Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-06T04:06:43.473Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Impact of Varied Speaker Role and Communication Partner on the Communicative Interactions of a Person With Traumatic Brain Injury: A Single Case Study Using Systemic Functional Linguistics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2012

Leanne Togher*
Affiliation:
The University of Sydney, Australia. l.togher@fhs.usyd.edu.au
Christine Taylor
Affiliation:
The University of Sydney, Australia.
Vanessa Aird
Affiliation:
The University of Sydney, Australia.
Susan Grant
Affiliation:
The University of Sydney, Australia.
*
*Address for correspondence: Dr Leanne Togher, School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, PO Box 170, Lidcombe NSW 1825, Australia.
Get access

Abstract

This article presents preliminary findings on an investigation into the differences in communicative performance across varying speaking conditions, of an individual with a cognitive–linguistic impairment following traumatic brain injury (TBI). The article compares the communicative exchanges of an individual in a conversation with a therapist, a conversational dyad with a peer with TBI, and in a communication group task where they were interacting with other participants with TBI. The speaking conditions studied included an unstructured chat, the participant requesting information and the participant giving information. Results showed that the person with TBI responded to differences in communication partner and speaker role. He was best able to give information in the unstructured chat with the clinician and the information giving session in the group. Requesting was maximally facilitated in the information request condition with the clinician. Qualitatively, however, the most equal interactions occurred with the peer, with evidence of the person with TBI engaging in typical conversational strategies such as establishing common ground to facilitate topic development and co-constructing the discourse topics. These strategies did not occur in the clinician or group interactions, possibly due to power imbalance in the former and impaired cognitive–linguistic ability in the latter situation. Implications for clinical decision making regarding intervention strategies for patients with cognitive–communication deficits are discussed.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)