Who Said What? Sampling Conversation Repair Behavior Involving Adults with Acquired Hearing Impairment

ABSTRACT

Aural rehabilitation techniques provide clinicians with a range of intervention strategies to address the impact of acquired hearing impairment on everyday conversation. Although clinicians rely on assessment of speech reception abilities in the clinic and self-report of the effects of intervention on conversation and psychosocial issues, they do not currently possess techniques by which they might directly assess changes in everyday conversational behavior following intervention. This article reports on studies that have sampled conversation behavior, particularly patterns of repair, as a basis for such direct assessment. These studies provide initial evidence of the potential for clinical assessment of conversation behavior as a direct method for evaluating the outcome of conversation-based aural rehabilitation techniques. This article reviews research into the assessment of repair in conversations involving adults who have acquired hearing impairment (HI). The article uses conversation analysis as the guiding methodology and theory to address acquired HI as a communication disorder. The ways in which conversation may be disrupted by an acquired HI are described, and the conduct and limitations of current technological and conversation-based rehabilitation for this population are discussed.

Conversation - repair - conversation analysis - aural rehabilitation - speech reception - discourse

REFERENCES

• 1 Gagné J-P, Stelmacovich P, Yovetich W. Reactions to requests for clarification used by hearing-impaired individuals.  Volta Review. 1991;  93 129-143
• 2 Bess F H, Lichtenstein M J, Logan S A, Burger M C, Nelson E. Hearing impairment as a determinant of function in the elderly.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 1989;  37 123-128
• 3 Erdman S A, Crowley J M, Gillespie G G. Considerations in counseling the hearing impaired.  Hear Instr. 1984;  35(11) 50-58
• 4 Erikson-Mangold M, Erlandsson S I, Jansson G. The subjective meaning of illness in severe otosclerosis: a descriptive study in three steps based on focus group interviews and written questionnaire.  Scand Audiol. 1996;  25(Suppl 43) 34-44
• 5 Hickson L, Worrall L, Bernett H, Yiu E. The relationship between communication skills, social networks and decision-making strategies: an exploratory study.  Aust J Ageing. 1995;  14 89-94
• 6 Weinstein B E, Ventry I R. Hearing impairment and social isolation in the elderly.  J Speech Hear Res. 1982;  25 593-599
• 7 Hetú R. The stigma attached to hearing impairment.  Scand Audiol. 1996;  25(Suppl 43) 12-24
• 8 Noble W, Hetú R. An ecological approach to disability and handicap in relation to impaired hearing.  Audiology. 1994;  33 117-126
• 9 Erber N P. Hearing Vision Communication and Older People. Melbourne, Australia; Clavis 2002
• 10 Kaplan H, Bally S J, Garretson C. Speechreading: A Way to Improve Understanding. Washington, DC; Gallaudet University 1985
• 11 Trychin S, Boone M. Communication Rules for Heard of Hearing People. Washington, DC; Gallaudet University 1987
• 12 Tye-Murray N, Witt S, Schum L, Sobaski C. Communication breakdowns: partner contingencies and partner reactions.  Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology. 1994;  27 107-133
• 13 Caissie R, Dawe A L, Donovan C, Brooks H, MacDonald S M. Conversational performance of adults with a hearing loss.  Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology. 1998;  31 45-67
• 14 Kreuz R J, Roberts R M. When collaboration fails: consequences of pragmatic errors in conversation.  J Pragmatics. 1993;  19 239-252
• 15 Pichora-Fuller M K, Johnson C E, Roodenburg K EJ. The discrepancy between hearing impairment and handicap in the elderly: balancing transaction and interaction in conversation.  J Appl Commun Res. 1998;  26(1) 99-119
• 16 Tye-Murray N, Witt S, Schum L. Effects of talker familiarity on communication breakdown in conversation with adult cochlear-implant users.  Ear Hear. 1995;  16 459-469
• 17 Malinowski B. Phatic communication. In: Laver J, Hutcheson S Communication in Face to Face Interaction. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, United Kingdom; Penguin 1923
• 18 Nofsinger R E. Everyday Conversation. Newberry Park, CA; Sage 1991
• 19 Brown P, Levinson S. Politeness: Some Universals of Language Use. Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Press 1987
• 20 Brown G. Speakers, Listeners and Communication. Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Press 1996
• 21 Clark H H, Schaefer E F. Collaborating on contributions to conversation.  Lang Cogn Process. 1987;  2 19-41
• 22 Clark H H, Schaefer E F. Contributing to discourse.  Cogn Sci. 1989;  13 259-294
• 23 Clark H H, Wilkes-Gibbs D. Referring as a collaborative process.  Cognition. 1986;  22 1-39
• 24 Linell P. Troubles with mutualities: towards a dialogical theory of misunderstanding and miscommunication. In: Markova I, Graumann C, Foppa K Mutualities in Dialogue. Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Press 1995: 176-213
• 25 Schegloff E A. Repair after next turn: the last structurally provided defence of intersubjectivity in conversation.  Am J Sociol. 1992;  97 1295-1345
• 26 Booth S, Perkins L. The use of conversation analysis to guide individualized advice to careers and evaluate change in aphasia: a case study.  Aphasiology. 1999;  13(4/5) 283-303
• 27 Kovarsky D, Kimbarow M, Kastner D. The construction of incompetence during group therapy with traumatically brain injured adults. In: Kovarsky D, Duchan J, Maxwell M Constructing (In)Competence: Disabling Evaluations in Clinical And Social Interaction. Mahwah, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum 1999: 291-311
• 28 Noble W. What is a psychosocial approach to hearing loss?.  Scand Audiol. 1996;  25(Suppl 43) 6-11
• 29 Schegloff E A, Jefferson G, Sacks H. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair for conversation.  Language. 1977;  53 361-382
• 30 Sacks H. Lectures on Conversation. Vols. I and II. Oxford; Blackwell 1992
• 31 Sacks H. An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In: Sudnow D Studies in Social Interaction. New York, NY; Free Press 1972: 31-74
• 32 Sacks H, Schegloff E A, Jefferson G. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation.  Language. 1974;  50 696-735
• 33 Gumperz J J. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Press 1982
• 34 Edwards D. Discourse and Cognition. London, United Kingdom; Sage 1997
• 35 Edwards D, Potter J. Discursive Psychology. London, United Kingdom; Sage 1992
• 36 Saville-Troike M. The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction. Oxford, United Kingdom; Basil Blackwell 1989
• 37 Strauss A, Corbin J M. Grounded theory methodology: an overview. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage 1994: 273-285
• 38 Labov W. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Oxford, United Kingdom; Basil Blackwell 1972
• 39 Wodak R. What CDA is about—a summary of its history, important concepts and development. In: Wodak R, Meyer M Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London, United Kingdom; Sage 2001: 1-13
• 40 Cameron D. Theoretical debates in Feminist linguistics: questions of sex and gender. In: Wodak R Gender and Discourse. London, United Kingdom; Sage 1997: 21-36
• 41 Preisler B. Deconstructing feminist linguistics.  J Sociolinguist. 1998;  2 281-295
• 42 Ferguson A. The influence of aphasia, familiarity and activity on conversational repair.  Aphasiology. 1994;  8(2) 143-157
• 43 Hutchby I, Wooffitt R. Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices and Applications. Cambridge, UK; Polity Press 1998
• 44 Perkins L, Whitworth A, Lesser R. Conversing in dementia. A conversation analytic approach.  J Neurolinguist. 1998;  11 33-53
• 45 Schegloff E A. Practices and actions: boundary cases of other-initiated repair.  Discourse Process. 1997;  23 499-545
• 46 Schegloff E A. When “others” initiate repair.  Appl Linguist. 2000;  21(2) 205-243
• 47 Lind C, Hickson L, Erber N P. Conversation repair and acquired hearing impairment: a preliminary quantitative clinical study.  Aust NZJ Aud Society. 2004;  26 40-52
• 48 Lind C. Conversation repair and adult acquired hearing impairment, Ph.D. thesis. Brisbane, Australia; Division of Audiology, University of Queensland 2006
• 49 Caissie R, Rockwell E. Communication difficulties experienced by nursing home residents with a hearing loss during conversation with staff members.  J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol. 1994;  18 127-134
• 50 Valian V, Wales R. What's what: talkers help listeners hear and understand by clarifying sentential relations.  Cognition. 1976;  4 155-176
• 51 Drew P. “Open” class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation.  J Pragmatics. 1997;  28 69-101
• 52 Tye-Murray N, Purdy S C, Woodworth G G, Tyler R S. Effects of repair strategies on visual identification of sentences.  J Speech Hear Disord. 1990;  55 621-627
• 53 Gagné J-P, Wylie K A. Relative effectiveness of three repair strategies on the visual-identification of misperceived words.  Ear Hear. 1989;  10 368-374
• 54 Tye-Murray N. Repair strategy usage by hearing-impaired adults and changes following communication therapy.  J Speech Hear Res. 1991;  34 921-928
• 55 Chelst T S, Tait C A, Gallagher T M. Linguistic strategies used by normally hearing caregivers in conversations with elderly hearing-impaired spouses. In: Biegel DE, Blum A Aging and Caregiving: Theory, Research and Policy. Newberry Park, CA; Sage 1990: 204-218
• 56 Owens E, Telleen C C. Tracking as an aural rehabilitation process.  Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology. 1981;  14(Fall) 259-273
• 57 Caissie R, Rockwell E. A videotape analysis procedure for assessing conversational fluency in hearing-impaired adults.  Ear Hear. 1993;  14 202-209
• 58 Tye-Murray N, Witt S. Conversational moves and conversational styles of adults cochlear-implant users.  Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology. 1996;  29 11-25
• 59 Marzolf C A, Stewart M, Nerbonne M A, Lehman M E. Effects of two repair strategies on speechreading of words and sentences.  J Am Acad Audiol. 1998;  9 243-248
• 60 Tye-Murray N. Preparing for communication interactions: the values of anticipatory strategies for adults with hearing impairment.  J Speech Hear Res. 1992;  35 430-435
• 61 Wilson J, Hickson L, Worrall L. Use of communication strategies by adults with hearing impairment.  Asia Pacific J Sp Lang Hear. 1998;  3 29-41
• 62 Owens E, Raggio M. The USCF tracking procedure for evaluation and training of speech reception by hearing-impaired adults.  J Speech Hear Disord. 1987;  52 120-128
• 63 de Filippo C L, Scott B L. A method for training and evaluating the reception of ongoing speech.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1978;  63 1186-1192
• 64 Caissie R, Wilson E. Communication breakdown management during cooperative learning activities by mainstreamed students with hearing losses.  Volta Review. 1995;  97 105-121
• 65 Erber N P, Greer C W. Communication strategies used by teachers at an oral school for the deaf.  Volta Review. 1973;  75 480-485
• 66 Johnson C E, Pichora-Fuller M K. How communication goals may alter handicap.  J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol. 1994;  18 235-242
• 67 Cheepen C. The Predictability of Informal Conversation. London, United Kingdom; Pinter 1988
• 68 Bachman L P. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford, United Kingdom; Oxford University Press 1990
• 69 Kasper G. Four perspectives in L2 pragmatic development.  Appl Linguist. 2001;  22 502-530
• 70 Verhoeven L, Vermeer A. Communicative competence and personality dimensions in first and second language learners.  Appl Psycholinguist. 2002;  23 361-374
• 71 Chomsky N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press 1957
• 72 Chomsky N. Reflections on Language. New York, NY; Pantheon 1975
• 73 Hymes D. On communicative competence. In: Pride JB, Holmes J Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth, United Kingdom; Penguin 1972
• 74 Skelt L. See What I Mean: Hearing Loss, Gaze and Repair in Conversation. Canberra, Australia; The Australian National University 2006
• 75 Kendon A. Do gestures communicate? A review.  Res Lang Soc Interact. 1994;  27 175-200
• 76 Goodwin C. Conversational frameworks for the accomplishment of meaning in aphasia. In: Goodwin C Conversation and Brain Damage. Oxford; Oxford University Press 2003: 90-116
• 77 Jones E, Gallois C, Callan V, Barker M. Strategies of accommodation: Development of a coding system for conversational interaction.  J Lang Soc Psychol. 1999;  18 123-152
• 78 Elfenbein J L, Lansing C R, Davis J M, Kallaus-Gay A. Communication strategies of adult cochlear implant candidates.  J Am Acad Audiol. 1994;  5 52-69
• 79 Klippi A. Conversational dynamics between aphasics.  Aphasiology. 1990;  5 373-378
• 80 Manochiopinig S, Sheard S, Reed V. Pragmatic assessment in adult aphasia: a clinical review.  Aphasiology. 1992;  6 519-533
• 81 Berger C R, Weber M D, Muley M E, Dixon J T. Interpersonal relationship levels and interpersonal attraction. In: Ruben B Communication Yearbook 1. New Brunswick, NJ; Transactional-Interactional Communication Association 1977
• 82 Davis K E, Todd M J. Assessing friendships: prototypes, paradigm cases, and relationship description. In: Duck S, Perlman D Understanding Personal Relationships. Beverly Hills, CA; Sage 1985
• 83 Duck S, Rutt D J, Hurst M H, Strejc H. Some evident truths about conversations in everyday relationships: all communications are not created equal.  Hum Commun Res. 1991;  18 228-267
• 84 Staske S. Claiming individualized knowledge of a conversational partner.  Res Lang Soc Interact. 2002;  35 249-276
• 85 Weizman E. Building true understanding via apparent miscommunication: a case study.  J Pragmatics. 1999;  31 837-846 , [electronic source]
• 86 Lyons A C, Spicer J. A new measure of conversational experience: the speaking extent and comfort scale (SPEACS).  Assessment. 1999;  6 189-202
• 87 Simmons-Mackie N, Damico J S. Reformulating the definition of compensatory strategies in aphasia.  Aphasiology. 1997;  11(8) 761-781
• 88 Wootton A J. Remarks on the methodology of conversation analysis. In: Roger D, Bull P Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Clevedon, United Kingdom; Multilingual Matters 1989: 238-258

0 In this article, the term conversation is used to denote the occurrence of everyday spoken interaction occurring for purposes other than narrative, institutional, or procedural discourse. Further, unless otherwise stipulated, the discussion of conversational activities will be limited to those occurring between pairs (or dyads) of native adult speakers of English. Also, acquired hearing loss is distinguished from prelingual hearing loss. Individuals who present for rehabilitation services with either acquired or prelingual hearing losses require very different rehabilitation services, and this article focuses specifically on the nature and effects of acquired hearing impairment on conversation.