Talking across time: Using reported speech as a communicative resource in amnesia
Talking across time: Using reported speech as a communicative resource in amnesia
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/02687030701192265
复制
发表时间：
2007-06-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Cohen, Neal J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Duff, Melissa C.;Hengst, Julie A.;Cohen, Neal J.
背景：失忆症患者的记忆缺陷可能不仅仅是纯记忆缺陷，这证明了对健忘症患者HM正式实验室任务的细微语言障碍的报道。但是，很少关注记忆障碍对常规，口语相互作用中语言使用的影响。我们分析了报道的失忆症患者的语音使用。报告的语音（RS），说话者在另一个时间和/或地方表示思想/单词，需要管理两个时间框架，这使其成为一个有趣的话语实践，在其中探索记忆缺陷对交流的交互方面的影响。 ：这项研究：（1）记录了话语样本中使用的语音的频率，类型和时间上下文； （2）比较失忆症和比较参与者报告的语音使用； （3）检查了这些话语样本中报告的语音使用的相互作用特征。沟通的互动方面在对脑行为关系的实证研究中，并将相互作用重新概念化为脑损伤后功能传播的目标。方法和程序：从更广泛的研究中的人的话语实践中得出，这项研究，这项研究，这项研究，这项研究使用定量组比较和密切的话语分析来分析临床医生与18个之间的互动话语样本中报告的语音发作（RSE）参与者，有9名失忆症和9名比较参与者（NC）。之外的结果：所有参与者都使用了报告的语音。但是，在失忆症会议（273）中产生的RSS明显少于NC疗程（554）。对于类型或时间结构域，未观察到显着的组差异。此外，对于失忆症的参与者，后Amnesia过去的RSE与数据中的其他RSE差异。结论：这些发现对理解记忆和语言的相互依存关系具有重要意义在脑部行为关系的实证研究中的交流，并将相互作用重新概念化为脑损伤后功能通信的目标。
Background: Patients with amnesia may have more than pure memory deficits, as evidenced by reports of subtle linguistic impairments on formal laboratory tasks in the amnesic patient HM. However, little attention has been given to the impact of memory impairments on language use in regular, colloquial interactions. We analysed reported speech use by individuals with amnesia. Reported speech (RS), in which speakers represent thoughts/words from another time and/or place, requires management of two temporal frames, making it an interesting discourse practice in which to explore the impact of memory deficits on interactional aspects of communication.Aims: This study: (1) documents frequency, type, and temporal contexts of reported speech used in discourse samples; (2) compares reported speech use by amnesic and comparison participants; (3) examines the interactional character of reported speech use in these discourse samples. interactional aspects of communication in the empirical study of brain-behaviour relationships, and reconceptualise interaction as a target in the remediation of functional communication following brain injury.Methods and Procedures: Derived from a broader study of the discourse practices of individuals with amnesia, this study uses quantitative group comparisons and close discourse analysis to analyse reported speech episodes (RSEs) in interactional discourse samples between a clinician and each of 18 participants, 9 individuals with amnesia and 9 comparison participants (NC).Outcomes and Results: Reported speech was used by all participants. However, significantly fewer RSEs were produced in amnesia sessions (273) than in NC sessions (554). No significant group differences were observed for type or temporal domain. In addition, for the participants with amnesia, post-amnesia past RSEs differed qualitatively from the other RSEs in the data.Conclusions: These findings have important implications for understanding the interdependent relationship of memory and language, point to the value of examining interactional aspects of communication in the empirical study of brain-behaviour relationships, and reconceptualise interaction as a target in the remediation of functional communication following brain injury.