Mild Aphasia: Is This the Place for an Argument? Purpose Individuals with mild aphasia often report significant disruption to their communication despite seemingly minor impairment. This study explored this phenomenon through examining conversations of a person with mild aphasia engaging in argumentation—a skill she felt had significantly deteriorated after her stroke. Method A person with mild aphasia ... Supplement Article
Supplement Article  |   May 01, 2013
Mild Aphasia: Is This the Place for an Argument?
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Elizabeth Armstrong
    Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia
  • Sarah Fox
    University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  • Ray Wilkinson
    University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
  • Correspondence to Elizabeth Armstrong: b.armstrong@ecu.edu.au
  • Editor: Swathi Kiran
    Editor: Swathi Kiran×
  • Associate Editor: Roberta Elman
    Associate Editor: Roberta Elman×
Article Information
Normal Language Processing / Language Disorders / Aphasia / Supplement: Select Papers From the 42nd Clinical Aphasiology Conference
Supplement Article   |   May 01, 2013
Mild Aphasia: Is This the Place for an Argument?
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, May 2013, Vol. 22, S268-S278. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2012/12-0084)
History: Received July 28, 2012 , Revised September 28, 2012 , Accepted December 22, 2012
 
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, May 2013, Vol. 22, S268-S278. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2012/12-0084)
History: Received July 28, 2012; Revised September 28, 2012; Accepted December 22, 2012
Web of Science® Times Cited: 3

Purpose Individuals with mild aphasia often report significant disruption to their communication despite seemingly minor impairment. This study explored this phenomenon through examining conversations of a person with mild aphasia engaging in argumentation—a skill she felt had significantly deteriorated after her stroke.

Method A person with mild aphasia and her husband recorded 4 conversations involving topical issues. The discourse dynamics and lexical-grammatical content were analyzed using systemic functional linguistic (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004) and conversation analysis (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974) frameworks.

Results The couple demonstrated similarities in the types of conversational moves, but the language of the person with aphasia was more nonspecific and simplified, manifesting in difficulties developing a logical argument and responding to the partner's line of argument. In addition, the nonaphasic speaker recurrently overlapped the aphasic speaker in order to request clarification of particular points, highlighting the types of behaviors that can occur in this form of higher level language activity.

Conclusion The complex argument task and the multilevel and multi-approach analysis are useful tools for examining persons with mild aphasia, revealing aspects that are often overlooked in standard tests. Treatment could incorporate more complex notions such as evaluative language and the role of overlap in complex conversations.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access