Discourse Analysis in Autism Research at Adam Mickiewicz University
Approaches to autism research and language analysis are explored through Discourse Analysis at Adam Mickiewicz University. Qualitative methods are highlighted for understanding communication in autism, emphasizing participant empowerment and effective practices. The study of discourse offers insights into language use, social interaction, and cognitive perspectives in autism research.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
ADAM MICKIEWICZ UNIVERSITY IN POZNA Faculty of English Discourse Analysis (DA) as an underappreciated approach in autism research Eliza Maciejewska Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University in Pozna emaciejewska@wa.amu.edu.pl wa.amu.edu.pl
Outline THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Approaches to autism research Qualitative methods: Discourse Analysis PROJECT Description of the project Data analysis - Picture description - Interview Conclusions
Approaches to language and communication in autism research Individual-focused work (O Reilly et al. 2016) Experimental paradigm (Colle et al. 2007) Quantitative vs qualitative approach
Autism is one word attempting to describe millions of different stories Stuart Duncan 4
Qualitative methods in autism research Employing qualitative methods for the study of ASD is an important way of giving a voice to participants and can be particularly useful for empowering vulnerable or disadvantaged people groups. (O Reilly et al. 2016) Qualitative methods are able to go beyond what works to show how and why a particular practice may be effective. (O Reilly et al. 2016)
Language in Discourse Analysis ( ) discourse analytic approaches treat language use as an interactional accomplishment, as social action, and also as an experience in and of itself. This theorization of language and methodological approach offers a corrective to the dominant and largely tacitly held view that language, in its essence, is a referential system and a reflection of an individual s cognition. (Sterponi & de Kirby 2016)
Discourse Analysis Discourse Analysis is an umbrella term which encompasses different approaches: discourse analysis proper, interactional linguistics, and conversation analysis (Sterponi and de Kirby 2016; Roberts and Sarangi 2005) Discourse analysis (DA) is an approach to the study of language whose aim is to identify and describe regular patterns in the use of language (Herring 2004) DA assumes that interlocutors co-construct any communicative event (Schiffrin et al. 2001)
Conversation Analysis (CA) CA is a qualitative approach that focuses on the study of interaction. The core aim of this approach is to examine the social organisation of activities that are produced in interaction, through talk. (O Reilly et al. 2016) ( ) turns in conversation are interlocked; a current action projects a next relevant action and often responds to a prior action. (Sterponi & de Kirby 2016)
DA vs CA DA builds a wider analytic frame than does CA to understand interactional sequences by reaching beyond the hereand now of social interactions to enrich a sense of their context and to examine the circumstances and the sentiments that inform them. (Solomon et al. 2016) 9
Stages of DA (Sarangi 2013) Collecting the data (audio or video recordings) 1 Transcribing the data (using transcription conventions) 2 Analysing the data 3 10
Aims of this presentation Show how DA can help illuminate: 1. the communicative practices of individuals with autism 2. the ways in which these practices are influenced by the neurotypical interlocutor
Data Participants - 3 adolescents diagnosed with autism (2 girls, 1 boy) - Age: 17-18 years old - Language: Polish Data - transcribed audio recordings of two tasks: - Picture description - Interview
TASK 1: PICTURE DESCRIPTION What is happening in the picture?
Listing - verbs 1 E: co si dzieje na tym obrazku? what is happening in the picture? 2 P1: (na tym) ludzie s na pla y i (3.0) robi babki z piasku (1.0) rozmawiaj (2.0) siedz (5.0) kopi , jeden trzyma ko o ratunkowe (6.0) (in the) people are on the beach and (3.0) aremaking sand cakes (1.0) [they are] talking (2.0) sitting (5.0) digging, one is holding a life ring (6.0)
Using templates 1 P2: ((odchrz kni cie)) tutaj (.) dzieci (.) y tutajdzieci i doro li bawi si na pla y. (3.0) [ ] ((clearing her throat)) here (.) children (.) erm here children and adults are playing on the beach. (3.0) [ ] 2 E: mhm mhm 3 P2: (7.0) 4 E:co jeszcze mi mo esz opowiedzie na tym obrazku? (.) co si dzieje? is there anything else you can tell me about this picture? (.) what is happening? 5 P2: tutaj dzieci: robi zamki z piasku. here childre:n are making sand castles 6 E: zamki z piasku . okej, co dalej? sand castles . OK, what else? 7 P2: tutajdoro li si opalaj i odpoczywaj . (17.0) here adults are sunbathing and resting. (17.0)
Repetitions 1 E: jak my lisz, dobrze si tam bawi ? what do you think, are they having fun there? 2 P2: dobrze si bawi . (11.0) they are having fun. (11.0) 3 E: i co, co jeszcze by chcia a doda czy to ju koniec? so, would you like to add anything or is that all? 4 P2: >nie, niekoniecznie. nic nie chc dodawa .< >no, not necessarily. I don t want to add anything.<
Q&A exchange - yes/no answers 1 2 3 4 E: ( ) jak dzisiaj by o w szkole? ( ) how was it at school today? P1: dobrze. fine. E: a co wi cej mi powiesz? will you tell me something more? P1: nie. no. E: a s ysza am e: (3.0) e chodzisz na k ko (.) filmowe, tak? ( ) and I ve heard tha:t (3.0) you are attending a film (.) club, right? (...) P1: tak. yes. E: i jak tam jest? and how is it there? P1: fajnie. nice. 5 6 7 8 21
Topic management (shifting) 1 E: mhm. (.) ale tych pr b du o pewnie musi by , [ eby tak gra ?= mhm. (.) well there has to be a lot of these rehearsals [to play like this?= 2 P3: 3 E: (2.0) i- i jak wygl da taka pr ba? mo esz mi opowiedzie o niej? (2.0) an- and what does such a rehearsal look like? can you tell me about it? 4 P3: no: jest- (4.0) pr ba, e spotyka si kilka os b i potem (.) nieraz (.) w zesz ym roku te byli my na targach pozna skich: well, there is- (4.0) a rehearsal, so a couple of people meet and then (.) sometimes (.) last year we went to the trade fair in Poznan 5 E: mhm (3.0) mhm (3.0) 6 P3: edukacyjnych znaczy si , przepraszam y:: kt re by y- na kt :- gdzie te grali my jakie przedstawienie. education (fair) I mean I m sorry erm:: which was- at whi:- where we also played [sic!]some theatre performance [ta:k [ye:s =tak. =yes.
Conclusions Communicative practices Interlocutor s contribution Different tasks, different performance Practical implications
DA vs experimental paradigm ( ) prototypical features of autistic language appear not solely as expressing an underlying neurological condition, but as responses to contextual circumstances and as efforts of the child at finding his way in interaction. (Sterponi and de Kirby 2016) 25
DA vs individual-focused approach Our analysis of the exchanges broadens the perspective on these phenomena beyond deficit interpretations and discerns resources, abilities and interactional processes previously unrecognized. (Sterponi and de Kirby 2016) 26
Practical implications ( ) these approaches can and do augment existing knowledge of ASD in a way that has practical and theoretical value for the field. (O Reilly et al. 2016) ( ) discourse analytic findings can potentially provide a sound platform to base assessment of professional practice, with the possibility of raising awareness, planning training activities and fostering change in communicative practices. (Sarangi 2013)
Practical implications If we regard stereotypical features of autistic language as manifesting deficits alone, we are likely to make attempts to encourage the child to suppress or replace them. ( ) Consider what would follow, by contrast, from an appreciation that these linguistic features often manifest important sensitivities and competencies ( ) From such a vantage, we may conceive of interventions with the aim of building on and scaffolding these developing abilities. (Sterponi and de Kirby 2016)
Thank you! 29
Selected references Colle, L. et al. (2007) Narrative Discourse in Adults with High-Functioning Autism or Asperger Syndrome . Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 38: 28-40 Herring, Susan. C. 2004. Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In Designing for virtual communities in the service learning, eds. Sasha A. Barab, Rob Kling and James S. Gray, 338-376. New York: Cambridge University Press. Jefferson. G. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies From the First Generation, 13-23. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. O Reilly, M., Lester, J. Muskett, T. (2016) Discourse/Conversation Analysis and Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 46, 355-359. Roberts, C. and Sarangi ,S. (2005) Theme-oriented discourse analysis of medical encounters. Medical Education. 39, 632-640. Sarangi , S. (2013). Practising Discourse Analysis in Healthcare Settings. In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Methods in Health Research eds. I. Bourgeault, R. Dingwall and R. de Vries. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Schiffrin, D. et al. (eds.). 2001. The handbook of discourse analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Solomon, O. (2004). Narrative introductions: discourse competence of children with autistic spectrum disorders. Discourse studies. 6(2): 253-276.
Selected references Solomon, O., Heritage, J., Yin, L., Maynard, D.W., Bauman, M.L. (2016). What Brings Him Here Today? : Medical Problem Presentation Involving Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders and Typically Developing Children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 46, 378-393 Sterponi, L. and K. de Kirby (2016) A Multidimensional Reappraisal of Language in Autism: Insights from a Discourse Analytic Study . Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 46: 394-405 Tager-Flusberg, H. (1999). The challenge of studying language development in children with autism (http://www.abiliko.co.il/Media/Uploads/challenge_lang_dev_autism.pdf) (access: 05.06.2017). Tager-Flusberg, H. (2004). Strategies for Conducting Research on Language in Autism [electronic version]. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34, 75-80., Vandewiele, A. (2005) Moje cia o. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo REA Wiklund, M. (2016). Interactional challenges in conversations with autistic preadolescents: The role of prosody and non-verbal communcation in other-initiated repairs Journal of Pragmatics 94: 76-97. http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/psychology/research/child-mental-health/cara- 1/faqs/differences http://www.xavier.edu/library/students/documents/qualitative_quantitative.pdf
Transcription conventions (Jefferson 2004) [ ] = // Overlapping speech Latching stretch of talk, i.e., no discernible gap between the utterances An interruption, i.e. a point in the interaction where another interlocutor takes over the conversational floor before the current speaker has finished his/her utterance. pause length (in seconds) A micropause , i.e., a pause of less than a second A nonverbal activity, e.g., crying The occurrence of an unclear utterance; or a removal of a part of the utterance due to privacy policy. Prolongation of immediately preceding sound. The more colons the greater the extent of the stretching. Rising intonation Falling intonation bad Lower volume than surrounding talk <bad> Slower than surrounding talk >bad< Faster than surrounding talk Bad Stressed syllable BAD Higher volume (1.0) (.) (( )) ( ) ba:d ? . 32
