Negotiating Communicative Access in Practice: A Study of a Memoir Group for People With Aphasia

Abstract

Resulting from stroke or brain injury, aphasia affects individuals’ ability to produce and comprehend language, but it also creates profound social changes, limiting individuals’ opportunities to communicate or to be seen as capable of communication. To address these challenges, the field of communicative sciences and disorders (CSD) has sought to ensure “communicative access” by reducing barriers to communication. This article, through an analysis of the communicative practices of participants in a memoir group for people with aphasia, develops a nuanced conception of communicative access as a process of negotiation across individuals and modes and not just as a process of reducing barriers. The study shows, specifically, that rather than the mere presence of multiple semiotic resources enabling communicative access, individuals enact access by flexibly shifting between modes to take advantage of various kinds of affordances that best suit their needs. This willingness to use modes in atypical or nonnormative ways importantly challenges the very idea of “normal” communication. The theory of communicative access developed in this article melds (a) a CSD understanding of communication as social and tied inextricably to identity with (b) a disability studies conception of access as an ongoing, negotiated process and with (c) a writing studies emphasis on literate, communicative activity as complexly layered, distributed, negotiated, and (multi)semiotic.

Keywords

writing and aphasia communicative access disability studies multimodal composition

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alexander

K. P.

Williams

D. M.

(2015). DMAC after dark: Toward a theory of distributed invention. Computers and Composition, 36, 32-43.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2018). Aphasia. Retrieved from https://www.asha.org/PRPSpecificTopic.aspx?folderid=8589934663&section=Overview

Byng

Duchan

J. F.

(2005). Social model philosophies and principles: Their applications to therapies for aphasia. Aphasiology, 19(10-11), 906-922. doi:10.1080/02687030544000128

Ceraso

(2014). (Re)educating the senses: Multimodal listening, bodily learning, and the composition of sonic experiences. College English, 77(2), 102-123.

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Clayson

(2018). Distributed cognition and embodiment in text planning: A situated study of collaborative writing in the workplace. Written Communication, 35(2), 155-181.

Dolmage

(2007). Mapping composition: Inviting disability in the front door. In Brueggemann

Lewiecki-Wilson

(Eds.), Disability in the teaching of writing: A critical sourcebook (pp. 14-27). New York, NY: Bedford/St. Martin.

Dolmage

(2013). Disability rhetoric. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Dolmage

(2017). Academic ableism: Disability and higher education. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

10.

Dunn

Dunn De Mers

(2002). Reversing notions of disability and accommodation: Embracing universal design in writing pedagogy and web space. Kairos, 7(1). kairos.technorhetoric.net/7.1/coverweb/dunn_demers/

11.

Goodwin

(1995). Co-constructing meaning in conversations with an aphasic man. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(3), 233-260.

12.

Goodwin

(2004). A competent speaker who can’t speak: The social life of aphasia. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 14(2), 151-170. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43102644

13.

Haas

Witte

(2001). Writing as an embodied practice: The case of engineering standards. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15(4), 413-457.

14.

Hamraie

(2013). Designing collective access: A feminist disability theory of universal design. Disability Studies Quarterly, 33(4). Retrieved from http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/3871

15.

Heller

C. E.

(1997). Until we are strong together: Women writers in the Tenderloin. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

16.

Hengst

(2010). Semiotic remediation, conversational narratives and aphasia. In Prior

Hengst

(Eds.), Exploring semiotic remediation as discourse practice (pp. 107-138). Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

17.

Hengst

Johnson

(2008). Writing and communication disorders across the lifespan. In Bazerman

(Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text (pp. 579-596). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

18.

Hitt

(2012). Access for all: The role of dis/ability in multiliteracy centers. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 9(2), 1-7.

19.

Holland

A. L.

(1998). Why can’t clinicians talk to aphasic adults? Comments on supported conversation for adults with aphasia: Methods and resources for training conversational partners. Aphasiology, 12(9), 844-847. doi:10.1080/02687039808249578

20.

Kagan

(1998). Supported conversation for adults with aphasia: Methods and resources for training conversation partners. Aphasiology, 12(9), 816-838.

21.

Kagan

Shumway

Podolsky

(2010). Supported conversation for adults with aphasia: Why and how? American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Toronto, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/Events/convention/handouts/2010/1674-Kagan-Aura/

22.

Kagan

Winckel

Shumway

(1996). Pictographic communication resources. North York, Ontario, Canada: Aphasia Centre.

23.

Kerschbaum

(2013). Modality. Multimodality in motion: Disability and kairotic spaces. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, 18(1). Retrieved from http://kairos.technorhetoricnet/18.1/coverweb/yergeau-et-al/index.html

24.

Kerschbaum

Price

(2017). Centering disability in qualitative interviewing. Research in the Teaching of English, 58(1), 98-107.

25.

Kittay

E. F.

(2011). The ethics of care, dependence, and disability. Ratio Juris, 24(2), 49-58.

26.

Kliewer

Biklen

(2011). School’s not really a place for reading: A research synthesis of the literate lives of students with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26(1), 1-12.

27.

Kress

(2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London, UK: Routledge.

28.

Laquintano

(2010). Sustained authorship: Digital writing, self-publishing, and the ebook. Written Communication, 27(4), 469-493.

29.

Lorimer-Leonard

(2015). Writing through bureaucracy: Migrant correspondence and managed mobility. Written Communication, 32(1), 87-113.

30.

Mortensen

Kirsch

(1996). Ethics and representation in qualitative studies of literacy. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

31.

Moss

B. J.

Highberg

N. P.

Nicolas

(2004). Writing groups inside and outside the classroom. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

32.

National Aphasia Association. (2016). The NAA Aphasia Awareness Survey. Retrieved from https://www.aphasia.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/NAASurveyResults-2016Report.pdf.

33.

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. (2015). Aphasia. Retrieved from https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/aphasia

34.

Oswal

S. K.

(2013). Ableism. Multimodality in motion: Disability and kairotic spaces. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, 18(1). Retrieved from http://kairos.technorhetoricnet/18.1/coverweb/yergeau-et-al/index.html

35.

Parr

(1995). Everyday reading and writing in aphasia: Role change and the influence of premorbid literacy practice. Aphasiology, 9(3), 223-238.

36.

Parr

Byng

(1998). Breaking new ground in familiar territory: A comment on “Supported conversation for adults with aphasia,” by Aura Kagan. Aphasiology, 12(9), 847-850. doi:10.1080/02687039808249579

37.

Parr

Byng

Gilpin

(1997). Talking about aphasia: Living with loss of language after stroke. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

38.

Price

(2012). Disability studies methodology: Explaining ourselves to ourselves. In Powel

K. M.

Takayoshi

(Eds.), Practicing research in writing studies: Reflexive and ethically responsible research (pp. 159-186). New York, NY: Hampton Press.

39.

Prior

P. A.

(2013). Combining phenomenological and sociohistoric frameworks for studying literate practices: Some implications of Deborah Brandt’s methodological trajectory. In Duffy

Christoph

J. N.

Goldblatt

Graff

Nowacek

R. S.

Trabold

(Eds.), Literacy, economy, and power: Writing and research after Literacy in American lives (pp. 166-182). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.

40.

Prior

P. A.

Hengst

J. A.

(2010). Exploring semiotic remediation as discourse practice. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

41.

Prior

P. A.

Shipka

(2003). Chronotopic lamination: Tracing the contours of literate activity. In Bazerman

Russel

D. R.

(Eds.), Writing selves/writing societies: Research from activity perspectives (pp. 180-238). Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse and Mind, Culture, and Activity.

42.

Prior

P. A.

Thorne

(2014). Research paradigms: Beyond product, process, and social activity. In Jakobs

E.-M.

Perrin

(Eds.), Handbook of writing and text production (pp. 31-54). Berlin, Germany: Walter De Gruyter.

43.

Ratcliffe

(2005). Rhetorical listening: Identification, gender, whiteness. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

44.

Reynolds

(2007). Geographies of writing: Inhabiting places and encountering difference. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

45.

Shadden

B. B.

(2005). Aphasia as identity theft: Theory and practice. Aphasiology, 19(3), 211-223.

46.

Shadden

B. B.

Agan

J. P.

(2004). Renegotiation of identity: The social context of aphasia support groups. Topics in Language Disorders, 24(3), 174-186.

47.

Shadden

B. B.

Hagstrom

(2007). The role of narrative in the life participation approach to aphasia. Topics in Language Disorders, 27(4), 324-338.

48.

Siebers

(2008). Disability theory. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

49.

Simmons-Mackie

(2008). Social approaches to aphasia intervention. In Chapey

(Ed.), Language intervention strategies in aphasia and related neurogenic communication disorders (5th ed., pp. 290-318). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.

50.

Skeat

Perry

(2008). Grounded theory as a method for research in speech and language therapy. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 43(2), 95-109.

51.

Smagorinsky

(2001). If meaning is constructed, what is it made from? Toward a cultural theory of reading. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 133-169.

52.

Stanley

Cheek

(2003). Grounded theory: Exploiting the potential for occupational therapy. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66, 143-150.

53.

Syverson

M. A.

(1999). The wealth of reality: An ecology of composition. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

54.

Titchkosky

(2011). The question of access: Disability, space, meaning. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

55.

Wells

(2010). Our bodies, ourselves and the work of writing. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

56.

Wenger

McDermott

R. A.

Snyder

(2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

57.

Witte

(1992). Context, text, intertext: Toward a constructivist semiotic of writing. Written Communication, 9, 237-308.

58.

Yergeau

Brewer

Kerschbaum

S. L.

Oswal

Price

Salvo

. . . Howes

(2013). Multimodality in motion: Disability and kairotic spaces. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, 18(1). Retrieved from http://kairos.technorhetoricnet/18.1/coverweb/yergeau-et-al/index.html

59.

Zdenek

(2009). Accessible podcasting: College students on the margins in the new media classroom. Computers & Composition Online. Retrieved from http://seanzdenek.com/article-accessible-podcasting/