Analysis of conversational discourse in head-injured adults

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
In the study discussed In this article, appropriateness In conversations with a research assistant was examined in closed head Injured (CHI) adults and compared with normal subjects. Utterances of a speakerinitiator were designated as obliges (those that clearly summon or demand a response) or comments (those that do not). A differential response to these initiatives described whether the speaker was appropriately extending the conversation. Utterances of a speaker-responder were evaluated on a scale of appropriateness (adequate plus, adequate, inadequate, ambiguous). Results indicated that the two subject groups could be distinguished on the basis of (1) the CHI subjects' greater number of turns per conversation, (2) the research assistant's higher percentage of obliges in conversations with the CHI subjects, and (3) the quality of speaker responses.

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: