Advertisement

Introduction to the Preliminary Framework of a New Analytical Perspective

  • Charlotte Marie Bisgaard Klemmensen
Chapter

Abstract

Approaches to language and communication disorders may substitute the notion of “language” with the analytical decoding of, for instance, talk, semiotic gesture, and emotional display. In this chapter, a non-telementational framework is presented as a new framework for approaching language and communication disorders. Tools inspired from practice theory, and concepts from integrational linguistics and ethnomethodology and conversation analysis are introduced in this joint framework. However, within integrational linguistics the notion of language (Harris 1981), linguistic models of language activity (Harris in Signs, language and communication, Routledge, London, 1996, Harris in Introduction to integrational linguistics, Pergamon, Oxford, 1998; Love in Lang Sci 61:1–35, 2017; Orman in Critical humanist perspectives: The integrational turn in philosophyof language and communication, Routledge, London, 2017), and data analysis (Duncker in Lang Sci 33:533–543, 2011; Fleming in Lang Sci 17:73–98, 1995, Fleming in Linguistics inside out, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 182–207, 1997; Toolan in Total speech: An integrational linguistic approach to language, Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 1996) are considered ontologically troublesome (second-order categories). Therefore, similarities and divergences between traditional models and the joined approaches are discussed by downgrading and discarding orthodox positioning.

Keywords

Diffraction Applied integrationism Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis Practice theory Harmonization 

References

  1. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Conrad, C. (2011). Forståelseshandlingen: En empirisk afprøvet teori om narrativ forståelse som situeret betydning i dannelse. PhD dissertation, Københavns Universitet, København.Google Scholar
  3. de Kok, C. (2008). The role of context in conversation analysis: Reviving an interest in ethno-methods. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(5), 886–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Drew, P. (1998). Complaints about transgression and misconduct. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 31, 295–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Duncker, D. (2004). Som at gå i Jesus’ fodspor. In M. Rathje & L. Svenstrup (Eds.), Sprogpsykologi - udvalgte kerneemner (pp. 201–220). København: Museum Tusculanum.Google Scholar
  6. Duncker, D. (2005). Den integrerende kommunikationsmodel. In P. Widell & M. Kunøe (Eds.), 10. møde om udforskningen af dansk sprog (pp. 137–146). Aarhus: Fællestrykkeriet for Sundhedsvidenskab og Humaniora Aarhus Universitet.Google Scholar
  7. Duncker, D. (2011). On the empirical challenge to integrational studies in language. Language Sciences, 33(4), 533–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edwards, D. (2012). Discursive and scientific psychology. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(3), 425–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fleming, D. (1995). The search for an integrational account of language: Roy Harris and conversation analysis. Language Sciences, 17(1), 73–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fleming, D. (1997). Is ethnomethodological conversation analysis an “integrational” account of language? In G. Wolf & N. Love (Eds.), Linguistics inside out (pp. 182–207). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Glintborg, C. (2015). Disabled and not normal. Narrative Inquiry, 25(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glintborg, C. (Ed.). (2018). Rehabiliteringspsykologi: En introduktion i teori og praksis. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
  14. Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodwin, C. (2003). Conversational frameworks for the accomplishment of meaning in aphasia. In C. Goodwin (Ed.), Conversation and brain damage (pp. 90–116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 8–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harris, R. (1981). The language myth. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  18. Harris, R. (1987). The language machine. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Harris, R. (1996). Signs, language and communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Harris, R. (1998). Introduction to integrational linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  21. Harris, R. (2009a). Integrationist notes and papers 2006–2008. Gamlingay: A Bright Pen.Google Scholar
  22. Harris, R. (2009b). After epistemology. Gamlingay: A Bright Pen.Google Scholar
  23. Harris, R. (2012). Integrationist notes and papers 2012. Gamlingay: A Bright Pen.Google Scholar
  24. Harris, R., & Wolf, G. (Eds.). (2008). Integrational linguistics: A first reader. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  25. Heinemann, T. (2009). Participation and exclusion in third party complaints. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(12), 2435–2451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heinemann, T., & Traverso, V. (2009). Complaining in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(12), 2381–2384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  28. Hermann, J., & Gregersen, F. (1978). Gennem sproget; om undersøgelse af sprogbrug i samfundet. København: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
  29. Hutton, C. (2017). The self and the “monkey selfie”: Law, integrationism and the nature of the first order/second order distinction. Language Sciences, 61, 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jefferson, G. (1988). On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems, 35(4), 418–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Larsen, M., & Raudaskoski, P. (2016). Medieret diskursanalyse og neksusanalyse. In A. Horsbøl & P. Raudaskoski (Eds.), Diskurs og praksis: Teori, metode og analyse (pp. 89–109). København: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
  32. Legg, C., & Penn, P. (2013). Uncertainty, vulnerability, and isolation: Factors framing quality of life with aphasia in a South African township. In N. Warren & L. Manderson (Eds.), Reframing disability and quality of life: A global perspective (pp. 17–37). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Love, N. (2004). Cognition and the language myth. Distributed cognition and integrational linguistics. Language Sciences, 26(6), 525–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Love, N. (2017). On languaging and languages. Language Sciences, 61, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice theory, work, and organization: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Nielsen, C. (2011). Towards applied integrationism: Integrating autism in teaching and coaching sessions. Language Sciences, 33(4), 593–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nielsen, C. (2015). Senhjerneskade i et forståelsesperspektiv. In S. Frimann, M. Sørensen, & H. Wentzer (Eds.), Sammenhænge i sundhedskommunikation (pp. 247–281). Aalborg: Aalborg Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
  38. Orman, J. (2017). Indeterminacy in sociolinguistics and integrationist theory. In A. Pablé (Ed.), Critical humanist perspectives: The integrational turn in philosophy of language and communication (pp. 96–113). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Pablé, A., & Hutton, C. (2015). Signs, meaning and experience. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pomerantz, A., & Fehr, J. B. (1997). Conversation analysis: An approach to the study of social action as sense-making practices. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 64–91). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Raudaskoski, P. (2013). From understanding to participation: A relational approach to embodied practices. In T. Keisanen, E. Kärkkäinen, M. Rauniomaa, P. Siitonen, & M. Siromaa (Eds.), Multimodal discourses of participation, AfinLA yearbook (Vol. 71, pp. 103–121). Jyväskylä: Suomen Soveltavan Kielitieteen Yhdistyks (AFinLA). Google Scholar
  42. Rawls, A. (2008). Quoted in editor’s introduction. In H. Garfinkel (Ed.), Toward a sociological theory of information (pp. 1–100). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  43. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Towards a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ruus, H. (1995). Danske kerneord (Vol. 1, pp. 3–18). København: Museum Tusculanum.Google Scholar
  45. Sacks, H. (1972). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 31–74). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  46. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vols. 1–2). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  47. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schatzki, T. (2013). Activity as an indeterminate social event. In S. Reynolds, D. Egan, & A. Weneland (Eds.), Wittgenstein and Heidegger: Pathways and provocations (pp. 179–194). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Scollon, R. (2001). Mediated discourse: The nexus of practice (pp. 1–18). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2004). Discourse and the emerging internet. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2007). Nexus analysis: Refocusing ethnography on action. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(5), 608–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stax, T. (2005). Samtaler i detaljer, detaljer i samtalen. In M. Jarvinen & N. Mik-Meyer (Eds.), Kvalitative metoder i et interaktionistisk perspektiv (pp. 169–190). København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar
  53. Taylor, T., & Cameron, D. (1987). Analysing conversation: Rules and units in the structure of talk. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  54. ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tileagǎ, C., & Stokoe, E. (2016). Discursive psychology: Classic and contemporary issues. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Toolan, M. (1996). Total speech: An integrational linguistic approach to language. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Wallace, S., Worrall, L., Rose, T., Dorze, G., Isaksen, J., Pak, A., et al. (2016). Which outcomes are most important to people with aphasia and their families? An international nominal group technique study framed within the ICF. Disability and Rehabilitation, 39(14), 1–16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Warren, N., & Manderson, L. (2013). Reframing disability and quality of life: Contextual nuances. In N. Warren & L. Manderson (Eds.), Reframing disability and quality of life: A global perspective (pp. 1–16). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wiggins, S., & Potter, J. (2007). Discursive psychology. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 73–90). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  60. Wilkinson, R. (2011). Changing interactional behavior: Using conversation analysis in intervention programmes for aphasic conversation. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk (pp. 32–53). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilkinson, R. (2014). Research on language and social interaction intervening with conversation analysis in speech and language therapy: Improving aphasic conversation intervening with conversation analysis in speech and language therapy. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(3), 219–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. World Health Organization. (1995). WHOQOL–100. Division of Mental Health. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  63. Zhou, F. (2014). System, order, creativity: Models of the human in the twentieth-century linguistic theories. PhD dissertation, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication and PsychologyAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations