):925–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-017-9564-y.

    33. 33.

      Tincani M, Crozier S, Alazetta L. The picture exchange communication system: effects on manding and speech development for school-aged children with ASD. Educ Train Dev Disabil. 2006;41:177–84.

    34. 34.

      Millikin CC. personal communication, 2019.

    35. 35.

      Lancioni GE, O’Reilly ME, Oliva D, Coppa MM. A microswitch for vocalization responses to foster environmental control in children with multiple disabilities. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2001;45:271–5.

    36. 36.

      Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O’Reilly ME, Oliva D, Baccani S, Canevaro A. Using simple hand-movement responses with optic microswitches with two persons with multiple disabilities. Res Pract Persons Severe Disabil. 2002;27:276–9.

    37. 37.

      Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O’Reilly ME, Oliva D, Scalini L, Vigo CM, et al. Microswitch clusters to support responding and appropriate posture of students with multiple disabilities: three case evaluations. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26:501–5.

    38. 38.

      Antaki C, Wilkinson R. Conversation analysis and the study of atypical populations. In: Sidnell J, Stivers T, editors. The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell; 2013. p. 533–50.

    Download references

    Author information

    Correspondence to Laura Di Ferrante.

    Ethics declarations

    Conflict of Interest

    Laura Di Ferrante and Julie Bouchard declare no conflicts of interest relevant to this manuscript.

    Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

    This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

    Additional information

    Publisher’s Note

    Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and Permissions

    About this article

    Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Di Ferrante, L., Bouchard, J. The Nature and Function of Vocalizations in Atypical Communication. Curr Dev Disord Rep (2020) doi:10.1007/s40474-020-00186-x

    Download citation

    Keywords

    • Vocalizations
    • Augmentative and alternative communication
    • AAC users
    • Unaided communication
    • Complex communication needs
    • Atypical communication