UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Multimodal communication and the nonverbal : a case study Payne, Elizabeth Ann 1985

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1985_A6_7 P39.pdf [ 3.97MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096254.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096254-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096254-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096254-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096254-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096254-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096254-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096254-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096254.ris

Full Text

MULTIMODAL COMMUNICATION AND THE NONVERBAL: A CASE STUDY by E l i z a b e t h Ann Payne B . S c , U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a , 1983 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Fa c u l t y of Medicine School of Audiology and Speech Sciences We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard. THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1985 (g) E l i z a b e t h Ann Payne, 1985 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 M a i n M a l l Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date i i ABSTRACT The use of multimodal communication by one moderately mentally r e t a r d e d , n o n p h y s i c a l l y impaired teenage g i r l was i n v e s t i g a t e d . Eighty minutes of language samples were t r a n s -c r i b e d , coded, and analysed f o r modes of communication, communi-c a t i v e i n t e n t , d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n , and context of c o n v e r s a t i o n . It was found that s i x d i f f e r e n t modes of communication, and va r i o u s combinations of these modes, were used throughout the samples. A strong r e l a t i o n s h i p between mode of communication and communicative Intent was found. Furthermore, the context of c o n v e r s a t i o n i n f l u e n c e d the mode of communication. No str o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p was found, however, between discourse f u n c t i o n and mode of communication. I m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s research f o r a theory of multimodal communication i n the nonverbal, as w e l l as suggestions f o r c l i n i c a l i n t e r v e n t i o n with t h i s p o p u l a t i o n , are d i s c u s s e d . i i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TITLE PAGE i ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS i i i LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v i CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the Problem and Scope of the Study .... 1 CHAPTER I I . PRIOR RESEARCH ON AUGMENTATIVE COMMUNICATION 5 Phase One: Design, S e l e c t i o n , and Implementation of Aids 5 Phase Two: Augmentative Communication I n t e r a c t i o n . 7 A T h e o r e t i c a l Basis for Multimodal Communication i n the Severely Speech-Impaired 17 P r e d i c t i o n s Regarding the Nature of Communication i n the Nonverbal 21 > CHAPTER I I I . METHOD 25 Case History. : 2 5 P r e l i m i n a r y Observations and Interviews 28 C o l l e c t i o n of Videotaped Language Samples 30 T r a n s c r i p t i o n of Language Samples 32 Coding of Language Samples 33 A n a l y s i s of Data 39 Modes of Communication 39 I n t e r a c t i o n of Communicative Intent and Mode of Communication 40 I n t e r a c t i o n of Discourse Function and Mode of Communication 41 I n t e r a c t i o n of Communicative Context and Mode of Communication 41 i v Page CHAPTER IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 43 Modes of Communication 43 I n t e r a c t i o n of Communicative Intent and Mode of Communication 52 I n t e r a c t i o n of Discourse Function and Mode of Communication 59 I n t e r a c t i o n of Communicative Context and Mode of C omm u n i c a t i o n 63 Summary of Results 70 Conclusions 75 I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r I n t e r v e n t i o n 78 BIBLIOGRAPHY 81 APPENDIX A V LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES TABLE 1. D e s c r i p t i o n of Videotaped Language Samples of Y TABLE 2. Percentage of Communicative Intent Categories Accounted for using Mode I n c l u s i o n C r i t e r i o n TABLE 3. Communicative Intent Categories and Percentage of T o t a l Utterances They Account For TABLE 4. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Topic C o n t i n u a t i o n s and Responses between the Nonverbal Partner (Y) and the Verbal Partner (R) i n Tape 2b TABLE 5. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Mode-Types within each Language Sample Context Page 31 53 53 60 64 FIGURE 1. Number of Mode-Tokens/Utterance and Percentage of T o t a l Utterances They Account For 44 FIGURE 2. Si n g l e Mode Utterances and Percentage of T o t a l S i n g l e Mode Utterances They Account For 46 FIGURE 3. Mode I n c l u s i o n D i s t r i b u t i o n 48 FIGURE 4. S i n g l e Modes of Communication and Percentage of Communicative Intent Categories They Account For 49 FIGURE 5. Percentage of Mode-Types E x p r e s s i n g Topic C o n t i n u a t i o n and Response 61 FIGURE 6. Percentage of Mode-Types (Mode I n c l u s i o n C r i t e r i o n ) Expressing Topic C o n t i n u a t i o n and Response 62 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS G r a t e f u l acknowledgement i s extended to: Dr. Carolyn Johnson, for her d e d i c a t i o n , time, and v. expert advice and suggestions; Dr. John H. G i l b e r t , for h i s guidance, s u p e r v i s i o n and h e l p f u l suggestions; Rosemary Park, f o r her i n t e r e s t , encouragement and g r e a t l y a p p r e c i a t e d suggestions and advice; and a l l my f r i e n d s and fa m i l y for t h e i r moral support. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem and Scope of the Study I n t e r e s t i n augmentative communication i s r e l a t i v e l y new w i t h i n the speech-language pathology p r o f e s s i o n . Augmentative communication i s d e f i n e d here as the use of a l t e r n a t i v e modes of communication (with our without the a i d of an e x t e r n a l device) to supplement or r e p l a c e the t r a d i t i o n a l mode of spoken language. This f i e l d has developed and expanded tremendously over the past decade. The f i r s t research i n t h i s area, in the e a r l y 1970's, d e a l t l a r g e l y with the issue of whether or not a l t e r n a t i v e devices should i n f a c t be employed for those i n d i v i d u a l s f o r whom i n t e l l i g i b l e spoken speech was an u n r e a l i s t i c therapy g o a l . Consequently, the use of communica-t i o n boards, mostly f o r p h y s i c a l l y i n v o l v e d c e r e b r a l p a l s i e d i n d i v i d u a l s of normal i n t e l l i g e n c e , was quick to be accepted and employed by speech-language p a t h o l o g i s t s . Today, a wide v a r i e t y of augmentative communication systems are used by a v a r i e d p o p u l a t i o n of communicatively impaired c l i e n t s . These i n c l u d e i n d i v i d u a l s with d y s a r t h r i a , aphasia, head i n j u r y and v e r b a l a p r a x i a , as w e l l as laryngectomees,' the deaf, the mentally handicapped, and those with c e r e b r a l palsy. These c l i e n t s use systems ranging from the s o p h i s t i c a t e d and e l e c t r o n i c , such as the Canon communicator, the HandiVoice, the e 1 e c t r o l a r y n x , and 2 computer systems, to simpler d e v i c e s , such as B l i s s b o a r d s or Etran boards, to systems employing no e x t e r n a l d e v i c e s , such as s i g n language or formal g e s t u r a l systems. While most of the e a r l y research in augmentative communica-t i o n has gone towards the development and d e s c r i p t i o n of the above systems, and how to best match these with the p o t e n t i a l c l i e n t , r e c e n t l y r e s e a r c h e r s have looked at the a c t u a l q u a l i t y of communicative i n t e r a c t i o n using these d e v i c e s . They have found that simply p r o v i d i n g a c l i e n t with a system does not a u t o m a t i c a l l y ensure communicative e f f e c t i v e n e s s . The very nature of augmentative communication devices imposes d i f f e r e n c e s on communicative i n t e r a c t i o n , which are only now being recog-n i z e d , d e s c r i b e d and remedied. System users have to contend with such f a c t o r s as: a reduced rate of speech p r o d u c t i o n , a reduced e x p r e s s i v e vocabulary, nonstandard modes of communica-t i o n , severe p h y s i c a l and/or mental handicaps, and i n t e r a c t o r s who may not be f a m i l i a r with a p a r t i c u l a r communication system. A l l of the above o f t e n lead to frequent communication break-downs, l i m i t e d use of augmentative communication systems, and f r u s t r a t e d c l i e n t s . Without a b e t t e r understanding of the a c t u a l nature of augmentative communication I n t e r a c t i o n , mis-guided therapy techniques may lead to f r u s t r a t i o n i n both the c l i e n t and h i s i n t e r a c t o r s , which often r e s u l t s i n reduced communication i n t e r a c t i o n of any k i n d . The purpose of t h i s t h e s i s i s to i n v e s t i g a t e one area of augmentative communicative i n t e r a c t i o n — m o d e s of communication 3 and how they are r e l a t e d to other f a c t o r s , such as communicative i n t e n t , d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n , and the context of c o n v e r s a t i o n . The term "modes of communication" r e f e r s to how an i n d i v i d u a l ' s communicative i n t e n t i s conveyed, and may i n c l u d e obvious and w e l l accepted means such as spoken speech, s i g n language^ -, and t r a d i t i o n a l orthography, as well as l e s s obvious means such as Bl i s s y m b o l s , i n t o n a t i o n contour, and f a c i a l e x p r e s s i o n . Commu-n i c a t i o n , even i n the normal i n d i v i d u a l , i s always a multimodal process. It i s reasonable to assume that, f o r a communicatively impaired I n d i v i d u a l , communication w i l l remain a multimodal process, with the most e a s i l y a c c e s s i b l e modes being used to t h e i r f u l l advantage to compensate f o r the d e f i c i e n t modes. It i s hoped t h a t , by l o o k i n g c l o s e l y at the communicative i n t e r -a c t i o n of one nonverbal c l i e n t , evidence w i l l be found f o r the presence of multimodal communication. Furthermore, i t i s hoped that s p e c i f i c and u s e f u l information w i l l be gained regarding how these modes vary with f a c t o r s such as those mentioned e a r l i e r : communicative i n t e n t , d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n , and the context of c o n v e r s a t i o n . While a l l s i g n languages are formal languages i n t h e i r own r i g h t , s i g n language w i l l be r e f e r r e d to throughout t h i s paper as a mode of communication, since i t i s used i n that c a p a c i t y by t h i s s u b j e c t . ^While i t i s recognized that there i s some controversy regarding the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the term nonverbal (see Poyotos, 1983, pp.67-68 f o r a d i s c u s s i o n of the terms nonverbal and nonvocal), t h i s term w i l l be used throughout t h i s paper to mean any case i n which spoken speech i s not the primary channel of communication. 4 The i n f o r m a t i o n gained from t h i s study would enhance c l i n i c i a n s ' understanding of how to best use a s p e c i f i c c l i e n t ' s range of communication modes across d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s , f o r a v a r i e t y of communicative i n t e n t s , and f o r d i f f e r e n t d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n s . This would i d e a l l y promote more e f f e c t i v e communica-t i o n by the c l i e n t and more e f f i c i e n t use of the c l i n i c i a n ' s time, as w e l l as lessen f r u s t r a t i o n f o r both p a r t i e s . In the f i r s t s e c t i o n of Chapter II of t h i s t h e s i s , the e a r l y l i t e r a t u r e on augmentative communication w i l l be summar-i z e d . The second s e c t i o n w i l l provide f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n on the more recent l i t e r a t u r e concerning communicative i n t e r a c t i o n p atterns of the nonverbal. In the t h i r d s e c t i o n of Chapter I I , the l i t e r a t u r e concerning nonverbal communication in the normal po p u l a t i o n w i l l be i n v e s t i g a t e d , i n order to f i n d a t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s for the concept of multimodal communication in the patho-l o g i c a l p o p u l a t i o n . In Chapter I I I , a thorough d e s c r i p t i o n and case h i s t o r y of the subject w i l l be g i v e n . A l s o , the methods in v o l v e d i n c o l l e c t i n g , t r a n s c r i b i n g , coding, and a n a l y s i n g s e v e r a l language samples of t h i s s u b j e c t w i l l be d e t a i l e d . In Chapter IV, the r e s u l t s concerning the modes of communication used, and how these vary with communicative i n t e n t , d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n , and context w i l l be d e s c r i b e d . F i n a l l y , in Chapter IV, the t h e o r e t i c a l and c l i n i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of these r e s u l t s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d . Also, needs for f u r t h e r research in the area of augmentative communication w i l l be g i v e n . 5 CHAPTER II PRIOR RESEARCH ON AUGMENTATIVE COMMUNICATION Phase One: D e s i g n , S e l e c t i o n , and I m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f A i d s S i n c e the e a r l i e s t a r t i c l e s a d v o c a t i n g the use of augmen-t a t i v e c o m m u n i c a t i o n systems ( e . g . Hayen, P o r t e r & B r i n k , 1 9 7 3 ; McDonald & S c h u l t z , 1973), r e s e a r c h i n t h i s f i e l d has t a k e n s e v e r a l m a j o r d i r e c t i o n s . F i r s t , t h e r e i s a g r e a t d e a l o f l i t e r a t u r e on the d e s i g n and d e s c r i p t i o n o f a c t u a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n d e v i c e s . Some of t h e s e s t u d i e s have l o o k e d at s p e c i f i c d e v i c e s ( m o s t l y e l e c t r o n i c ) d e s i g n e d f o r s p e c i f i c p o p u l a t i o n s ( B e u k e l m a n & Y o r k s t o n , 1978; Beukelman, T r a y n o r , P o b l e t e & Warren, 1984; Beukelman, Y o r k s t o n , G o r h o f f , M i t s u d a & Kenyon, 1981; Bruno & S t o u g h t o n , 1 9 8 4 ) . Other s t u d i e s have taken a more g e n e r a l v i e w p o i n t . C o p e l a n d (1975) and V i c k e r (1974) p r o v i d e d v e r y p r a c t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n on the a i d s a v a i l a b l e at t h a t t i m e . More r e c e n t l y , t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l a r t i c l e s and books a v a i l a b l e w h i c h p r o v i d e c o m p r e h e n s i v e d e s c r i p t i o n s o f v a r i o u s a u g m e n t a t i v e c o m m u n i c a t i o n systems (Beukelman, Y o r k s t o n & Dowden, 1985; H a r r i s & V a n d e r h e i d e n , 1980a; M u s s e l w h i t e & S t . L o u i s , 1982; S i l v e r m a n , 1 9 80). The s e c o n d major a r e a of r e s e a r c h has f o c u s s e d on the a s s e s s m e n t o f the n o n v e r b a l c l i e n t f o r the purpose of p r o v i d i n g him w i t h the most a p p r o p r i a t e a u g m e n t a t i v e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s y s t e m . S e v e r a l a r t i c l e s p r e s e n t the f a c t o r s to be c o n s i d e r e d i n 1) 6 d e c i d i n g whether a c l i e n t Is s u i t a b l e for an augmentative commu-n i c a t i o n system (Shane & Bash i r , 1980), and 2) which system would be best f o r a p a r t i c u l a r c l i e n t (Beukelman, Yorkston & Dowden, 1985; Coleman, Cook & Meyers, 1980; Harris-Vanderheiden & Vanderheiden, 1977 ; Musselwhite & S t . L o u i s , 1982; Owens & House, 1984). From t h i s r e s e a r c h , we know that f a c t o r s such as p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n and motor c o n t r o l , i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t i e s , communication and education needs, prognosis for motor speech improvement, environmental and fa m i l y support, and inner e x p r e s s i v e and r e c e p t i v e language s k i l l s need to be con s i d e r e d before implementing an augmentative communication system with any p a r t i c u l a r c l i e n t . The same f a c t o r s ( e s p e c i a l l y p h y s i c a l , sensory, and c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s ) need to be considered when d e c i d i n g which s e l e c t i o n method, symbol system, communication mode, and I n i t i a l e x p r e s s i v e vocabulary a c l i e n t w i l l use ( C a r l s o n , 1981; Coleman, Cook & Meyers, 1980; Owens & House, 1984). S e l e c t i o n methods i n c l u d e d i r e c t s e l e c t i o n , scanning, and encoding (see H a r r i s & Vanderheiden, 1980), while symbol systems range from i c o n i c systems such as gestures, Amerind, and p i c t u r e s . o r pictographs, to more complex and symbolic systems such as B l i s s y m b o l s , s i g n language, and t r a d i t i o n a l orthography. McNaughton & Kates (1980) give a good d e s c r i p t i o n of Blis s y m b o l s and t h e i r use i n augmentative communication. Silverman (1980) c l a s s i f i e s communication modes as e i t h e r 1) g e s t u r a l (e.g. s i g n language or g e s t u r e ) , 2) g e s t u r a l a s s i s t e d (e.g. systems employing some kind of e x t e r n a l d e v i c e ) or 3) neuro-ass1sted (e.g. using muscle a c t i o n p o t e n t i a l s or b r a i n waves). Silverman 7 (1980) a l s o provides a good d e s c r i p t i o n of these communication modes, the symbol systems to be used with them, and how to choose both of the above f o r a p a r t i c u l a r c l i e n t . The t h i r d and most recent focus of t h i s research phase has been on the implementation of these devices once they have been chosen. V i c k e r (1974 ) provIded some s p e c i f i c therapy programs and i d e a s , such as 1) encouraging c o n s i s t e n t use of the communi-c a t i o n board, 2) encouraging p r o d u c t i o n of f u l l sentences, 3) using the communication system i n a f u n c t i o n a l way, and 4) c o n s u l t i n g f r e q u e n t l y with f a m i l y and other p r o f e s s i o n a l s . Silverman (1980) suggests the speech-language p a t h o l o g i s t use s i m i l a r s t r a t e g i e s , such as g e n e r a t i n g motivation f o r communica-t i o n , g a i n i n g acceptance of the system by the user and other i n t e r a c t o r s , and i n c r e a s i n g awareness of the nature of communi-c a t i o n using an augmentative system. This l a s t area, the nature of augmentative communication i n t e r a c t i o n , has r e c e i v e d a great d e a l of a t t e n t i o n over the past f i v e or s i x years. I w i l l review i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of t h i s t o p i c in terms of how i t r e l a t e s to multimodal communication i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . Phase Two: Augmentative Communication I n t e r a c t i o n The e a r l i e s t study to note the nature and importance of augmentative communication i n t e r a c t i o n ( h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d to i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y as "communicative i n t e r a c t i o n , " since an aug-mentative communication device need not n e c e s s a r i l y always be used) was the c l a s s i c a r t i c l e by McDonald and Schultz (1973). They b r i e f l y mentioned that the l i s t e n e r needs to give the 8 c e r e b r a l p a l s i e d c h i l d time to communicate, that other i n t e r -a c t o r s must understand how the communication board works, and that c l i n i c i a n s must provide supervised " t a l k i n g " time with the c h i l d and parents. Vanderheiden & G r i l l e y (1975) point out how important i n t e r a c t i o n i s , how a nonvocal c h i l d may e a s i l y become cut o f f from h i s environment due to his communication handicap, and how h i s language development may become stunted because of t h i s . Harris-Vanderheiden & Vanderheiden (1977) suggest f u r t h e r g e n e r a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s concerning 1) c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the system, 2) user s t r a t e g i e s and 3) l i s t e n e r s t r a t e g i e s . From these e a r l y s t u d i e s p o i n t i n g out the Importance of c o n s i d e r i n g how a communication a i d i s used once i t has been chosen, r e s e a r c h has taken s e v e r a l d i r e c t i o n s . F i r s t are the s t u d i e s which have t r i e d to assess how e f f e c t i v e communication ai d s themselves are. H a r r i s -Vanderheiden, Brown, Mackenzie, Reinen & S c h i e b e l (1975) a n e c d o t a l l y mention that communication boards using B l i s s y m b o l s aided users s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n the respondent r o l e , and somewhat In the expressive r o l e . H a r r i s , L i p p e r t , Yoder & Vanderheiden (1979), i n a s i m i l a r study, found that communication boards i n c r e a s e d both the range of meanings expressed and number of people spoken to, and appeared to Increase the c h i l d ' s frequency of i n i t i a t i o n s . Other s t u d i e s have looked at the s i t u a t i o n more from the viewpoint of o v e r a l l communicative competence, t r y i n g to assess how well a communication device, i t s user, and the user's environment work together. Beukelman & Yorkston (1980) conducted two case s t u d i e s , l o o k i n g at such f a c t o r s as: the 9 number of environments, number of words spoken, the l i s t e n e r ' s r e c e i v i n g r a t e , the d i f f e r e n t communicative events, and the a c t u a l devices used. They found that a l l of the above f a c t o r s i n t e r a c t e d in some way with the device used, in order to achieve maximum communicative competence. In a s i m i l a r case study of one 24-year-old woman using a communication board ( C a l c u l a t o r & Luchko, 1983), the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the communication board t r a i n i n g program was evaluated. Factors s i m i l a r to those i n Beukelman & Yorkston (1980) were analysed (e.g. communicative f u n c t i o n s , communication mode, the i n t e r a c t o r s Involved, as w e l l as the di s c o u r s e r o l e of the i n t e r a c t o r s ) a c cording to how they i n t e r a c t e d with v a r i o u s t r a i n i n g methods. These i n v e s t i g a t o r s found that communication breakdowns could be traced to three major sources: 1) the design o f t h e boards, 2) t h e i r use by nonverbal people, and 3) the i n t e r a c t i o n s t r a t e g i e s of l i s t e n e r s . S e v e r a l recent s t u d i e s , more general and d e s c r i p t i v e than those mentioned above, have c o n t r i b u t e d much knowledge about the a c t u a l nature of communicative competence of the nonverbal, d e s c r i b i n g how and why i t i s so d i f f e r e n t from I n t e r a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g normal speaking people. The major i t y of these s t u d i e s are q u a l i t a t i v e and d e s c r i p t i v e , based on years of c l i n i c a l experience and o b s e r v a t i o n of nonverbal c l i e n t s by the authors. We now know that s e v e r a l f a c t o r s Inherent i n augmentative com-munication systems c o n t r i b u t e to a l t e r e d i n t e r a c t i o n p a t t e r n s . Among these are: 1) reduced rate of message t r a n s m i s s i o n , 2) reduced e x p r e s s i v e vocabulary, and 3) nonstandard e x p r e s s i v e 10 modes such as s y n t h e t i c speech, sign language, or Blissymbols (Yoder & Kraat, 1983). These f a c t o r s lead to some of the f o l -lowing a l t e r e d i n t e r a c t i o n p a t t e r n s : 1) the vocal conversa-t i o n a l partner tends to dominate the c o n v e r s a t i o n , c o n t r i b u t i n g most of the t u r n s , i n i t i a t i n g and choosing most of the t o p i c s , and supplying more words per turn, 2) the v o c a l partner tends to ask yes/no questions or use other c o n t r o l l i n g forms, r e s t r i c t i n g the range of communicative acts expressed by the nonverbal partner, 3) there are frequent communication breakdowns due to the nonverbal p a r t n e r ' s l i m i t e d expressive r e p e r t o i r e , 4) the nonverbal communicator has a l i m i t e d range of communicative i n t e r a c t o r s and s i t u a t i o n s , and 5) the nonverbal communicator tends to use a l l a v a i l a b l e modes, i n c l u d i n g nonboard modes such as v o c a l i z a t i o n or g e s t u r e , to maximize e f f e c t i v e communication (see H a r r i s , 1982; L i g h t , 1984; Shane & Cohen, 1981; Yoder & Kraat, 1983). It i s t h i s l a t t e r aspect of communicative i n t e r -a c t i o n , namely, that the nonverbal communicator uses many modes, which w i l l be the focus of t h i s paper. The more recent and q u a n t i t a t i v e l i t e r a t u r e on communicative i n t e r a c t i o n with the nonverbal w i l l be reviewed below, with t h i s viewpoint i n mind. The most recent i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of communication in the nonverbal p o p u l a t i o n has taken a very i n t e r a c t i v e viewpoint, as have the ensuing suggestions f o r i n t e r v e n t i o n methods with these c l i e n t s . Most s t u d i e s have looked at v a r i e d aspects of the com-municative s i t u a t i o n . For example, H a r r i s (1978) looked at aspects such as 1) d i f f e r e n t communication c o n t e x t s , 2) d i f f e r -ent p a r t i c i p a n t s , 3) d i f f e r e n t d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n s , 4) d i f f e r e n t 11 modes of communication, and 5) d i f f e r e n t communicative f u n c t i o n s . She videotaped three nonverbal, s e v e r e l y p h y s i c a l l y handicapped c h i l d r e n i n t e r a c t i n g with t h e i r t e a c h e r s . From the infor m a t i o n gained from t r a n s c r i p t i o n s of the videotapes, H a r r i s found that these f a c t o r s i n t e r a c t e d c o n s i d e r a b l y . That i s , c e r t a i n modes were used more fre q u e n t l y with c e r t a i n communica-t i v e f u n c t i o n s , and c e r t a i n contexts e l i c i t e d a more equal sharing of the c o n v e r s a t i o n that others. For example, c h i l d r e n were more l i k e l y to t r y to gain adult a t t e n t i o n using a v i s u a l l y or a u d i t o r i a l l y d i s t i n c t mode, such as gesture or i n t o n a t i o n . They also found that i n f o r m a l small group d i s c u s s i o n s were more l i k e l y to e l i c i t an equal sharing of the c o n v e r s a t i o n than were sessions of i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n . From these r e s u l t s , i n t e r v e n t i o n s t r a t e g i e s , such as encouraging more a p p r o p r i a t e use of communication modes, encouraging more equal p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n c o n v e r s a t i o n , making communication devices e a s i l y a c c e s s i b l e at a l l times, and encouraging expression of a d i v e r s i t y of com-municative f u n c t i o n s , were suggested. In a s i m i l a r study of nonspeaking s e v e r e l y mentally retarded c h i l d r e n , C a l c u l a t o r & Dollaghan (1982) looked at the e f f i c i e n c y of communication board use, and the d i s c o u r s e r o l e s f o r which these boards were being used. They found that the students used t h e i r boards i n the respondent r o l e n e a r l y three times as o f t e n as i n the i n i t i a t o r r o l e . Furthermore, they found that teachers were more l i k e l y to respond to student messages conveyed using communication boards. Last, and quite s u r p r i s i n g l y , they found that communication boards n e i t h e r 12 i n c r e a s e d the l i k e l i h o o d of message success , nor decreased the ambiguity of messages. C a l c u l a t o r & Dollaghan (1982) concluded that these r e s u l t s may e x p l a i n the r e t i c e n c e of students, teachers, and other p r o f e s s i o n a l s to use communication boards i n everyday i n t e r a c t i o n s . On a more p o s i t i v e note, Wexler, Blau, L e s l i e & Dore (1983) compared s e v e r a l communication f a c t o r s in c e r e b r a l p a l s i e d c h i l d r e n , with and without communication a i d s . They found that with aids c h i l d r e n 1) i n i t i a t e d c o n v e r s a t i o n s more f r e q u e n t l y , 2) produced more complex c o n v e r s a t i o n a l a c t s , 3) were more i n t e l l i g i b l e , and 4) decreased t h e i r frequency of "no response" t u r n s . Higginbotham & Yoder (1982), i n a study of n a t u r a l c o n v e r s a t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n in the nonverbal, considered aspects such as: 1) the i n t e r a c t i o n of v e r b a l and nonverbal communica-t i o n , 2) p h y s i c a l , sensory, c o g n i t i v e , and other f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g communicative competence, 3) the communicative f u n c t i o n s employed, and 4) how these change across communicative s i t u a t i o n s . These authors give no s p e c i f i c data r e l a t i v e to the above f a c t o r s , but do st a t e that c e r t a i n communicative systems (e.g. board vs. nonboard mode) may be more e f f i c i e n t i n expressing c e r t a i n communicative f u n c t i o n s , and that the above may vary across communicative s i t u a t i o n s . They go on to say that these f a c t o r s should be considered in implementing an i n t e r v e n t i o n program. Several other researchers have made suggestions for improving the q u a l i t y of communicative i n t e r a c t i o n . H a r r i s & Vanderheiden (1980b) s t r e s s the importance of a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a -13 t i o n by the nonspeaking c h i l d , as does Evans Morris (1981), by means of encouraging r e q u e s t i n g , d i r e c t i n g , e t c . at mealtimes. C a l c u l a t o r & Luchko (1983) add to the above that the other i n t e r a c t o r s should be f a m i l i a r i z e d with the c h i l d ' s system and made aware of the best i n t e r a c t i o n s t r a t e g i e s . Kraat (1984) suggests many good i n t e r a c t i o n s t r a t e g i e s , such as 1) s e l e c t i n g vocabulary that w i l l promote i n t e r a c t i o n rather than convey p r o p o s i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n , 2) developing means to i n i t i a t e and maintain c o n v e r s a t i o n s , 3) developing s t r a t e g i e s and vocabulary f o r r e p a i r i n g communication breakdowns, and 4) a c c e p t i n g any i n t e l l i g i b l e response, r e g a r d l e s s of mode used. She al s o sug-gests methods of a s s e s s i n g improvement i n communication i n t e r -a c t i o n , by looking at such things as 1) amount and v a r i e t y of i n t e r a c t i o n s , 2) content/form/use f a c t o r s , and 3) e f f i c i e n c y of communication. Fishman, Timler & Yoder (1985) o u t l i n e s p e c i f i c s t r a t e g i e s to be used by both the v o c a l and the nonvocal speaker to prevent communication breakdowns, such as s y s t e m a t i c a l l y checking to confirm what has been s a i d . McFadden, B a l f o u r & Jennings (1985) have developed a treatment program to be used by teachers of p h y s i c a l l y handicapped c h i l d r e n to promote more a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n c o n v e r s a t i o n . They suggest teaching that the communicative acts w i l l have an e f f e c t on t h e i r environment, that r e a l - l i f e s i t u a t i o n s should be the b a s i s f o r language and vocabulary l e a r n i n g , and that teachers and others should r e f r a i n from t a l k i n g f o r the c h i l d , and in s t e a d t r y to f o l l o w the c h i l d ' s l e a d . 14 L i g h t , C o l l i e r & Parnes (1983;1985) have done the most recent and comprehensive research on communicative i n t e r a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g nonspeaking, s e v e r e l y p h y s i c a l l y handicapped c h i l d r e n . They have a l s o made suggestions as to how to assess and f a c i l i -t ate communicative i n t e r a c t i o n based on t h i s research ( L i g h t & C o l l i e r , 1985). Blackstone & Cassatt-James (1985) 3 are a l s o c u r r e n t l y undertaking very s i m i l a r work, looking at s i m i l a r f a c t o r s , i n two studies which have not yet been p u b l i s h e d . They videotaped twenty c h i l d r e n with diagnoses of c e r e b r a l palsy and severe motor speech d y s f u n c t i o n , using a v a r i e t y of communica-t i o n a i d s , i n three d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t s . These videotapes were then analysed f o r use of the augmentative system—as w e l l as other modes, such as eye gaze, body movements, sm i l e s , and v o c a l i z a t i o n s — c o m m u n i c a t i v e f u n c t i o n s , and disc o u r s e p a t t e r n s . P r e l i m i n a r y r e s u l t s show that communication u t i l i z e s a v a r i e t y of channels, with use of the formal system (e.g. communication board) ranging from 0% to 86%. L i g h t et a l . (1983), i n t h e i r p i l o t case study of a 5-year-o l d c e r e b r a l p a l s i e d boy of normal i n t e l l i g e n c e , found f u r t h e r i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t s . The r e s e a r c h e r s videotaped and t r a n s c r i b e d two s e s s i o n s of i n t e r a c t i o n , of about t h i r t y minutes each, l o o k i n g at mother-child and c l i n i c i a n - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n s . S i m i l a r to Blackstone & Cassatt-James (1985), each utterance JSee Blackstone, S. and Cassatt-James , E.L., "Communicative competence in communication aid users and t h e i r partners" i n Abs t r a c t s , T h i r d I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference on Augmentative and A l t e r n a t i v e Communication, Oct. 18-20, 1984, f o r inf o r m a t i o n on recent work by these authors. 15 was coded for mode, communicative f u n c t i o n , and d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n . L i g h t et a l . (1983) found that i n m o t h e r - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n s , the mother i n i t i a t e d about two-thirds of the t o p i c s , and that there was a l i m i t e d range of communicative i n t e n t s expressed by the c h i l d . Furthermore, there was an imbalance w i t h i n those i n t e n t s expressed. For example, 40% of the boy's communicative f u n c t i o n s were p r o v i s i o n s of informa-t i o n , 18% were c o n f i r m a t i o n s or d e n i a l s , and 13% were p r o v i s i o n s of c l a r i f i c a t i o n . Few other communicative f u n c t i o n s appeared c o n s i s t e n t l y . Furthermore, the i n v e s t i g a t o r s found that the boy used the communication board only about 40% of the time, and p r i m a r i l y i n the respondent r o l e . However, i n c h i l d - c l i n i c i a n i n t e r a c t i o n s , the d i s t r i b u t i o n of turns and percentage of c h i l d i n i t i a t i o n s was more even. C l e a r l y , there are s e v e r a l f a c t o r s concerning communicative i n t e r a c t i o n with these c h i l d r e n that merit f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n and new i n t e r v e n t i o n s t r a t e g i e s . L i g h t et a l . (1985) provide more info r m a t i o n to t h i s end in a s e r i e s of three a r t i c l e s . In Part I, they looked at the d i s c o u r s e patterns of ei g h t p h y s i c a l l y d i s a b l e d nonspeaking c h i l d r e n ; i n Part I I , the communicative f u n c t i o n s ; and i n Part I I I , the c h i l d r e n ' s modes of communication. The c h i l d r e n , a l l with i n t a c t v i s i o n , h e a r i n g , and r e c e p t i v e language, were v i d e o -taped i n twenty minute f r e e - p l a y sessions with t h e i r primary c a r e g i v e r s . The videotape samples were then t r a n s c r i b e d i n t h e i r e n t i r e t y and coded f o r the mentioned v a r i a b l e s . One major f i n d i n g was that mode of communication i n t e r a c t s s i g n i f i c a n t l y with both d i s c o u r s e p a t t e r n and communicative f u n c t i o n . For 16 i n s t a n c e , o v e r a l l , nonboard modes were used 82% of the time, whereas board modes were used only 18% of the time. F u r t h e r -more, the board mode was used p r i m a r i l y f o r the p r o v i s i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n or c l a r i f i c a t i o n , whereas nonboard modes such as gesture or v o c a l i z a t i o n were used p r i m a r i l y f o r c o n f i r m a t i o n s or d e n i a l s . As regards d i s c o u r s e , communication boards were used i n the respondant r o l e 98% of the time, whereas i n i t i a t i o n s were expressed using nonboard modes (such as v o c a l i z a t i o n , g e s t u r e , or eye gaze) 85% of the time. Based on the above i n f o r m a t i o n , L i g h t & C o l l i e r (1985) have suggested that s e v e r a l f a c t o r s be cons i d e r e d when assessing the communicative competence of a nonverbal c h i l d . Among these are: 1) turns—how balanced are they? 2) t o p i c s — w h o i n i t i a t e s t o p i c s , what i s the range of t o p i c s , and how we l l are they maintained? 3) communicative f u n c t i o n s — w h i c h occur and in what mode?; and 4) modes of communication—which are used and how often? They go on to say that c l i n i c i a n s should consider the above by encouraging a p p r o p r i a t e and e f f i c i e n t use of communication boards. A l l of the mentioned s t u d i e s and e s p e c i a l l y those of L i g h t , C o l l i e r & Parnes (1983;1985), have shown how many f a c t o r s need to be considered in the study, assessment, and i n t e r v e n t i o n of communicative i n t e r a c t i o n I n v o l v i n g nonverbal i n d i v i d u a l s . Among these are: 1) the communicative s i t u a t i o n ( i n c l u d i n g the i n t e r a c t o r s ) , 2) the di s c o u r s e p a t t e r n s used, 3) the modes of communication used, and 4) the range of communicative i n t e n t s . It would be i n t e r e s t i n g to l e a r n how these f a c t o r s i n t e r a c t i n another case, that of a mentally retarded n o n p h y s i c a l l y handi-17 capped adolescent. It i s reasonable to assume that the above f a c t o r s would also i n t e r a c t i n t h i s case. In the next s e c t i o n , i n f o r m a t i o n on nonverbal communication in the normal p o p u l a t i o n w i l l be reviewed, with the purpose of making p r e d i c t i o n s about modes of communication i n the nonverbal, and how they might i n t e r a c t w i t h o t h e r f a c t o r s . A T h e o r e t i c a l B a s i s f o r Multimodal Communication  i n the Severely Speech-Impaired The m a j o r i t y of s t u d i e s on nonverbal communication i n the normal population has been c a r r i e d out by s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s or s o c i o l o g i s t s , rather than l i n g u i s t s . There are s e v e r a l major areas of t h i s research that p e r t a i n to nonverbal communication i n the f i e l d of speech-language pathology. These i n c l u d e : 1) how nonverbal communication i s included i n an o v e r a l l theory of human communication, 2) a c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and d e s c r i p t i o n of human nonverbal behaviours i n communication, 3) the development of nonverbal communication in c h i l d r e n , and A) how these t h e o r i e s could motivate a t r a n s c r i p t i o n procedure. As regards the f i r s t area, s e v e r a l researchers have sug-gested that nonverbal communication i s an i n t e g r a l and very important part of an o v e r a l l model of human communication (Druckman, R o z e l l e & Baxter, 1982; Ekman & F r i e s e n , 1969; Myers, 1979; Weeks, 1979). Moerk (1977) t a l k s about the three dimen-si o n s of communicative space: v e r b a l communication, nonverbal communication, and shared aspects of the behaviour s e t t i n g . 18 Poyotos (1980;1983) has a s i m i l a r framework, the "Basic T r i p l e S t r u c t u r e . " He says that the realm of human communication can be d i v i d e d into f i v e main c a t e g o r i e s — language, paralanguage , k i n e s i c s , proxemics, and chronemics—but the f i r s t three c a r r y most of the meaning, hence forming the Basic T r i p l e S t r u c t u r e . Both Moerk (1977) and Poyotos (1980;1983) s t r e s s that nonverbal behaviours can convey a l o t of in f o r m a t i o n , and that they i n t e r a c t with v e r b a l communication in a systematic f a s h i o n . Hence there are t h e o r i e s of multimodal communication i n the normal p o p u l a t i o n . ) There i s more than one way to c a t e g o r i z e and d e s c r i b e the r e p e r t o i r e of human nonverbal behaviours. As mentioned, Poyotos (1983) sees the e n t i r e human communication system as p r i m a r i l y c o n s i s t i n g of language (the spoken word), paralanguage ( i n t o n a -t i o n , s t r e s s , p i t c h , e t c . ) and k i n e s i c s ( g e s t u r e s , p o i n t i n g , eye gaze and eye movements, p o s t u r a l s h i f t s , arm and l e g movements , e t c . ) . Knapp (1978) d e s c r i b e s the nonverbal communication system i n a s i m i l a r way, as c o n s i s t i n g of paralanguage (as d e s c r i b e d above), k i n e s i c s (as described above), and proxemics ( i n t e r p e r s o n a l d i s t a n c e ) . S i m i l a r l y Druckman et a l . (1982) d i v i d e nonverbal communication i n t o four channels: 1) para-language, 2) f a c i a l e x p r e s s i o n , 3) k i n e s i c s , and 4) v i s u a l behaviour, meaning eye movements and gaze, eye c o n t a c t , e t c . Ekman & F r i e s e n (1969) d i v i d e nonverbal behaviours i n t o f i v e c a t e g o r i e s (to be d e s c r i b e d l a t e r ) , according to t h e i r f u n c t i o n : emblems, i l l u s t r a t o r s , a f f e c t d i s p l a y s , r e g u l a t o r s , and adaptors. And f i n a l l y , Argyle (1972) l i s t s the main nonverbal 19 s i g n a l s used by man as: b o d i l y c o n t a c t , proximity, o r i e n t a t i o n , appearance, posture, head nods, f a c i a l e x p r essions, g e s t u r e s , and l o o k i n g . C l e a r l y , there are s e v e r a l aspects of nonverbal communication common to a l l these c a t e g o r i z a t i o n s , which should be co n s i d e r e d i n ana l y s i n g nonverbal communication in the s e v e r e l y speech-impaired. Argy l e (1972) sees nonverbal communication as s e r v i n g four major f u n c t i o n s : 1) managing the s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n by e x p r e s s i n g i n t e r p e r s o n a l a t t i t u d e s , emotional s t a t e s , e t c . , 2) s u s t a i n i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n by r e g u l a t i n g t u r n - t a k i n g and p r o v i d i n g l i s t e n e r feedback, 3) r e p l a c i n g v e r b a l communication (e.g. sign language or e x p l i c i t g e s t u r e s ) , and 4) e n f o r c i n g v e r b a l communication, as i s done by s t r e s s or i n t o n a t i o n . Ekman & F r i e s e n (1969) acknowledge s i m i l a r f u n c t i o n s , but give them d i f f e r e n t names. "Emblems" are gestures or other nonverbal behaviours which have a d i r e c t v e r b a l t r a n s l a t i o n ; " i l l u s t r a t o r s " are movements, p o i n t i n g , e t c . , which serve to emphasize speech; " a f f e c t d i s p l a y s " are u s u a l l y f a c i a l expressions which express emotions such as happiness, s u r p r i s e , f e a r ; " r e g u l a t o r s " are head nods, posture s h i f t s , eye gaze, e t c . which c o n t r o l the flow of conver-s a t i o n ; and "adaptors" are noncommunicative a c t i o n s such as a d j u s t i n g c l o t h e s or performing b o d i l y a c t i o n s . Other r e s e a r c h e r s (Druckman et a l . , 1982; Knapp, 1978; Myers, 1979) acknowledge s i m i l a r f u n c t i o n s of nonverbal communication i n the normal p o p u l a t i o n . There i s l i t t l e research on the development of nonverbal communication i n c h i l d r e n , except f o r a few anecdotal comments 20 about the power of nonverbal communication in young c h i l d r e n , and how It seems to c a r r y a l o t of the weight of communication while spoken language i s developing. Myers (1979) says "babies f i r s t converse with t h e i r eyes, then bring i n t h e i r hands, and f i n a l l y add spoken language" (p. 57). This i s confirmed by Moerk (1977), who says t h a t , up to one year, 100% of communica-t i o n i s nonverbal; at age two to three, 10% of coding i s through v e r b a l channels; and at four to s i x years there i s a sharp decrease i n nonverbal coding and sharp increase i n v e r b a l coding. Weeks (1979) adds that c h i l d r e n o f t e n have a r e p e r t o i r e of twelve gestures before they are t a l k i n g , and that these gestures are powerful and w e l l i n t e r p r e t e d by a d u l t s . "At any age, when a l i s t e n e r notes that gestures and i n t o n a t i o n c o n t r a -d i c t language, the l i s t e n e r i f i n c l i n e d to b e l i e v e the nonverbal communication. Gestures are powerful communicators" (Weeks, 1979: 13). It appears t h a t , at l e a s t i n very young c h i l d r e n , i n the absence of spoken speech nonverbal behaviours c a r r y a l o t of the weight of communication. It would be b e n e f i c i a l to incorporate s e v e r a l of the f a c t s mentioned e a r l i e r i n a t r a n s c r i p t i o n of o v e r a l l human communica-t i o n . Poyotos (1983) has devised what he c a l l s the " T r i p l e T r a n s c r i p t i o n - D e s c r i p t i o n " based on his framework, the Basic T r i p l e S t r u c t u r e . This i n c l u d e s an ort h o g r a p h i c , p a r a l i n g u i s t i c and phonemic t r a n s c r i p t i o n , as we l l as a k i n e g r a p h i c t r a n s c r i p -t i o n , which r e f e r s to a d e s c r i p t i o n of eye, head, hand and arm movements, e t c . which are communicative. He also i n c l u d e s room fo r recording the a c t i o n of body adaptors, proxemic and 21 chronemic f a c t o r s , and f i n a l l y a d e s c r i p t i o n of the c o n t e x t . Such a t r a n s c r i p t i o n method could be adapted for and used to analyse language samples of a s e v e r e l y speech-impaired i n d i v i -d u a l . Such a procedure w i l l be developed and described i n t h i s t h e s i s . P r e d i c t i o n s Regarding the Nature of Communication in the Nonverbal From t h i s b r i e f survey of the l i t e r a t u r e on nonverbal com-munication i n the normal p o p u l a t i o n , we can make s e v e r a l p r e d i c -t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the nature of nonverbal communication in a s e v e r e l y speech-impaired i n d i v i d u a l . F i r s t , since there are s e v e r a l authors who claim that communication i s multimodal In the normal population ( f o r example, Argyle, 1972 ; Ekman & F r i e s e n , 1969; Knapp, 1978; Moerk, 1977; Myers, 1979; Weeks, 1979), i t i s reasonable to assume that t h i s w i l l also be the framework f o r communication In the impaired p o p u l a t i o n . In t h i s case, a given i n d i v i d u a l would use to the f u l l p o t e n t i a l which-ever modes are undamaged according to h i s s p e c i f i c pathology, In order to compensate for the n o n f u n c t i o n a l modes. This hypothesis i s l o o s e l y supported by the f a c t that the deaf p o p u l a t i o n use f a c i a l e x p r e s s i o n extremely well to express themselves, more so than i n the normal hearing p o p u l a t i o n . It would be i n t e r e s t i n g to see i f an i n d i v i d u a l whose v e r b a l speech mechanism i s damaged (such as i s the subject of t h i s case study) uses other r e l a t i v e -l y i n t a c t modes (such as gesture or sign language) p r o p o r t i o n a l -22 l y more than a comparable normal i n d i v i d u a l . Because of time l i m i t a t i o n s , and the d i f f i c u l t i e s i n matching a normal i n d i v i -d ual f o r the purposes of comparison, t h i s i s beyond the scope of t h i s paper. The modes of communication a c t u a l l y used by the i n d i v i d u a l i n t h i s case study w i l l be analysed for the purpose of showing that a v a r i e t y of modes a re used, and to d i s c o v e r more about how and why these modes are used in d i f f e r e n t s i t u a -t i o n s . Since there are a v a r i e t y of modes of communication a v a i l -a b l e , and since these modes f u l f i l l such a wide v a r i e t y of com-municative f u n c t i o n s , we would expect there to be some system-a t i c r e l a t i o n s between these f a c t o r s . Based on i n t u i t i o n , and a small amount of e m p i r i c a l evidence, we can make some s p e c i f i c p r e d i c t i o n s about these r e l a t i o n s h i p s . F i r s t , we would expect that mode would vary with communicative f u n c t i o n . For example, a mode such as f a c i a l expression may be used most of t e n to convey i n f o r m a t i o n about emotional s t a t e . Ekman, F r i e s e n & E l l s w o r t h (1972) showed that f a c i a l expressions do r e l i a b l y communicate emotional s t a t e s . Furthermore, i t has been shown that a t t i t u d e i s a l s o i n d i c a t e d l a r g e l y through f a c i a l expres-s i o n (Mehrabian & Wiener, 1967; Mehrabian & F e r r i s , 1967). A l s o , a communicative f u n c t i o n such as Information-seeking has been shown to be i n d i c a t e d l a r g e l y through such modes as f r e -quency of gaze (Foddy, 1978), and s p a t i a l d i s t a n c e between i n t e r a c t a n t s (Stone & Morder, 1976). Second, we would expect mode used to vary s y s t e m a t i c a l l y with d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n . For i n s t a n c e , s i n c e some modes are 23 b e t t e r at g a i n i n g a t t e n t i o n (such as v o c a l i z a t i o n , or gesture) we would expect these to be used more for t o p i c i n i t i a t i o n s , turn i n t e r r u p t i o n s , e t c . On the other hand, modes which are more e f f i c i e n t at supply i n g s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n would be used more when a c t i n g in the respondent r o l e . F i n a l l y , s i n c e the nature of communicative i n t e r a c t i o n v a r i e s so much from s i t u a t i o n to s i t u a t i o n — v a r y i n g along such parameters as number of i n t e r a c t o r s , f a m i l i a r i t y of i n t e r a c t o r s , and f o r m a l i t y of c o n v e r s a t i o n — w e would expect d i f f e r e n t modes to be used more i n d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t s . As an example, an adult using B l i s s y m b o l s may be h e s i t a n t to use t h i s mode with a stranger who i s not aware of how they are used. In summary, the purpose of t h i s t h e s i s i s to show that com-munication i n the s e v e r e l y speech-impaired can be multimodal, and that modes of communication w i l l be i n f l u e n c e d by s e v e r a l f a c t o r s . It i s important to note that t h i s study i s e x p l o r a -t o r y ; no s p e c i f i c p r e d i c t i o n s w i l l be made as to how mode of communication v a r i e s , but simply that i t does vary with such f a c t o r s as s i t u a t i o n , p a r t n e r , communicative i n t e n t and d i s -course f u n c t i o n . Post-hoc observations may be made, however, as to the nature of these v a r i a t i o n s , and the reasons for them. The data f o r t h i s t h e s i s was c o l l e c t e d by means of coding and a n a l y s i s of s e v e r a l videotaped language samples c o l l e c t e d from one s e v e r e l y speech-impaired adolescent i n t e r a c t i n g in a v a r i e t y of s i t u a t i o n s . The coding and a n a l y s i s procedures are de s c r i b e d i n d e t a i l In the f o l l o w i n g chapter, and the v a r i o u s i n c o n s i s t e n -c i e s , , i n t e r e s t i n g f i n d i n g s , i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r c l i n i c a l i n t e r v e n -24 t i o n and f u r t h e r research needs are discussed in the remainder of the t h e s i s . In summary, then, the s p e c i f i c r esearch hypotheses of t h i s t h e s i s are that, i n a s e v e r e l y speech-impaired i n d i v i d u a l : 1) communication w i l l be multimodal; 2) mode used w i l l vary with communicative f u n c t i o n ; 3) mode used w i l l vary with d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n ; and 4) mode u s e d . w i l l vary with the context of i n t e r a c t i o n . 25 CHAPTER I I I METHOD Case H i s t o r y The s u b j e c t o f t h i s s t u d y i s an a m b u l a t o r y , a c t i v e and s o c i a b l e , m o d e r a t e l y m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d , n o n v e r b a l 1 6 - y e a r - o l d f e m a l e , r e f e r r e d to h e r e a f t e r as Y. She i s c u r r e n t l y e n r o l l e d i n a s c h o o l f o r the r e t a r d e d , and l i v e s i n a group home n e a r b y . Y p a r t i c i p a t e s i n a wide v a r i e t y o f a c t i v i t i e s both at s c h o o l and o t h e r w i s e . Her s u b j e c t s at s c h o o l i n c l u d e math, l a n g u a g e a r t s and c o m m u n i c a t i o n , s c i e n c e ; m u s i c , P.E., c o o k i n g , woodwork, community r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , and work e x p e r i e n c e . A f t e r s c h o o l , Y p a r t i c i p a t e s i n Brownies and goes on r e g u l a r o u t i n g s w i t h h e r group home and v o l u n t e e r w o r k e r . To g i v e a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n o f Y's p e r f o r m a n c e at s c h o o l , i n math she i s a b l e to r e a d and w r i t e the numbers from one to t e n , and i s c u r r e n t l y w o r k i n g on a d d i n g two numbers. In l a n g u a g e a r t s , Y i s a b l e to r e c o g n i z e and comprehend a few w r i t t e n words, and can i d e n t i f y most l e t t e r s ounds. She i s a l s o a b l e to p r i n t a few l e t t e r s and words. She p a r t i c i p a t e s e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y i n woodwork, P.E., c o o k i n g , s h o p p i n g and work e x p e r i e n c e , where she works i n the k i t c h e n o f a c a f e t e r i a . Y i s r e p o r t e d t o be h a r d - w o r k i n g , s o c i a b l e , and f r i e n d l y by a l l her t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r s ' a i d e s , a l t h o u g h she i s dependent on a d u l t s f o r a t t e n t i o n and g u i d a n c e , and i s e a s i l y u p s e t . 26 Y has been assessed to have a v a r i e t y of speech and language d i s o r d e r s . She has a r e p a i r e d c l e f t palate and poor o r a l motor c o n t r o l (with weak and f l a c c i d f a c i a l and tongue muscles, very poor speech i m i t a t i o n s k i l l s , and a p r a x i c l i k e movements). She demonstrates a moderate to severe delay i n both r e c e p t i v e and expressive language. Note, however, that Y's ex p r e s s i v e vocabulary i s d i f f i c u l t to assess due to her nonstandard means of communication. Standardized t e s t i n g done wi t h i n the past two years I n d i c a t e s the f o l l o w i n g mental age e q u i v a l e n c i e s : TACL 6;2^ PPVT 6;1 TOLD (expressive language su b t e s t s ) 5;6 CELI 5;11 Y i s r e p o r t e d to communicate using a combination of her B l i s s -book, Manual E n g l i s h , gestures, i n t o n a t i o n , f a c i a l e x p r e s s i o n , and body language, i n speech therapy s e s s i o n s , the classroom, and o u t s i d e a c t i v i t i e s . She has a r e p e r t o i r e of about one hundred s i g n s , which she uses i n one to three sign combinations. Y's B l i s s - b o o k c o n s i s t s of about 560 symbols arranged i n a small b i n d e r , grouped according to c a t e g o r i e s such as people, p l a c e s , o b j e c t s , foods, c l o t h i n g , verbs, p r e p o s i t i o n s , days and months, numbers and l e t t e r s , e t c . Y u s u a l l y responds with one or two Bli s s y m b o l s at a time, but can produce longer utterances of four 4Age n o t a t i o n , used h e r e a f t e r , r e f e r s to YEARS;M0NTHS. 27 or f i v e symbols when prompted. Her longest utterance- 5 i n a language sample reported by her speech t h e r a p i s t was gl o s s e d as "Scott and I danced together in a big h a l l at Trackshoes." Y can produce about ten i n t e l l i g i b l e spoken words (e.g. yes, no, Mommy, Daddy, baby) and nonverbal v o c a l i zation —-usua11y v o c a l i c — w i t h a v a r i e t y of i n t o n a t i o n contours. Y has been r e c e i v i n g speech and language therapy f o r approximately the past twelve years. O r i g i n a l l y the focus of therapy was on strengthening the l i p and tongue muscles, but t h i s was abandoned at about the time Y was 9 years o l d , because she d i d not appear to be capable of i n t e l l i g i b l e spoken speech. At t h i s p o i n t , Y's r e p e r t o i r e of about f i f t y manual signs was r e i n f o r c e d and expanded upon. Soon a f t e r , Blissymbols were introduced to the family as a communication system. The focus of speech therapy since then has been on vocabulary expansion, p r o d u c t i o n of a v a r i e t y of complete sentences, quick and spon-taneous use of the Bli s s - b o o k and l o c a t i o n of symbols, and the a p p r o p r i a t e use of the Bl i s s - b o o k i n a v a r i e t y of s i t u a t i o n s . Y has been working on these s k i l l s over the past few years i n small group s e s s i o n s i n both speech therapy and classroom s e s s i o n s . She i s reported to be an e n t h u s i a s t i c p a r t i c i p a n t i n these a c t i v i t i e s , expressing her needs f a i r l y w e ll using her r e p e r t o i r e of communication modes ( B l i s s y m b o l s , s i g n , g e s t u r e , i n t o n a t i o n , f a c i a l e x pression, body language, and v o c a l i z a t i o n ) . -*The use of the terra "utterance" i s used throughout t h i s d i s c u s -s i o n to r e f e r to the communication u n i t u s u a l l y designated by t h i s term, although i t i s not s t r i c t l y a c c u r a t e , since Y's com-munication u n i t s are multimodal. 28 P r e l i m i n a r y Observations and Interviews In order to get the most u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n regarding Y's o v e r a l l communication s k i l l s , as w e l l as information concerning her modes of communication, she was observed In a v a r i e t y of s i t u a t i o n s with a v a r i e t y of i n t e r a c t o r s . For Y, the most s i g n i f i c a n t s e t t i n g s i n c l u d e d : at home with her f a m i l y , at her group home, at school in various c l a s s e s , a c t i v i t i e s , and speech therapy s e s s i o n s , and at work experience. I decided that i t would not be p r a c t i c a l or u s e f u l to a c t u a l l y c o l l e c t videotaped language samples from Y i n a number of these s i t u a t i o n s , such as at home, at work experience, or on o u t i n g s . For t h i s reason, a combination of observations of Y, or in f o r m a l interviews with those i n t e r a c t i n g with her, were conducted. For i n s t a n c e , she was observed while on a p i c n i c with her c l a s s at s c h o o l , and i n t e r v i e w s were held with her work experience c o - o r d i n a t o r , work experience worker, group home s u p e r v i s o r , and her f a t h e r . Information gained from these v a r i o u s sources was for the most part i n agreement, and together i l l u s t r a t e d w e l l how Y communi-cates i n a v a r i e t y of s i t u a t i o n s . In g e n e r a l , few i n t e r a c t o r s r e p o r t e d major problems communicating with Y. Furthermore, they found her to be a t a l k a t i v e , s o c i a b l e g i r l who often i n i t i a t e d c o n v e r s a t i o n s concerning a f a i r l y wide v a r i e t y of t o p i c s (e.g. happenings at school, f r i e n d s , and future plans, as w e l l as a c t u a l a c t i v i t i e s at hand). As regards her modes of communication, a l l those i n t e r -viewed reported that Y uses a v a r i e t y of modes, and also o f t e n combines these modes within an u t t e r a n c e . In a d d i t i o n to the 29 modes de s c r i b e d e a r l i e r , those interviewed reported that Y communicates i n some of the f o l l o w i n g ways: pantomime, body language, a few r e a l words, as we l l as a l o t of p o i n t i n g , p u l l i n g , touching, screaming and y e l l i n g , and a c t u a l l y touching or i n d i c a t i n g the o b j e c t in question. In a d d i t i o n , Y was reported to combine these modes in a number of ways. For the most p a r t , she uses only one or two modes ( a c t i n g as a unit of meaning, somewhat e q u i v a l e n t to a morpheme) per ut t e r a n c e , but has been reported to combine up to four or f i v e of these u n i t s of meaning. The f o l l o w i n g d e s c r i p t i o n i l l u s t r a t e s how Y combined s e v e r a l modes while on a c l a s s p i c n i c . Y was s i t t i n g at the p i c n i c t a b le with the other students, and I was standing back with the te a c h e r s . Y gestured to me to come over to the t a b l e , s a i d "no" while p o i n t i n g to the fork of the c h i l d beside her and then to the place where her own fork should be, then looked at me with a questioning face and shrugged her sho u l d e r s . I took a l l t h i s to mean "I don't have a f o r k . Where i s * i t ? " and brought her a f o r k . Other combinations of modes mentioned by those interviewed i n c l u d e : i n t o n a t i o n , s i g n , and gesture; Blissymbols and s i g n ; p o i n t i n g and i n t o n a t i o n ; and s e v e r a l o t h e r s . It i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that i n many of these communicative s i t u a t i o n s B l i s s i s not one of the primary modes used. For example, Y's Bli s s - b o o k was not taken on the c l a s s p i c n i c ; i t was r a r e l y used during work experience; and i t was not used much at home (as reported by her f a t h e r ) . From these p r e l i m i n a r y observations, i t can be seen that Y i s a r e l a t i v e l y s u c c e s s f u l communicator who uses a v a r i e t y of 30 methods and modes to make her needs known. Language samples c o l l e c t e d from more c o n t r o l l e d s i t u a t i o n s w i t h i n the classroom and speech therapy room w i l l r e v e a l more d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n about how Y's modes of communication vary with c e r t a i n f a c t o r s . C o l l e c t i o n of Videotaped Language Samples Nine short videotaped language samples of Y i n t e r a c t i n g with v a r i o u s people under various c o n d i t i o n s were c o l l e c t e d i n e i t h e r her classroom or the speech therapy treatment room at her s c h o o l . The d e t a i l s regarding•these language samples are summarized i n Table 1. The videocamera, which I operated, d i d not prove to be a s i g n i f i c a n t d i s t r a c t i o n i n any of these s i t u a t i o n s . Both Y and those i n t e r a c t i n g with her were i n s t r u c t e d to continue with t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s as i f the camera weren't t h e r e . As can be seen i n Table 1, s e v e r a l f a c t o r s v a r i e d among the language samples. The tape numbers (e.g. 1, 2, and 3) simply r e f e r to the a c t u a l videotape on which the samples are recorded. The tape l e t t e r s r e f e r to d i s t i n c t a c t i v i t i e s and i n t e r a c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n the sample c o l l e c t i o n . The s u f f i x 's' on two of the samples stands f o r " s t r u c t u r e d , " meaning that these were s e c t i o n s of the previous language sample i n which the i n t e r -a c t o r s were p a r t i c i p a t i n g in an a c t i v i t y with more s t r u c t u r e , enough so as to warrant separate a n a l y s e s . As can be seen, the t o t a l number of utterances t r a n s c r i b e d w i t h i n each sample v a r i e d from 31 to 124, y i e l d i n g 753 utterances t r a n s c r i b e d from a l l nine samples. The number of i n t e r a c t o r s i n the language samples 31 TABLE 1 DESCRIPTION OF VIDEOTAPED LANGUAGE SAMPLES OF Y CHARACTERISTICS TAPE TOTAL MIN. la lb lc les 2a 2b 2bs 2c 3a total tine trans-cribed (+ 30 sees) 10 10 10 5 10 10 5 10 10 80 total I utterances by Y transcribed 51 31 105 *» 124 114 46 101 113 734 f interactors 12 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 details of Interactors Y 8 class-mates 2 T.A.'s 1 teach. Y S (non-verbal class-mate) A (T.A.) Y S K (T.A.) Y S K (T.A.) Y J (unfa-miliar young man) Y R (Y's speech ther.) Y R Y S R Y Jn (new secretary at school) familiarity of lnteractor familiar familiar familiar familiar complete stranger very familiar very familiar very familiar fairly familiar location of sample collection various parts of class-room class-room desk class-room desk class-room . desk therapy room table therapy room table therapy room table therapy room therapy room table activity during sample collection walking sround, talking to people before class starts math lesson-counting blocks language lesson-general conver-sation language lesson-picture descrip-tion general conver-sation speech therapy sesslon--general conver-sation speech therapy session--plcture descrip-tion apeech therapy sesslon--general conver-sation general conversation amount of routine., involved very l i t t l e struc-ture high struc-ture fairly high struc-ture-familiar routine high struc-t u r e -familiar routine unfamil-iar routine--Inter-acting with stranger fairly high struc-t u r e -familiar routine high struc-ture— familiar routine fairly high struc-t u r e -familiar routine unfamiliar routine general comments a lot of time is spent walking around room-not a lot of conver-sation Involved l i t t l e need for communi-cation because of nature of task Y very much at ease in this situa-t i o n — seems to enjoy i t Y 111 at ease—I had to inter-vene at tlmej to keep conver-sation going Y at ease and happy in this situa-tion Y a blc i l l at ease with this stranger-had to intervene at times 32 was f o r the most part two or three, with twelve d i f f e r e n t i n t e r -a c t o r s from her school teacher and classmates, to a complete s t r a n g e r , as i n tape 2a. There was c o n s i d e r a b l e d i v e r s i t y In the type of a c t i v i t y going on while the d i f f e r e n t language samples were c o l l e c t e d . They range from Tape l a , in which Y and her classmates were wandering f r e e l y around the classroom before school s t a r t e d , to tapes l c , l c s , 2b, and 2bs, i n which a f a i r l y s t r u c t u r e d and w e l l learned c o n v e r s a t i o n a l r o u t i n e was set up by the a d u l t p a r t i c i p a n t . In tapes 2a and 3a, the i n t e r a c t i o n was with a stranger who k n e w ^ l i t t l e of the c o n v e r s a t i o n a l r o u t i n e h a b i t u a l l y used by Y and those more f a m i l i a r with her. Tape l b was a math l e s s o n i n which Y was expected to c a r r y out c e r t a i n a c t i v i t i e s , but very l i t t l e a c t u a l communication was r e q u i r e d . In the f o l l o w i n g three s e c t i o n s of Chapter I I I , the a c t u a l t r a n s c r i p t i o n , coding, and a n a l y s i s of these nine language samples w i l l be d e s c r i b e d , and in Chapter IV the e f f e c t s of these language sample v a r i a b l e s on modes of communication w i l l be d e s c r i b e d and d i s c u s s e d . T r a n s c r i p t i o n of Language Samples A l l nine language samples were t r a n s c r i b e d i n t h e i r e n t i r e t y . S p e c i a l e f f o r t s were taken to r e c o r d a l l a c t i o n s or behaviours made by Y which were considered communicative, no matter what the mode. (Actions or behaviours considered not to be i n t e n t i o n a l l y communicative—such as s c r a t c h i n g h e r s e l f , yawning, coughing, etc.--were not t r a n s c r i b e d . ) The t r a n s c r i p -t i o n procedure used was s i m i l a r to that d e s c r i b e d by Poyotos 33 (1983), i n that d i f f e r e n t modes of communication were recorded on d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s w i t h i n the same utterance. This procedure made i t p o s s i b l e to record simultaneous as well as s u c c e s s i v e uses of the various modes of communication w i t h i n one u t t e r a n c e . The presumed meaning of an utterance was also recorded wherever p o s s i b l e i n the comments column. Excerpts from t r a n s c r i p t i o n s of the language samples are shown in Appendix A. In l e v e l one, i n t o n a t i o n contours were recorded s u b j e c t i v e l y , t r y i n g to mimic the contour as c l o s e l y as p o s s i b l e . Information r e g a r d i n g o v e r a l l p i t c h l e v e l , v o i c e q u a l i t y , and loudness were recorded when they were n o t i c e a b l e and appeared to c o n t r i b u t e to the u t t e r a n c e . V o c a l i z a t i o n s were t r a n s c r i b e d p h o n e t i c a l l y on the second l e v e l , I n c l uding i n f o r m a t i o n on o v e r a l l length of v o c a l i -z a t i o n . The Blissymbols I n d i c a t e d were recorded, using t r a d i -t i o n a l orthography, on l e v e l t h r e e . Gestures, s i g n s , and f a c i a l e xpressions were recorded on l e v e l f o u r . Signs were d i f f e r e n t i -ated by being w r i t t e n i n upper case l e t t e r s , and any f u r t h e r a c t i o n s or movements considered communicative (but not a l r e a d y coded as gestures) were d e s c r i b e d i n l e v e l f i v e . F u r t h e r d e t a i l s as to the coding and a n a l y s i s of these nine t r a n s c r i p -t i o n s w i l l be given in the next two s e c t i o n s of Chapter I I I . Coding of Language Samples A f t e r completing a multimodal t r a n s c r i p t i o n of a l l nine language samples, each of Y's utterances in each sample was coded for 1) mode of communication and 2) communicative i n t e n t . As a p r e l i m i n a r y a n a l y s i s , tape 2b was also coded for d i s c o u r s e 34 f u n c t i o n . This sample, in which Y i s i n t e r a c t i n g f a i r l y i n f o r m a l l y with her speech t h e r a p i s t in a t h e r a p y - l i k e a c t i v i t y , was judged to provide r e p r e s e n t a t i v e and u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n regarding Y's d i s c o u r s e p a t t e r n s . In t h i s s e c t i o n , the c a t e -g o r i e s chosen to code f o r , wit h i n each of these areas of a n a l y s i s , w i l l be d e s c r i b e d . Rationale for the s e l e c t i o n of these c a t e g o r i e s , and c r i t e r i a f o r category assignment w i l l also be given* Seven modes of communication were i n i t i a l l y coded: 1. I n t o n a t i o n Contour (IC)-> 2 . V o c a l i z a t i o n (V) 3. Blissymbols (B) 4. F a c i a l Expression (FE) 5. Sign Language (S) 6 . Gesture (G) 7 . Communicative A c t i v i t y (CA) I n t o n a t i o n Contour and V o c a l i z a t i o n were subsequently c o l l a p s e d i n t o one category, Intonation C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n (ICV), s i n c e n e i t h e r category could appear alone, thus forming s i x cate -g o r i e s . Each utterance produced by Y i n each s e s s i o n was coded f o r mode of communication. There were no d i f f i c u l t i e s i n d e c i d i n g what should be coded as ICV or B. However, some explanations are required regarding c r i t e r i a used f o r a s s i g n i n g utterances to the 'remaining modes. •'Modes of communication being c a p i t a l i z e d . w i l l be i n d i c a t e d as such h e r e a f t e r by 35 F i r s t , a Sign (S) was defined thus i f i t was an obvious attempt at a Manual E n g l i s h s i g n , and could not be i n t e r p r e t e d as a Gesture. T h i s was sometimes d i f f i c u l t to decide since many of Y's signs were poorly made and not r e a d i l y r e c o g n i z e a b l e . P o i n t i n g was always considered a g e s t u r e , rather than the signs I, YOU, HE, e t c . , because Y f r e q u e n t l y pointed at objects to r e f e r to them, and her p o i n t i n g at people was considered an instance of her p r e f e r r e d mode of r e f e r e n c e . Other gestures i n c l u d e d : a shoulder shrug, beckoning people to come c l o s e r , waving to say ' h e l l o , ' head not 'yes,' head shake 'no,' e t c . I n t u l t l v e l y . i t was not d i f f i c u l t to decide what a c t i o n s should be considered Gestures. Gesture, then, i s d e f i n e d as any body movement that i s intended to c a r r y meaning, which i s i n turn e a s i l y i n t e r p r e t e d and understood by the m a j o r i t y of people present. Kendon (1983: 13) confirms the i n t u i t i v e ease with which people i n t e r p r e t gestures--"For the most par t , p a r t i c i -pants i n s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n have l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y in d i s t i n -g uishing a c t i o n s that are i n t e n t i o n a l and communicative from those that are not." F a c i a l E x p r e s s i o n included such things as smiles ( d i f f e r -e n t i a t e d as broad smiles or small s m i l e s ) , laughs (voiced or v o i c e l e s s ) , w rinkled brows, eye brow movements, puzzled expres-s i o n s , s u r p r i s e d e x p r e s s i o n s , e t c . A c t u a l eye movements and gaze were i n c l u d e d i n the category Communicative A c t i v i t y (CA), since they were not an a c t u a l F a c i a l E x p r e s s i o n , but rather a movement or a c t i v i t y of some k i n d . Also i n c l u d e d in the category Communicative A c t i v i t y were 36 any o t h e r movements o r a c t i v i t i e s whose p r i m a r y p u r p o s e was not the a c t u a l movement i n and o f i t s e l f , but the f a c t t h a t t h i s a c t i v i t y communicated s o m e t h i n g s p e c i f i c to a n o t h e r p e r s o n p r e s e n t . I n c l u d e d i n t h i s c a t e g o r y , t h e n , were s u c h a c t i o n s a s : moving an o b j e c t towards a p e r s o n so t h a t she n o t i c e I t , t o u c h i n g a p e r s o n n e a r b y to g e t her a t t e n t i o n , p u s h i n g someone away or h i t t i n g her to d i s p l a y a n g e r , e t c . U s i n g the above c r i t e r i a , a l l o f Y's u t t e r a n c e s were coded f o r which o f t h e s e s i x modes were u s e d . (Note t h a t v e r y o f t e n more than one mode was used w i t h i n e a c h u t t e r a n c e . ) Next, each u t t e r a n c e was c o d e d , once o n l y , f o r i t s p r i m a r y c o m m u n i c a t i v e f u n c t i o n . The c a t e g o r i e s used were b a s e d l o o s e l y on Dore (1978) and H a l l i d a y ( 1 9 7 5 ) , and were i n f l u e n c e d by the c o d i n g schemes o f L i g h t e t a l . ( 1 9 8 5 ) . They were a l s o m o t i v a t e d t h r o u g h o b s e r v a t i o n o f Y's c o m m u n i c a t i o n p r i o r to and d u r i n g v i d e o t a p i n g , t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t the c o m m u n i c a t i v e i n t e n t s she a p p e a r e d to e x p r e s s most o f t e n . In t h i s way, the f o l l o w i n g n i n e c o m m u n i c a t i v e i n t e n t s were c o d e d , u s i n g the c r i t e r i a o u t l i n e d b e l o w . Examples a r e g i v e n to i l l u s t r a t e each c o m m u n i c a t i v e i n t e n t . 1. Request A t t e n t i o n ^ (Req A ) : R e q u e s t s a t t e n t i o n , or acknowledgement from someone p r e s e n t , e.g. Y waves to someone p r e s e n t , or beckons to someone to come c l o s e r . ' ' C a t e g o r i e s o f c o m m u n i c a t i v e i n t e n t w i l l a l s o be h e r e a f t e r i n d i -c a t e d as such by b e i n g c a p i t a l i z e d . 37 2. Request Information (Req I ) : Requests i n f o r m a t i o n , o b j e c t s , i n s t r u c t i o n s , e t c . from someone present, e.g. Y p o i n t s to a piece of paper and uses r i s i n g i n t o n a t i o n contour to ask about what i s w r i t t e n down. 3. Performative ( P e r f ) : Accomplishes something by being s a i d . This i n c l u d e s commonly c a l l e d d i r e c t i v e s , e.g. Y signs SIT and points to a c h a i r to get someone to s i t down. 4 . Provide Information ( P r o l ) : Provides i n f o r m a t i o n about past events, comments about people, d e s c r i p -t i o n s , e t c . , e.g. Y signs COLD + WATER to i n d i c a t e the water was c o l d when she was swimming. 5 . P r o v i s i o n of Exclamatory Statement (ProEx): Provides i n f o r m a t i o n i n the form of an exclamatory statement or provides i n f o r m a t i o n regarding i n t e r n a l emotional s t a t e , e.g. Y uses a high f a l l i n g i n t o n a t i o n contour and angry f a c i a l expression while l o o k i n g at someone to i n d i c a t e being angry with him. 6 . Greeing (GR): The sole purpose of the utterance Is to greet someone, e.g. Y waves ' h e l l o , ' says ' H i . ' 7 . Confirmation or D e n i a l (C/D): E i t h e r confirms or denies, agrees or disagrees with previous statement, e.g. Y says 'yes' or 'no,' or makes a head shake or head nod. 8. Notice (NOT): Simply n o t i c e s somebody or something's e x i s t e n c e , with no f u r t h e r i n t e n t than t h a t , e.g. Y waves to person during v i d e o t a p i n g . 38 9. Uninterpre t a b l e (UNTP): Includes cases in which com-municative i n t e n t i s ambiguous, or not c l e a r from the context• Only 1.8% of the utterances were coded as UNTP, and for the most part the remainder of the utterances were e a s i l y assigned to one while others were of questionable v a l i d i t y ; t h i s w i l l be discussed f u r t h e r i n Chapter IV. As mentioned e a r l i e r , only Tape 2b was coded for d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n . The e n t i r e tape was d i v i d e d i n t o t o p i c s ( a c c o r d i n g to the focus of the c o n v e r s a t i o n ) , then the d i s c o u r s e turns of both Y and R were coded using the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a : 1. S u c c e s s f u l Topic I n i t i a t i o n 7 ( S I ) : A new t o p i c i s i n i t i a t e d , accepted, and continued i n the next t u r n . 2. U n s u c c e s s f u l Topic I n i t i a t i o n ( UI): A new t o p i c i s I n i t i a t e d , but n e i t h e r accepted nor continued i n the next t u r n . 3. Topic C o n t i n u a t i o n (TC): New i n f o r m a t i o n i s provided w i t h i n the t o p i c , g e n e r a l l y implying that a response i s r e q u i r e d ( f o r example, q u e s t i o n s ) , but t h i s c a t e -gory a l s o i n c l u d e s general comments to which no response i s r e q u i r e d . 4. Response (R): A response which i s r e q u i r e d by the of the above 6 ca t e g o r i e s . Some c a t e g o r i e s P roved more s a l i e n t , previous turn ( i . e . the t o p i c could not be c l o s e d a p p r o p r i a t e l y without t h i s response). scourse f u n c t i o n s w i l l be c a p i t a l i z e d h e r e a f t e r . 39 5. T o p i c T e r m i n a t i o n ( T T ) : The t o p i c i s e x p l i c i t l y c l o s e d , w i t h or w i t h o u t t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of a new t o p i c f o l l o w i n g . Note t h a t , i n some c a s e s , more t h a n one d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n was e x p r e s s e d w i t h i n one t u r n ( e . g . a r e s p o n s e , f o l l o w e d by a t o p i c c o n t i n u a t i o n ) . In t h e s e c a s e s , a l l d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n s were coded . A l l o f t h e u t t e r a n c e s on each t a p e , t h e n , were a s s i g n e d to c a t e g o r i e s o f mode of c o m m u n i c a t i o n , c o m m u n i c a t i v e I n t e n t , and d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n , a c c o r d i n g to t h e c r i t e r i a o u t l i n e d a b o v e . In the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n the v a r i o u s a n a l y s e s p e r f o r m e d on the d a t a c o l l e c t e d u s i n g t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s w i l l be d e s c r i b e d . A n a l y s i s of D a t a F o u r main c a t e g o r i e s of d a t a were a n a l y z e d . These were: 1) modes o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n — w h i c h were used and i n what c o m b i n a -t i o n s ? , 2) t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f c o m m u n i c a t i v e i n t e n t and mode o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n — w h i c h modes were u s e d most o f t e n w i t h w h i c h com-m u n i c a t i v e i n t e n t s ? , 3) the i n t e r a c t i o n o f d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n and mode o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n — w h i c h modes were used most o f t e n w i t h w h i c h d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n s ? , and 4) t h e i n t e r a c t i o n of the c o n t e x t o f c o n v e r s a t i o n and mode o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n — w h i c h modes were used most o f t e n i n which c o n t e x t s ? The s p e c i f i c a n a l y s e s p e r f o r m e d i n e a c h o f t h e s e a r e a s a r e d e s c r i b e d below. The r e s u l t s o f t h e v a r i o u s a n a l y s e s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n C h a p t e r IV. 40 Modes of Communication A l l of the d i f f e r e n t modes and combinations of modes of communication used by Y throughout the language samples were recorded, along with frequency of occurrence i n f o r m a t i o n . "Modes of communication" are f u r t h e r d i f f e r e n t i a t e d here as "mode-tokens" versus "mode-types," which w i l l o ften be t a b u l a t e d s e p a r a t e l y . A mode-token i s defined as any occurrence of any of the modes. Hence, the utterance composed of B + ICV + S + S c o n t a i n s four mode-tokens. A mode-type i s defined as any occur-rence of one of the mode-types; hence, the utterance above c o n t a i n s only three mode-types. According to t h i s d e f i n i t i o n , then, the number of occurrences of ut t e r a n c e s c o n t a i n i n g one, two, thr e e , f o u r , and f i v e mode-tokens was counted. It was then c a l c u l a t e d what percentage of the t o t a l number of u t t e r a n c e s each number of mode-tokens accounted f o r . For example, what percentage of a l l the utterances contained two mode-tokens, and so on. Next, the average length of utterance in mode-tokens was c a l c u l a t e d . The formula for t h i s i s d e t a i l e d in Chapter IV. T h i s provided an MLUm score, that i s , mean length of u t t e r a n c e i n number of mode-tokens. The use of s i n g l e mode-tokens i n u t t e r a n c e s was f u r t h e r analysed. The frequency of occurrence of each s i n g l e mode was c a l c u l a t e d as a percentage of the t o t a l number of s i n g l e mode u t t e r a n c e s . And l a s t , a mode-type i n c l u s i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n was c a l c u l a t e d f o r a l l the u t t e r a n c e s . In other words, the number of mode-types i n each utterance was counted and t o t a l l e d for a l l u t t e r a n c e s . This y i e l d e d informa-41 t i o n on the frequency of occurrence of mode-types across a l l ut terances . I n t e r a c t i o n of Communicative Intent and Mode of Communication In order to analyse the I n t e r a c t i o n of communicative i n t e n t and mode of communication, the f o l l o w i n g t a b u l a t i o n s were per-formed. F i r s t , a l l of the p o s s i b l e mode combinations were recorded, along with the communicative i n t e n t s they conveyed. This i n f o r m a t i o n was used to c a l c u l a t e : 1) which s i n g l e modes ( i . e . s i n g l e mode-tokens) were used most o f t e n to convey which communicative i n t e n t s , and 2) which mode-types appeared most o f t e n , s i n g l y or i n combination, across a l l u t t e r a n c e s , to convey which communicative i n t e n t s . This l a t t e r t a b u l a t i o n y i e l d e d a mode i n c l u s i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r mode-types across com-municative i n t e n t types. I n t e r a c t i o n of Discourse F u n c t i o n and Mode of Communication Only Tape 2b was analysed q u a n t i t a t i v e l y for how modes of communication were used to express d i f f e r e n t discourse f u n c t i o n s . C a l c u l a t i o n s i n c l u d e d : 1) the number and d i s t r i b u -t i o n of types of d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n s for both Y and her c l i n i c i a n , 2) the number of s i n g l e modes used to express the v a r i o u s d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n s , and 3) which mode-types were used to express which d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n s . 42 I n t e r a c t i o n of Communicative Context and Mode of Communication Several analyses were performed to determine the r e l a t i o n -s h i p between the context of c o n v e r s a t i o n and mode of communica-t i o n . These included c a l c u l a t i o n s of: 1) the t o t a l number of times each mode-type was used w i t h i n each language sample, 2) the d i s t r i b u t i o n of mode-types used as a f u n c t i o n of v a r i a b l e s i n h e r e n t i n the d i f f e r e n t language samples, and 3) comparisons of the use of the d i f f e r e n t mode-types across the f o l l o w i n g c o n t e x t s : 1) s t r u c t u r e d vs. u n s t r u c t u r e d language remediation sessions (Tapes l c and 2b vs. Tapes l c s and 2bs) 2) conve r s a t i o n with a stranger vs. a f a m i l i a r person (Tape 2a and Tape 3a vs. Tape 2b) 3) c o n v e r s a t i o n during a language remediation s e s s i o n vs. during an a c t i v i t y with l i t t l e inherent s t r u c t u r e (Tape 2b vs. Tape l a ) 4) conversation i n v o l v i n g two vs. three p a r t i c i p a n t s (Tape 2b vs. Tape 2c) In summary, a l l nine language samples were t r a n s c r i b e d in t h e i r e n t i r e t y and coded f o r mode of communication, communica-t i v e i n t e n t , and discou r s e f u n c t i o n . The analyses d e s c r i b e d above were then performed on t h i s data to disc o v e r the nature of modes of communication i n t h i s nonverbal c l i e n t , and how they i n t e r a c t with communicative i n t e n t , discourse f u n c t i o n , and the context of c o n v e r s a t i o n . 43 CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Modes of Communication In the nine language samples, Y produced s i x t y - n i n e d i f f e r e n t combinations of the s i x p o s s i b l e modes of communica-t i o n . These ranged from utterances employing ju s t one mode-token, to utterances i n which two, three, and even one u t t e r a n c e i n which four d i f f e r e n t mode-types appeared (these were I n t o n a t i o n C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n , Sign Language, Gesture, and F a c i a l E x p r e s s i o n ) . These s i x t y - n i n e d i f f e r e n t combinations a l s o included utterances i n which more than one mode-type was used. The l a r g e s t number of occurrences of the same mode-type was i n one utterance in which f i v e signs were used. The next l o n g e s t s t r i n g s c o n t a i n i n g the same mode-type included the f o l -l o wing: 1) three B l i s s y m b o l s , 2) three Gestures, and 3) three Communicative A c t i v i t i e s . Other long combinations of modes w i t h i n an utterance i n c l u d e combinations of: 1) two Gestures, two Communicative A c t i v i t i e s , and one Sign, 2) two I n t o n a t i o n C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n s , one Sign, and one Communicative A c t i v i t y , and 3) two Signs, one Gesture, and one F a c i a l E x p r e s s i o n . C l e a r l y , Y i s using a l l modes a v a i l a b l e to her, and in a wide v a r i e t y of ways. Figure 1 shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n of Y's u t t e r -ances, according to the number of mode-tokens i n v o l v e d . The m a j o r i t y of utterances (62.3%) contained one mode-token, but a FIGURE 1. NUMBER OF MODE-TOKENS/UTTERANCE AND PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL UTTERANCES THEY ACCOUNT FOR 45 c o n s i d e r a b l e p r o p o r t i o n of the utterances (27.0%) contained two mode-tokens, while 9.0% contained three mode-tokens. Four and f i v e mode—token combinations accounted for l e s s than 2% of the u 11er ances . From t h i s data, the mean length of utterance in mode-tokens (MLU m) can be c a l c u l a t e d in the f o l l o w i n g way: MLU = number of occurrences x number of mode-tokens m t o t a l number of utterances In t h i s case MLU m = 1.51. This i n d i c a t e s that, on the average, Y's utterances contained between one and two mode-tokens . F i g u r e 2 r e v e a l s the d i s t r i b u t i o n of Y's s i n g l e mode u t t e r -ances, i n d i c a t i n g that the d i f f e r e n t modes of communication c o n t r i b u t e d i f f e r i n g amounts of the t o t a l number of s i n g l e mode u t t e r a n c e s . As can be seen, Gesture i s the most commonly used s i n g l e mode of communication, followed by Blissymbols, then Com-municative A c t i v i t y , Intonation C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n , Sign Language, and f i n a l l y F a c i a l E x p r e s s i o n . It i s i n t e r e s t i n g that B l i s s y m b o l s , the mode of communication that i s e x p l i c i t l y taught, i s not the most common mode. Furthermore, F a c i a l E x p r e s s i o n i s used as a s i n g l e mode very r a r e l y . In f a c t , d i f f e r e n t two-mode combinations (such as Intonation Contour-V o c a l i z a t i o n + Gesture and I n t o n a t i o n C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n + Communicative A c t i v i t y ) were used more f r e q u e n t l y than t h i s s i n g l e mode combination. FIGURE 2. SINGLE MODE UTTERANCES AND PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SINGLE MODE UTTERANCES THEV ACCOUNT FOR 40 30 Percentage of Total Single 20 Mode Utterances 10 + 0 34.207 27.3% yaw/A 16.6% 10.8% 4--f-B CA Single mode 7"* r. My. G •.'.'v. ..'i,,'t. ICV utterances 47 The a n a l y s i s of which mode-types occurred most often across utterances (mode i n c l u s i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n ) i s shown In F i g . 3. There are s e v e r a l i n t e r e s t i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between F i g . 2 and F i g . 3. F i r s t , the d i s t r i b u t i o n of mode types using the mode i n c l u s i o n c o n d i t i o n i s much more even than across the s i n g l e mode utte r a n c e c o n d i t i o n , i n d i c a t i n g that a wide v a r i e t y of combinations of these s i x modes i s used. Second, the order of frequency of occurrence of the v a r i o u s mode-types d i f f e r s between the two c o n d i t i o n s . In both cases, Gestures are the most commonly used mode. However, whereas Blissymbols are the second most commonly used mode-type in s i n g l e mode u t t e r a n c e s , o v e r a l l i t appears f o u r t h most of t e n i n a l l mode combinations (which i n c l u d e s i n g l e mode combinations). And t h i r d , I n t o n a t i o n C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n and F a c i a l E x p r e s s i o n account f o r a p p r o x i -mately 8% more of the mode i n c l u s i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n than the s i n g l e mode d i s t r i b u t i o n , i n d i c a t i n g that they are used more of t e n to convey meaning when in combination with other modes than when al o n e . These r e s u l t s suggest that some modes of communication may be more t r a n s p a r e n t , or capable of c a r r y i n g d i s c r e t e u n i t s of meaning. Hence, they are used most o f t e n in combination with other modes—see, for example, how F a c i a l Expression and I n t o n a t i o n C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n are used more in multimodal utterances ( F i g . 3) than in s i n g l e mode utterances ( F i g . 2). It was t h i s n o t i o n , that combinations of modes ( e i t h e r of d i f f e r e n t modes or of the same mode) can add together to produce the e n t i r e meaning of an utterance, that lead to the concept of Percentage of Total Utterances Containing Mode-Type G FIGURE 3. NODE INCLUSION DISTRIBUTION 80 70 60 PERCENTAGE OF COMMUN- 5 0 ICATIVE A INTENT CATAGORY 3 Q ACCOUNTED FOR 20 10 0 FIGURE 4 SINGLE MODES OF COMMUNICATION AND PERCENTAGE OF COMMUNICATIVE INTENT CATEGORIES THEY ACCOUNT FOR REQI REQA PRCI PROEX C/D COMMUNICATIVE INTENT CATEGORY CA 11 ICV 11 S • B H NOT FE 50 MLU m. This i m p l i e s that f o r a nonverbal communicator, a l l modes con s i d e r e d to be c o n t r i b u t i n g to the meaning of an utterance should be counted, much as the morphemes of an utterance of a normal c h i l d are counted. In t h i s way, a greater Insight i s gained as to how a nonverbal c h i l d conveys h i s intended meaning. In t h i s case, MLU m turned out to be 1.51, p l a c i n g Y at the e x p r e s s i v e language age of 1;11, according to M i l l e r and Chapman (1979, c i t e d i n J. M i l l e r , 1981). There are s e v e r a l problems i n h e r e n t i n making t h i s kind of comparison, however. F i r s t , i t Is q u e s t i o n a b l e whether norms c o l l e c t e d from normal p r e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n should be used as a b a s i s of comparison for a nonverbal a d o l e s c e n t with such a v a r i e d speech, language and e d u c a t i o n a l case h i s t o r y . Second, and more important, i s the f a c t that the nature of communicative i n t e r a c t i o n with the nonverbal imposes d i f f e r e n c e s that make MLU as a measure of expressive language competency somewhat i n v a l i d . Since there are so many communica-t i o n breakdowns, and t h e r e f o r e a need to v e r i f y what has been s a i d a f t e r almost every communicative attempt, the v e r b a l c o n v e r s a t i o n a l partner tends to i n t e r r u p t the nonverbal p a r t n e r ' s turns extremely o f t e n . This i s , of course, necessary and o f t e n a n t i c i p a t e d by the nonverbal p a r t i c i p a n t . It does, however, prevent the production of any long, u n i n t e r r u p t e d u t t e r a n c e s being produced by the nonverbal person. It i s a l s o important to remember that MLU m measures "communicative l e v e l , " while MLU measures "language l e v e l . " Since MLUm i n c o r p o r a t e s nonverbal as w e l l as v e r b a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s to meaning, i t Is r e m i n i s c e n t of the d e s c r i p t i o n of tire one-word stage of language 51 d e v e l o p m e n t as " h o l o p h r a s t i c , " where one word, i n c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h g e s t u r e , i n t o n a t i o n and c o n t e x t , f u n c t i o n s as a whole s e n t e n c e ; and i t r a i s e s the c o n t r o v e r s y a t t a c h e d to t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n . D e s p i t e t h e s e s h o r t c o m i n g s , MLU m c o u l d be c o n -s i d e r e d as a v a l i d measure of c o m m u n i c a t i v e c o m p l e x i t y i n the n o n v e r b a l ; w h i l e i t s e r v e s as a r e m i n d e r of how m u l t i p l e modes can t o g e t h e r c o n t r i b u t e to o v e r a l l c o m m u n i c a t i v e competency. A l l o f t h e above d a t a on modes o f co m m u n i c a t i o n s e r v e to i l l u s t r a t e how commun i c a t i o n i s v e r y much a m u l t i m o d a l p r o c e s s f o r t h e n o n v e r b a l , a t l e a s t i n t h i s c a s e . Y used s i x t y - n i n e d i f f e r e n t c o m b i n a t i o n s o f modes, r a n g i n g from s i n g l e modes to c o m b i n a t i o n s o f up to f i v e m ode-tokens. A l s o i n t e r e s t i n g i s t h e f a c t t h a t the two modes t r a d i t i o n a l l y c o n s i d e r e d as l e g i t i m a t e a u g m e n t a t i v e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s y s t e m s , B l i s s y m b o l s and S i g n L a n g u a g e , were not the most o f t e n used modes e i t h e r as s i n g l e modes or i n m u l t i p l e mode c o m b i n a t i o n s ; i n b o t h of t h e s e c o n d i -t i o n s G e s t u r e was the most f r e q u e n t l y used mode. B l i s s y m b o l s , however, was the second most f r e q u e n t l y used mode i n the f o r m e r c o n d i t i o n , and the f o u r t h most f r e q u e n t l y used i n the l a t t e r c o n d i t i o n . S i g n l a n g u a g e was used f i f t h most f r e q u e n t l y i n b o t h c o n d i t i o n s . T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t n o t o n l y i s c o m m u n i c a t i o n m u l t i m o d a l f o r t h i s c l i e n t , but t h a t c o m m u n i c a t i o n modes not t r a d i t i o n a l l y t a u g h t , s u c h as G e s t u r e , I n t o n a t i o n C o n t o u r , or V o c a l i z a t i o n , a r e used more o f t e n t h a n the e x p l i c i t l y t a u g h t modes such as S i g n Language or B I i s s y m b o l i c s . 52 I n t e r a c t i o n of Communicative Intent and Mode of Communication The I n t e r a c t i o n of communicative Intent and mode of communication i s d i s p l a y e d i n F i g . 4 and Table 2. Table 3 shows what percentage of the t o t a l u t t e r a n c e s each of the communica-t i v e i n t e n t c a t e g o r i e s accounts f o r . Note that the c a t e g o r i e s P e r f o r m a t i v e , Notice, and UnInterpretable were c o l l a p s e d i n t o the category Other. In F i g . 4, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the v a r i o u s s i n g l e modes of communication used to express each communicative f u n c t i o n i s shown. In Table 2, i t can be seen how the v a r i o u s mode-tokens are d i s t r i b u t e d across the d i f f e r e n t communicative Intent c a t e g o r i e s . P e r f o r m a t i v e s , Greetings and U n i n t e r p r e t a b l e u t t e r a n c e s were not included because 1) these c a t e g o r i e s together only accounted for 5% of the data i n F i g . 4 and 8% of the data i n Table 2. Furthermore, both Greetings and Performa-t i v e s proved to be u n r e l i a b l e c a t e g o r i e s . The category Performative was somewhat i l l - d e f i n e d i n r e l a t i o n to the other c a t e g o r i e s , and did not show c o n s i s t e n t trends in the d i s t r i b u -t i o n of modes across the two s i t u a t i o n s , whereas the other c a t e -g o r i e s d i d . The category Greeting was only used in coding one of the language samples, and t h e r e f o r e was not considered to be a w e l l motivated category. As can be seen i n F i g . 4^  there i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p between mode of communication in s i n g l e mode utterances and communica-t i v e i n t e n t c a t e g o r i e s ; c e r t a i n modes are used more of t e n than others to express a given communicative i n t e n t , and these modes vary a c c o r d i n g to the communicative i n t e n t category they 53 TABLE 2 PERCENTAGE OF COMMUNICATIVE INTENT CATEGORIES ACCOUNTED FOR USING MODE INCLUSION CRITERION Communicative Intent Category Re quest Request Provision Provision of Mode of for for of Exclamatory Confirmation Communication Info. Attention Info. Information or Denial Notice Gesture 39.5 27.0 16.2 17.5 52.3 30.1 Blissymbols 1.3 1.3 38.2 1.3 2.0 1.4 Sign Language 2.6 5.3 19.1 11.3 1.3 Intonation Contour-Vocalization 25.0 20.4 11.3 25.0 30.7 11.0 Communicative Act ivi ty 25.0 38.2 11.8 22.5 7.8 43.8 Facial Expression 6.6 7.9 3.4 22.5 -5.9 13.7 TABLE 3 COMMUNICATIVE INTENT CATEGORIES AND PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL UTTERANCES THEY ACCOUNT FOR Communicative Intent Category Number of Occurrences Percentage of Total Request for Information 86 11.4 Request for Attention 44 5.8 Provision of Informa-tion 321 42.6 Provision of Exclamatory Information 56 7.4 Confirmation or Denial 121 16.1 Notice 57 7.6 Other 68 9.1 TOTAL 753 54 express. This i n t e r a c t i o n i s s t i l l present to some extent; though i s l e s s obvious when the mode i n c l u s i o n c r i t e r i o n i s used (see Table 2 ) . Such an e f f e c t i s expected i f some modes tend to be i n t r i n s i c a l l y b e t t e r s u i t e d to expressing c e r t a i n f u n c t i o n s ; while the various modes of communication a l l c o n t r i b u t e some u n i t of meaning to help express a given concept or p r o p o s i t i o n . For example, as can be seen in F i g . 4, Requests f o r Information are overwhelmingly (74%) expressed through Gesture, and are only expressed through two other s i n g l e modes (Communi-c a t i v e A c t i v i t y and Inton a t i o n C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n , 13% each). When Requesting A t t e n t i o n , however, Y tended to use Communi-c a t i v e A c t i v i t y and Gesture most o f t e n (47% and 38%, r e s p e c t -i v e l y ) . I n t o n a t i o n C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n and Sign Language accounted f o r the remainder of Y's Requests f o r A t t e n t i o n (11% and 4%, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . The P r o v i s i o n of Information was accomplished using a l l s i x modes of communication, but for the most part through B l i s s y m b o l s— 6 1 % of the time. Sign Language and Gesture c o n t r i b u t e d a f a i r p r o p o r t i o n of the time to the expres s i o n of t h i s f u n c t i o n (17% and 16%, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) ; whereas Communicative A c t i v i t y , Intonation C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n , and F a c i a l E x p r e s s i o n were used r e l a t i v e l y r a r e l y (4%, 2%, and 0.5%, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . The P r o v i s i o n of Exclamatory Information u t i l i z e d f i v e of the s i n g l e modes r e l a t i v e l y e q u a l l y . This f u n c t i o n was expressed most o f t e n v i a Gesture (27%), but 23% of the time v i a F a c i a l E x p r e s s i o n , which i s an uncommon mode of communication for the other communicative i n t e n t s . A l s o , Blissymbols alone were never used to express t h i s f u n c t i o n . The 55 other modes c o n t r i b u t i n g to the expression of t h i s f u n c t i o n were Int o n a t i o n C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n (20%), Communicative A c t i v i t y (17%) and Sign Language (13%). Confirmations and D e n i a l s were expressed through only two s i n g l e modes: Gesture (70%) and I n t o n a t i o n C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n (30%). The category Notice was conveyed mostly through Communicative A c t i v i t y (55%) and a l s o l a r g e l y through Gesture (37%). The modes I n t o n a t i o n Contour-V o c a l i z a t i o n and Blissymbols were used r e l a t i v e l y i n f r e q u e n t l y (5% and 3%, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) to express N o t i c e . It could be p o s t u l a t e d , as mentioned e a r l i e r , that there are c e r t a i n f e a t u r e s inherent in the various modes of communica-t i o n that make them more s u i t a b l e for expressing c e r t a i n commu-n i c a t i v e f u n c t i o n s , thus accounting for the r e l a t i o n s h i p s described, above. For example, Requests f o r Information are most o f t e n expressed through Gesture, but a l s o through Communicative A c t i v i t y , and I n t o n a t i o n C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n . This i s b e t t e r i l l u s t r a t e d by l o o k i n g at Y's a c t u a l Gestures, which c o n s i s t l a r g e l y of shoulder shrugging, p o i n t i n g to people, and p o i n t i n g to o b j e c t s . Most of the I n t o n a t i o n C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n s used when Requesting Information were v o c a l i z a t i o n s with a r i s i n g i n t o n a t i o n contour (e.g. a yes/no question), and the Communica-t i v e A c t i v i t i e s were such a c t i o n s as touching the o b j e c t s i n question, or moving them c l o s e r to the person who could supply the necessary i n f o r m a t i o n . These modes are e a s i l y i n t e r p r e t e d by o t h e r s , understandable by the m a j o r i t y of the p u b l i c , and r e q u i r e minimal e f f o r t on Y's part. It can be r e a d i l y seen, then, how gesture would be a more e f f i c i e n t and e f f e c t i v e method 56 o f r e q u e s t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n than more s y m b o l i c modes such as B l i s s y m b o l s o r S i g n Language. On the o t h e r hand, P r o v i s i o n s o f I n f o r m a t i o n a r e e x p r e s s e d l a r g e l y t h r o u g h B l i s s y m b o l s , and to a l e s s e r e x t e n t t h r o u g h G e s t u r e and S i g n L a n g u a g e . T h i s i s u n d e r s t a n d a b l e , s i n c e B l i s s y m b o l s and S i g n Language are w e l l d e v e l o p e d , h i g h l y s y s t e m a t i c l i n g u i s t i c s y s t e m s ; Y i s most l i k e l y to use t h e s e modes to e x p r e s s h e r r e c e p t i v e v o c a b u l a r y to the f u l l e s t p o t e n t i a l . I t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e , however, t h a t the s i t u a t i o n s i n whi c h Y s u p p l i e s i n f o r m a t i o n a r e ones i n w h i c h she i s s p e c i f i -c a l l y r e q u e s t e d to do so, by t e a c h e r s and/or t h e r a p i s t s , i n w h i c h c a s e she i s a l s o s p e c i f i c a l l y r e q u e s t e d to use t h e s e v e r y s y s t e m s to e x p r e s s h e r s e l f . A n o t h e r example o f the use o f the most a p p r o p r i a t e mode to co n v e y a g i v e n c o m m u n i c a t i v e f u n c t i o n i s Y's e x p r e s s i o n o f C o n f i r m a t i o n s o r D e n i a l s , s o l e l y t h r o u g h G e s t u r e s o r I n t o n a t i o n C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n s . As one might g u e s s , t h e s e G e s t u r e s were head shakes or head n o d s ; w h i l e the I n t o n a t i o n C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a -t i o n s were a l m o s t e x c l u s i v e l y /no/ or /j£/ ( w i t h f a l l i n g I n t o n a -t i o n c o n t o u r s ) . O b v i o u s l y t h e s e G e s t u r e s and words a r e r e a d i l y i n t e r p e t a b l e by most p e o p l e , and a r e a l s o q u i c k l y and e a s i l y p r o d u c e d . I t i s p e r h a p s n ot so o b v i o u s why v a r i o u s modes were used to e x p r e s s R e q u e s t s f o r A t t e n t i o n . One would e x p e c t t h a t i n t h i s c a s e t h e most n o t i c e a b l e and e f f i c i e n t a t t e n t i o n - g e t t i n g mode would be u s e d . T h i s would appear to be I n t o n a t i o n C o n t o u r -V o c a l i z a t i o n , or p e r h a p s G e s t u r e , s i n c e t h e s e two a r e a u d i t o r i a l l y and v i s u a l l y d i s t i n c t . However, the mode Communi-57 c a t i v e A c t i v i t y was used more o f t e n than e i t h e r of t h e s e modes when R e q u e s t i n g A t t e n t i o n . T h i s i s p e r h a p s e x p l a i n e d by e x a m i n i n g the a c t u a l Communicative A c t i v i t i e s u s e d , w h i c h c o n s i s t e d o f : l e a n i n g towards the p e r s o n i n q u e s t i o n , a c t u a l l y t o u c h i n g the p e r s o n , and l o o k i n g at the p e r s o n — m a i n t a i n i n g eye c o n t a c t f o r an e x t e n d e d p e r i o d of t i m e , r a t h e r t h an s i m p l y g l a n c i n g at them. I t may be t h a t i n t h i s c a s e t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s s e r v e d to s e c u r e a t t e n t i o n f o r Y more e f f i c i e n t l y t h a n o t h e r modes, or th e y may be a f u n c t i o n of her p e r s o n a l i t y . N o nethe-l e s s , I t i s e a s y to see how modes s u c h as C o m m u n i c a t i v e A c t i v i t y , G e s t u r e , and I n t o n a t i o n C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n would be more n o t i c e a b l e and t h e r e f o r e more a p p r o p r i a t e f o r g a i n i n g a t t e n t i o n than modes s u c h as B l i s s y m b o l s or S i g n L a n g u a g e . A n o t h e r c o m m u n i c a t i v e i n t e n t c a t e g o r y , N o t i c e , f o l l o w s a v e r y s i m i l a r t r e n d to t h a t o f R e q u e s t s f o r A t t e n t i o n , i n t h a t C ommunicative A c t i v i t y i s the most f r e q u e n t l y used mode, f o l l o w e d by G e s t u r e . T h i s p r o v i d e s a d d i t i o n a l s u p p o r t f o r the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e s e modes s e r v e to g a i n a t t e n t i o n b e t t e r t h a n t h e o t h e r s , s i n c e the c a t e g o r y N o t i c e i s a form of Request f o r A t t e n t i o n , d i f f e r i n g i n t h a t the a t t e n t i o n g a i n e d i s d i r e c t e d to an o b j e c t or a c t i v i t y , r a t h e r than the s p e a k e r h e r s e l f . T h e r e -f o r e the Communicative A c t i v i t i e s used c o n s i s t e d of p o i n t i n g to o b j e c t s , t o u c h i n g o b j e c t s , moving o b j e c t s , e t c . F i n a l l y , i t i s I n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t P r o v i s i o n of E x c l a -m a t o r y . I n f o r m a t i o n i s e x p r e s s e d f a i r l y e q u a l l y by a l l of the modes o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n e x c e p t B l i s s y m b o l s . T h i s i s not s u r p r i s i n g , s i n c e t h e r e a r e few B l i s s y m b o l s d e s i g n e d to e x p r e s s 58 e m o t i o n s o r r e a c t i o n s . F u r t h e r m o r e , B l i s s y m b o l s do not c a r r y t h e i m p a c t i n h e r e n t i n an e x p r e s s i v e G e s t u r e ( s u c h as p o u n d i n g f i s t s on the t a b l e , t h r o w i n g arms w i l d l y , or c r o s s i n g arms i n a n n o y a n c e ) or a l o u d V o c a l i z a t i o n p a i r e d w i t h a w e l l d e f i n e d I n t o n a t i o n C o n t o u r , h i g h p i t c h c o u p l e d w i t h a h a r s h v o i c e , or a F a c i a l E x p r e s s i o n . As can be seen i n F i g . 4, t h e s e a r e the modes used most o f t e n to c o n v e y i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g e m o t i o n a l s t a t e . In summary, i t i s e v i d e n t from the above examples t h a t c e r t a i n modes of c o m m u n i c a t i o n a r e more e f f e c t i v e at e x p r e s s i n g c e r t a i n c o m m u n i c a t i v e i n t e n t s , hence the r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e s e two v a r i a b l e s , as seen i n F i g . 4. T h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s a l s o p r e s e n t when c o n s i d e r i n g a l l of Y's u t t e r a n c e s , not j u s t t h o s e u s i n g a s i n g l e mode (se e T a b l e 2 ) . The e f f e c t i s l e s s n o t i c e a b l e , however, due to the f a c t t h a t f o r many of the c o m m u n i c a t i v e i n t e n t c a t e g o r i e s , c o m b i n a -t i o n s o f more than one mode a c c o u n t e d f o r a c o n s i d e r a b l e number o f th e c a s e s . F o r example, when R e q u e s t i n g A t t e n t i o n , two—mode c o m b i n a t i o n s s u c h as G e s t u r e + Communicative A c t i v i t y , and I n t o n a t i o n C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n + C ommunicative A c t i v i t y were the most f r e q u e n t l y used a f t e r t h e s i n g l e modes Commun i c a t i v e A c t i v i t y and G e s t u r e . In the c a s e o f R e q u e s t s f o r I n f o r m a t i o n , two-mode c o m b i n a t i o n s s u c h as I n t o n a t i o n C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n + C o m m u n i c a t i v e A c t i v i t y and I n t o n a t i o n C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n and even some three-mode c o m b i n a t i o n s were as p r e v a l e n t or more p r e v a l e n t than were Communicative A c t i v i t y or I n t o n a t i o n C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n a l o n e . I t can be seen how, i n c a s e s s u c h as t h e s e , the r e l a t i o n s h i p between mode of c o m m u n i c a t i o n and 59 communicative i n t e n t would be l e s s n o t i c e a b l e in multimodal u t t e r a n c e s . I n t e r a c t i o n of Discourse F u n c t i o n and Mode of Communication The a n a l y s i s of the di s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n s of Tape 2b r e v e a l e that there were seven t o p i c s w i t h i n the ten minute language sample, three i n i t i a t e d by R, the speech t h e r a p i s t , and four i n i t i a t e d by Y. A l l of the t o p i c i n i t i a t i o n s were accomplished s u c c e s s f u l l y ; hence the category U n s u c c e s s f u l Topic I n i t i a t i o n was not Included i n any of the analyses (although t h i s might be expected i n I n t e r a c t i o n with a l e s s f a m i l i a r p a r t n e r ) . Because there was only one e x p l i c i t Topic Termination w i t h i n the language sample (produced by R), t h i s category was a l s o dropped It i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that the t o p i c s i n i t i a t e d by R were c o n s i d e r a b l y longer than those i n i t i a t e d by Y, perhaps i n d i c a t i n g that the former were continued and supported more than the l a t t e r . This i s reasonable, since they were t o p i c s chosen s p e c i a l l y f o r the therapy s e s s i o n , while those i n i t i a t e d by Y were not d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d . A n a l y s i s of the v a r i o u s d i s c o u r s e devices used by Y and R i n d i c a t e s there was an imbalance i n the number of Responses and Topic Continuations produced by each. Table 4 shows that R produced almost twice as many Topic Continuations as Y, while Y produced about 50% more Responses than R. However, the two i n t e r a c t o r s produced approximately an equal number of d i s c o u r s e f unc t i o n s . 60 T A B L E 4 DISTRIBUTION OF TOPIC CONTINUATIONS AND RESPONSES BETWEEN THE NONVERBAL PARTNER (Y) AND THE VERBAL PARTNER (R) IN TAPE 2B PARTNER DISCOURSE FUNCTION _Y R_ TC 44 77 R 89 59 TOTAL 133 136 The primary purpose of the a n a l y s i s of di s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n s was to i n v e s t i g a t e the r e l a t i o n s h i p between modes of communica-t i o n and d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n . Figure 5 shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n of Y's s i n g l e mode utterances and the d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n s they encode, while F i g . 6 shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n using the mode i n c l u s i o n c r i t e r i o n . Since Y i n i t i a t e d only four t o p i c s ( u s i n g Gesture and Blissymbols (three times), Topic I n i t i a t i o n s are not in c l u d e d i n these f i g u r e s . Figure 5 shows that Blissymbols are used about twice as o f t e n when responding as when c o n t i n u i n g a t o p i c A l s o , a g r e a t e r v a r i e t y of modes was used to continue t o p i c s than to respond. This can once again be explained by the gr e a t e r a b i l i t y of modes such as Blissymbols and Sign Language to convey s p e c i f i c p r o p o s i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n , v s . the s u i t -a b i l i t y of modes such as Gesture, I n t o n a t i o n C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a -t i o n , and Communicative A c t i v i t y f o r c a p t u r i n g a l i s t e n e r ' s a t t e n t i o n or conveying an a t t i t u d e . The preponderance of B l i s -symbols i n both Topic Continuations and Responses may be FIGURE 5. PERCENTAGE OF MODE-TYPES EXPRESSING TOPIC CONTINUATION AND RESPONSE ' Percentage of Discourse Functions Accounted for B G ICV S CA Mode of Communication • Response M Topic Continuation FIGURE 6. PERCENTAGE OF MODE-TYPES (MODE INCLUSIOON CRITERION) EXPRESSING TOPIC CONTINUATION AND RESPONSE 40 T Percentage of Discourse Functions Accounted for Mode of Communication • Response 11 Topic Continuation 63 e x p l a i n e d by the f a c t that i n order to respond to a s p e c i f i c request or question, or to f u r t h e r add to the flow of conversa-t i o n , i t i s o f t e n necessary to convey s p e c i f i c p r o p o s i t i o n a 1 i n f o r m a t i o n . Figure 6 shows a s i m i l a r trend, in that B l i s -symbols are a l s o used in multimodal utterances more often when responding than when c o n t i n u i n g a t o p i c . This r e l a t i o n s h i p , however, i s not as strong as that i l l u s t r a t e d in F i g . 5. In summary, then, I t appears that there i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p between modes of communication and d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n , i n that h i g h l y s y s t e m a t i c modes such as Blissymbols are used more o f t e n when Y responds to a s p e c i f i c request than when she continues a t o p i c . However, t h i s i s expected, s i n c e the t h e r a p i s t , i n i n t e r a c t i n g with Y, would be teaching and t r y i n g to e l i c i t use of the Blissymbols over other modes of communication. A l s o , due to the small sample s i z e i t i s d i f f i c u l t to make any strong c o n c l u s i o n s regarding the r e l a t i o n s h i p between mode of communi-c a t i o n and d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n . It would be informative to do f u r t h e r analyses i n t h i s area to b e t t e r understand t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p . I n t e r a c t i o n of Communicative Context and Mode of Communication Table 5 shows how the v a r i o u s modes of communication are d i s t r i b u t e d w i t h i n each language sample; that i s , what percent-age of the t o t a l mode-types each mode accounted f o r . This was done using the mode i n c l u s i o n c r i t e r i o n ; each mode-type was counted and tabulated across u t t e r a n c e s . As can be seen, the prevalence of s p e c i f i c mode-types v a r i e s c o n s i d e r a b l y among the 64 TABLE 5 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF MODE-TYPES WITHIN EACH LANGUAGE SAMPLE CONTEXT MODE-TYPE Language Intonation Sample Communicative Contour- Sign Facial Tape Gesture Blissymbols Activity Vocalization Language Expression la lb l c lcs 2a 2b 2bs 2c 3a 29.3 28.3 11.4 21.1 42.8 30.1 15.2 21.5 33.1 24.4 30.3 7.2 30.1 25.8 10.1 8.3 27.3 39.1 21.6 5.3 30.7 7.2 16.7 10.8 20.7 23.2 15.2 27.3 18.4 9.0 16.3 19.7 18.4 17.2 9.1 4.3 11.4 9.2 5.4 9.8 12.1 24.7 13.6 11.1 13.0 4.0 15.8 4.8 5.9 10.6 14.6 7.1 65 language samples. In Tapes l a and l b , f o r i n s t a n c e , B l i ssymbol were not used at a l l . Otherwise, a l l modes were used i n a l l samples, although to var y i n g degrees (see Table 1, p. 31, f o r a d e s c r i p t i o n of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the ses s i o n s r e f e r r e d to by tape number). For example, while Gesture was the most f r e q u e n t l y used mode i n four of the samples (Tapes l a , 2a, 2b and 3a), Communicative A c t i v i t y was the most f r e q u e n t l y used in Tape l b , Blissymbols the most common i n Tapes l c s and 2bs, and Sign Language the most common in Tape 2c. Furthermore, the l e s f r e q u e n t l y used modes (such as F a c i a l E x p r e s s i o n , Sign Language and I n t o n a t i o n C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n ) a l s o c o n t r i b u t e d to d i f f e r e n t degrees i n the d i f f e r e n t language samples. F a c i a l E xpression was used about twice as oft e n In Tapes l b and 2c as i n the other tapes. Sign language was also used twice as o f t e n i n Tapes 2c as i n the other samples. L a s t , the use of Intona-t i o n C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n v a r i e d from a low of 8.2% i n Tape 2a to a maximum of 19.0% i n Tape l a . It i s apparent from examining Table 5 then, that mode of communication does vary with the context of c o n v e r s a t i o n . This may be due to v a r i o u s f a c t o r s mentioned i n Table 1, which a l l probably e f f e c t the nature of communicative i n t e r a c t i o n and th e r e f o r e the modes used. Several comparisons w i l l now be made to examine how some of these f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c e modes of communi c a t i o n . F i r s t , the e f f e c t of a s t r u c t u r e d vs. ah u n s t r u c t u r e d a c t i v i t y can be seen by comparing Tapes l c s and 2bs to Tapes l c and 2b (see Table 5). 66 As mentioned in Chapter I I I , these former two samples were c o l l e c t e d while Y was d e s c r i b i n g v a r i o u s p i c t u r e s (more s t r u c t u r e d a c t i v i t y ) , while the l a t t e r two were c o l l e c t e d while Y was t a l k i n g about her past a c t i v i t i e s , e t c . ( l e s s s t r u c t u r e d a c t i v i t y ) . Tapes l c and l c s i n v o l v e d a language lesson in the classroom, while Tapes 2b and 2bs were c o l l e c t e d during a speech therapy s e s s i o n . There do not appear to be any obvious trends as to which modes of communication are used most often i n these two contexts ( s t r u c t u r e d vs. u n s t r u c t u r e d ) . While some trends that would be expected are observed (e.g. Blissymbols are used more in Tape l c s than i n Tape l c ; while Intonation Contour-V o c a l i z a t i o n and Communicative A c t i v i t y are used more i n Tape l c ) , other unexpected v a r i a t i o n s were found (e.g. B l i s s y m b o l s were used more i n Tape 2b than i n Tape 2bs; and I n t o n a t i o n C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n and Communicative A c t i v i t y were used more i n Tape 2bs than i n Tape 2b). Frequent use of a more h i g h l y developed and encouraged mode such as Blissymbols would be expected i n the s t r u c t u r e d s i t u a t i o n , i n which the speech t h e r a p i s t s p e c i f i c a l l y r e q u i r e d more s y n t a c t i c a l l y - c o m p l e x u t t e r a n c e s and s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n , one would also expect that the l e s s systematic, more n a t u r a l modes (e.g. Communicative A c t i v i t y , I ntonation C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n ) would be used more i n the l e s s s t r u c t u r e d s e t t i n g . However, these expectations are not s u b s t a n t i a t e d by t h i s evidence. This may be due to a number of f a c t o r s . F i r s t , the nature of the s t r u c t u r e d task may not have been s u f f i c i e n t l y d i f f e r e n t i n demands put on Y, and i n the nature of communicative i n t e r a c t i o n to show any d i f f e r e n c e s . 67 Second, the r e s u l t s may have been confounded by the f a c t that the s t r u c t u r e d language sessions were only f i v e minutes long, perhaps not p r o v i d i n g a s u f f i c i e n t l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sample. And l a s t , v a r i a b l e s such as the number of i n t e r a c t o r s present and the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the adult present could a f f e c t the nature of the i n t e r a c t i o n enough to make comparisons using the two s e s s i o n s (Tape l c and l c s vs. Tape 2b and 2bs) i n v a l i d . The next communicative context f a c t o r s t u d i e d was the f a m i l i a r i t y of the p a r t n e r : communicative i n t e r a c t i o n with a stranger (Tapes 2a and 3a) vs. with a f a m i l i a r person (Tape 2b). The only c o n s i s t e n t trends found were that Y used Blissymbols more with a f a m i l i a r person (Y's speech t h e r a p i s t ) than with e i t h e r of two s t r a n g e r s ; on the other hand, Y used communicative A c t i v i t i e s and Gesture more with these s t r a n g e r s . This i s expected, s i n c e Y i s probably aware that strangers do not n e c e s s a r i l y understand B l i s s y m b o l s , and t h e r e f o r e uses more u n i v e r s a l l y understood modes. However, there were no obvious trends i n use of the other modes of communication. An unexpected f i n d i n g was that Sign Language was used more when i n t e r a c t i n g with the school s e c r e t a r y (Tape 3a) than with Y's speech t h e r a p i s t . T h i s , however, i s probably because during the former s e s s i o n , the s e c r e t a r y was s p e c i f i c a l l y asking Y about her use of Sign Language, and requesting s p e c i f i c s i g n s . None-t h e l e s s , i t can be seen how the a d u l t i n t e r a c t o r ( i n p a r t i c u l a r , her f a m i l i a r i t y ) can a f f e c t the modes of communication used. The t h i r d f a c t o r s t u d i e d was the amount of r o u t i n e i n v o l v e d when c o l l e c t i n g the sample. To i l l u s t r a t e , Tape l a , i n which Y 68 and s e v e r a l other c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s are wandering f r e e l y around the classroom, t a l k i n g f o r short periods of time to s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t people, i n v o l v e s few r o u t i n e s ; Tape 2b, i n which Y and R are involved i n a speech therapy s e s s i o n , i s h i g h l y r p u t i n i z e d . The most dramatic d i f f e r e n c e between these two s e s s i o n s i s that Blissymbols are used 30.1% of the time i n Tape 2b (the highest percentage of use across a l l c o n t e x t s ) , while they are used 0% of the time i n Tape l a . Communicative A c t i v i t y , furthermore, i s used 27.3% of the time in Tape l a , and only 7.2% of the time i n Tape 2b. Intonation C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a -t i o n and F a c i a l Expression were a l s o used more often during the s e s s i o n with l i t t l e r o u t i n e , though the d i f f e r e n c e here was not as g r e a t . Sign Language and Gesture were used approximately e q u a l l y i n the two s e s s i o n s . It i s not s u r p r i s i n g that B l i s -symbols were not used during the before c l a s s s e s s i o n , s i n c e Y was moving around the room f o r most of the time, c a r r y i n g v a r i o u s o b j e c t s , which made the use of her Bliss-book cumber-some. Communicative A c t i v i t y , i n t h i s case, would prove to be a more e f f i c i e n t mode of communication. Intonation Contour-V o c a l i z a t i o n and F a c i a l E x p r e s s i o n , s i m i l a r l y , are more e f f i c i e n t forms of communication In t h i s context, not r e q u i r i n g use of an e x t e r n a l device. It i s r a t h e r s u r p r i s i n g , however, th a t Sign Language and Gestures were not employed more during the before c l a s s a c t i v i t i e s . F i n a l l y , the e f f e c t of the number of i n t e r a c t o r s present on the communicative modes used was s t u d i e d . This can be seen i n Table 5 by comparing Tape 2b (Y i n t e r a c t i n g with her speech 69 t h e r a p i s t ) with Tape 2c (Y with her speech t h e r a p i s t and a nonverbal classmate). Both Blissymbols a n d — t o a l e s s e r e x t e n t — G e s t u r e , were more pre v a l e n t i n Tape 2b. The former d i f f e r e n c e can be r e a d i l y e x p l a i n e d by the f a c t that d u r i n g one-to-one i n t e r a c t i o n there i s more p o s s i b i l i t y for an a d u l t to e l i c i t use of Blissymbols. Furthermore, i t i s d i f f i c u l t for an a d u l t to monitor two people communicating with Blissymbols at the same time ( s i n c e t h i s r e q u i r e s v i s u a l a t t e n t i o n ) and f o r two nonverbal people to i n t e r a c t with each other or i n i t i a t e conver-s a t i o n with the adult using B l i s s y m b o l s . No other very l a r g e d i f f e r e n c e s were noted, except that Sign Language and F a c i a l E x p r e s s i o n were used more i n the small group s e s s i o n . One would have expected I n t o n a t i o n C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n and Communicative A c t i v i t y to be used comparatively more during the small group s e s s i o n , s i n c e they are w e l l s u i t e d to 1) g e t t i n g a t t e n t i o n , and 2) communication between two nonverbal i n t e r a c t o r s . F i n a l l y , the f a c t that Sign Language and F a c i a l Expression were used so much during the small group s e s s i o n may be more a f u n c t i o n of the a c t i v i t y i n v o l v e d than anything e l s e . For example, during t h i s s e s s i o n Y, R, and S were r o l e p l a y i n g a s i t u a t i o n in which someone knocks at the door, and the others have to t e l l him to come i n and then greet him. R was modelling the use of Sign Language in t h i s s i t u a t i o n , and Y was enjoying the a c t i v i t y , hence the increased use of F a c i a l E x p r e s s i o n . 70 Summary jof Results In g e n e r a l , the r e s u l t s of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n are in agree-ment with previous r e s u l t s , and a l s o support the r e s e a r c h hypo-theses made. F i r s t , Y's communication i s in f a c t multimodal. T h i s i s supported by the f i n d i n g s that 1) Y used s i x d i f f e r e n t modes of communication, and 2) that these modes were used i n s i x t y - n i n e d i f f e r e n t mode combinations ( i n utterances c o n t a i n i n g from one to f i v e mode-tokens). Gesture was the most commonly used s i n g l e mode of communication, while Blissymbols was the second most f r e q u e n t l y used. These were followed by Communi-c a t i v e A c t i v i t y , I n t o n a t i o n C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n , Sign Language, and f i n a l l y , F a c i a l E x p r e s s i o n . Furthermore, mode combinations of two to f i v e mode-tokens accounted for as much as 38% of a l l the u t t e r a n c e s . H a r r i s (1978) also found that other modes were used more f r e q u e n t l y than the one being fo r m a l l y taught. For i n s t a n c e , i n her study of nonspeaking, nonretarded p h y s i c a l l y d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n ' s use of the Autocom system, she found the f o l l o w i n g order of frequency of use: 1) head shake, 2) g e s t u r e / p o i n t i n g , 3) combinations of modes, 4) Autocom, and 5) v o c a l i z a -t i o n . She a l s o found that the c h i l d r e n combined use of the Autocom with v o c a l i z a t i o n s , head shakes, eye p o i n t i n g , and g e s t u r e s . S i m i l a r l y , Light et a l . (1983), i n t h e i r study of a c e r e b r a l p a l s i e d boy with i n t a c t r e c e p t i v e language s k i l l s , aged 5;7, found that gesture accounted f o r 45% of h i s u t t e r a n c e s , followed by use of the communication board (38%) and v o c a l i z a -t i o n (17%). L i g h t et a l . (1983) a l s o found the mean length of 71 message for t h i s boy to be 1.14, a l i t t l e lower than that c a l c u -l a t e d for Y (1.51). This may be due to the f a c t that Y has been assessed at a s l i g h t l y higher r e c e p t i v e language age ( a p p r o x i -mately 6;0) than t h i s boy; but i t i s more l i k e l y because L i g h t et a l . c a l c u l a t e d mean length of utterance s o l e l y on the b a s i s of number of symbols used in an utterance produced on the com-munication board. This discrepancy i l l u s t r a t e s the need to c o n s i d e r use of a l l modes when assessing communicative compe-tence in nonverbal communicators. The boy's p r o d u c t i v e language was probably as advanced as Y's, since he demonstrated that he could also produce a f i v e symbol utterance using f a i r l y s o p h i s t i c a t e d combinatory s k i l l s ("I want c h a i r up down"). L i g h t et a l . (1985c), i n t h e i r study of 4-6 y e a r - o l d non-speaking p h y s i c a l l y d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n , also found evidence f o r multimodal communication. F i r s t , they found that 82% of the communication turns were expressed through nonboard modes. They a l s o found that modes of communication were often combined, such as V o c a l i z a t i o n and Gesture. From the previous r e s e a r c h , then, as w e l l as the data c o l l e c t e d from t h i s r e s e a r c h , i t can be concluded that communication i s very o f t e n multimodal f o r the nonverbal. The second hypothesis was that there i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p between mode of communication and communicative i n t e n t . This was s u b s t a n t i a t e d by f i n d i n g s such as: 1) Blissymbols were the most f r e q u e n t l y used mode of communication when Y p r o v i d e d Information, 2) Gesture and Intonation C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n are the only two modes Y used, when confirming or denying the 72 previous utterance, 3) Y used F a c i a l Expression and I n t o n a t i o n Contour V o c a l i z a t i o n p r o p o r t i o n a l l y more often when p r o v i d i n g exclamatory information than when expressing any of the other communicative f u n c t i o n s (except c o n f i r m a t i o n or d e n i a l , as mentioned above), and 4) when Y requested a t t e n t i o n or simply n o t i c e d something, Gesture and Communicative A c t i v i t y were the most prevalent modes. L i g h t et a l . (1985b) also found that mode of communication i s s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d by communicative i n t e n t ; they found that the communication board was most o f t e n used fo r the P r o v i s i o n of Information, or for purposes of c l a r i f i c a t i o n , w hile V o c a l i z a t i o n s or Gestures were most often used f o r Confirming or Denying the previous u t t e r a n c e s . Both the above r e s u l t s and those from the present research support the hypo-t h e s i s that there are i n h e r e n t p r o p e r t i e s i n the v a r i o u s modes of communication that make them more s u i t a b l e for e x p r e s s i n g v a r i o u s communicative f u n c t i o n s . For i n s t a n c e , the h i g h l y symbolic nature of formal systems such as Blissymbols make these the most e f f i c i e n t systems f o r p r o v i d i n g s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n t i a l or p r o p o s i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . On the other hand, an e a s i l y made and i n t e r p r e t e d a c t i o n such as a head shake or head nod i s the best method of expressing C o n f i r m a t i o n or D e n i a l . This study provided r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e evidence f o r e v a l u -a t i n g the hypothesis that mode of communication i n t e r a c t s with d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n . However, the adult p a r t i c i p a n t produced twice as many Topic C o n t i n u a t i o n s as Y, while Y produced 50% more Responses than the a d u l t . This kind of imblance i n d i s -course f u n c t i o n s has been found in previous r e s e a r c h . For 73 i n s t a n c e , H a r r i s (1978) found that teachers produced more turns than the nonverbal c h i l d r e n , that these turns were longer, and that teachers did most of the i n i t i a t i n g . (This i s a l s o t y p i c a l of classroom i n t e r a c t i o n I n v o l v i n g normal, speaking c h i l d r e n ; see, f o r example, S i n c l a i r & Coultend, 1975). Likew i s e , i n my study, the a d u l t ' s turns a l s o tended to be much longer than those i n i t i a t e d by the c h i l d . However, in the case of Y i n t e r -a c t i n g with her t h e r a p i s t , Topic I n i t i a t i o n s were f a i r l y e q u a l l y shared, as were the number of turns produced by each. This c o n t r a s t s with the f i n d i n g s of L i g h t et a l . (1983), that the nonverbal c h i l d i n i t i a t e d only 18% of the turns when I n t e r a c t i n g with h i s c l i n i c i a n , and that the c l i n i c i a n occupied 59% of a l l t u r n s . This discrepancy i n d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n may be due to the nature of the nonverbal c h i l d r e n i n v o l v e d . I n t e r a c t i o n with a n o n p h y s i c a l l y handicapped ambulatory adolescent such as Y, who has a v a r i e t y of a t t e n t i o n g e t t i n g modes such as Gesture and I n t o n a t i o n C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n , d i f f e r s s i g n i f i c a n t l y from that with a p h y s i c a l l y d i s a b l e d c h i l d with a t h e t o i d c e r e b r a l p a l s y . In the l a t t e r case, movements and v o c a l i z a t i o n s are slower, l e s s p r e c i s e and transparent i n meaning, and are e a s i l y overpowered by an a d u l t ' s communication attempts. This f a c t i l l u s t r a t e s two important p o i n t s : 1) s u c c e s s f u l use of a p a r t i c u l a r d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n i s dependent on mode of communication (e.g. an a t t e n t i o n - g e t t i n g mode such as Gesture or V o c a l i z a t i o n i s more e f f i c i e n t for i n i t i a t i n g t u r n s ) , and 2) the p h y s i c a l a b i l i t i e s of a nonverbal c l i e n t play an important r o l e in the nature of h i s communicative i n t e r a c t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y as regards d i s c o u r s e f unc t ions . 74 Several i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t s address the f i n a l h y p othesis: that there i s an i n t e r a c t i o n between mode of communication and context of c o n v e r s a t i o n . Some of the f i n d i n g s were that: 1) Y used fewer Blissymbols when t a l k i n g with a stranger than with a f a m i l i a r person, 2) during an unstructured a c t i v i t y (such as i n t e r a c t i n g with v a r i o u s people before c l a s s ) Blissymbols were not used at a l l , while other modes such as I n t o n a t i o n Contour-V o c a l i z a t i o n , F a c i a l Expression and Communicative A c t i v i t y were used comparatively more than in a more s t r u c t u r e d a c t i v i t y such as a therapy s e s s i o n , and 3) fewer Blissymbols, but more Sign Language and F a c i a l E x p r e s s i o n , were used in small group s e s s i o n s (three i n t e r a c t o r s ) as opposed to i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n (two i n t e r a c t o r s ) . There i s very l i t t l e previous r e s e a r c h evidence to support these f i n d i n g s . L i g h t et a l . (1985c) mention that 35% of the use of communication boards was e i t h e r d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y cued by the c a r e g i v e r s . This would help to e x p l a i n why Blissymbols are used more in i n d i v i -d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n as opposed to small group s e t t i n g s (the c l i n i c i a n has a be t t e r chance to monitor the c h i l d ' s mode), i n therapy sessions as opposed to l e s s s t r u c t u r e d a c t i v i t i e s , and when speaking with a f a m i l i a r person as opposed to a stranger (who i s not f a m i l i a r with the communication system and not l i k e l y to monitor i t s use). However, there are other reasons why s p e c i f i c modes may be more appropr i a t e i n p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n s . Blissymbols are e f f i c i e n t at p r o v i d i n g s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n , as i s r e q u i r e d during a language therapy s e s s i o n , but more portable and ex p r e s s i v e modes such as I n t o n a t i o n 75 C o n t o u r - V o c a l i z a t i o n or Gesture are of t e n more appropr i a t e when i n t e r a c t i n g with peers or teachers in an i n f o r m a l s e t t i n g . Conclusions In summary, then, t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n provides c o n s i d e r a b l e evidence and corroborates p r i o r r e s e a r c h , to support the hypo-t h e s i s that nonverbal communication i s multimodal, i . e . that d i f f e r e n t modes c o n t r i b u t e importantly to what i s communicated. It i s important to keep i n mind, however, that the type and extent of multimodal communication i s probably h e a v i l y s u b j e c t to i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s , which may i n part be due to the nature of the c l i e n t ' s handicap (e.g. p h y s i c a l and mental capa-c i t i e s ) , the c l i e n t ' s p e r s o n a l i t y (e.g. w i l l i n g n e s s to e x p e r i -ment with modes of communication), and the nature of the c l i e n t ' s e d u c a t i o n , environment, and focus of language remedia-t i o n . In t h i s case, Y was an outgoing, s o c i a b l e adolescent with no s e r i o u s p h y s i c a l handicaps aside from poor o r a l motor c o n t r o l , capable of using her arms, hands, v o i c e and v o i c e q u a l i t y , and f a c i a l expression to express h e r s e l f . Furthermore, she had been encouraged from a young age to express h e r s e l f u s ing a v a r i e t y of modes ( i n p a r t i c u l a r , speech, B l i s s y m b o l s , and Sign Language). Hence, c a u t i o n should be e x e r c i s e d i n g e n e r a l i z i n g the r e s u l t s regarding the nature and extent of multimodal communication obtained from t h i s case study to other nonverbal c l i e n t s with d i f f e r e n t case h i s t o r i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y to those c h i l d r e n who are p h y s i c a l l y handicapped. 7 6 As mentioned, Y was a very i n t e r e s t i n g case, in that she had achieved a r e l a t i v e l y high l e v e l of p r o f i c i e n c y i n communi-c a t i n g using a wide v a r i e t y of modes. For i n s t a n c e , she used I n t o n a t i o n contour, along with v o i c e q u a l i t y , loudness, p i t c h , and d u r a t i o n f a i r l y c o n s i s t e n t l y to i n d i c a t e d i f f e r e n t meanings. To i l l u s t r a t e , she demonstrated a r e c o g n i z a b l e r i s i n g i n t o n a -t i o n contour to i n d i c a t e yes/no questions, a f u l l f a l l i n g i n t o n a t i o n contour when expressing a d e c l a r a t i v e u t t e r a n c e , as we l l as a number of other i n t o n a t i o n contours p a r a l l e l to those used by normal i n d i v i d u a l s . She a l s o employed loudness and h a b i t u a l p i t c h changes to emphasize an utterance, as w e l l as using a harsh voice to i n d i c a t e anger. It would be i n t e r e s t i n g to do a f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s of Y's v o i c e q u a l i t y and i n t o n a t i o n contours to f i n d out such things as 1) how systematic they are in r e l a t i o n to those of a normal c h i l d of a s i m i l a r r e c e p t i v e language age and 2) i f s p e c i f i c i n t o n a t i o n contours or v o i c e q u a l i t i e s s y s t e m a t i c a l l y encode s p e c i f i c meanings. Such an a n a l y s i s could a l s o be done on Y's other modes of communication, such as Gestures or Communicative A c t i v i t i e s . Another f i n d i n g of t h i s r e s e a r c h was that d i f f e r e n t modes of communication can be combined in i n t e r e s t i n g ways to encode meaning. For example, a V o c a l i z a t i o n 'no' paired with the B l i s -symbol 'to swim' could mean 'not going swimming'. It was beyond the scope of t h i s t h e s i s to study these va r i o u s combinations e x t e n s i v e l y . However, i t would be info r m a t i v e and i n t e r e s t i n g to conduct f u r t h e r research to d i s c o v e r which modes are combined to express which meanings—and s p e c i f i c a l l y , whether modes 77 d i v i d e into symbolic and a t t i t u d i n a l meaning c a t e g o r i e s — a n d how e f f e c t i v e these various combinations are. The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of each of the modes of communication ( i n s i n g l e mode utterances or m u l t i p l e mode combinations) was not d i r e c t l y assessed i n t h i s s tudy. It would be worthwhile to conduct further research to d i s c o v e r which modes lead to the fewest communication break-downs, and how t h i s v a r i e s with the communicative f u n c t i o n being expressed and the context of communication. Apart from f i n d i n g c o n s i d e r a b l e e m p i r i c a l evidence f o r the n o t i o n of multimodal communication in the nonverbal, the data c o l l e c t e d a l s o supported the hypotheses that the mode of commu-n i c a t i o n i s i n f l u e n c e d by both the communicative i n t e n t of the speaker, and the context within, which the conversation takes p l a c e . However, no strong evidence was found regarding the r e l a t i o n s h i p between mode of communication and discourse f u n c t i o n . The data c o l l e c t e d a l s o tended to support the n o t i o n that there are i n t r i n s i c p r o p e r t i e s of the various modes of communication that make them more s u i t a b l e f o r conveying c e r t a i n communicative i n t e n t s . For example, F a c i a l Expressions were found to convey emotions w e l l , as d i d V o c a l i z a t i o n s p a i r e d with I n t o n a t i o n Contours, while Blissymbols were most e f f i c i e n t f o r p r o v i d i n g p r o p o s i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n , and Gestures and Communica-t i v e A c t i v i t i e s were well s u i t e d f o r g a i n i n g someone's a t t e n t i o n . R e s u l t s of t h i s study showed that communicative context a f f e c t s mode of communication; t h i s might be because the mode used by the nonverbal i n d i v i d u a l i s often cued, d i r e c t l y or 78 i n d i r e c t l y , by the adult present. It would be of b e n e f i t to f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t e i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s in i n t e r a c t i o n p a t t e r n s of various a d u l t s with one nonverbal c h i l d , to d i s c o v e r how and to what extent various i n t e r a c t i o n patterns i n f l u e n c e mode of communication. Im p l i c a t i o n s f o r I n t e r v e n t i o n S e v e r a l suggestions regarding assessment of nonverbal c l i e n t s can be made based on the r e s u l t s of t h i s study. Related to the c o l l e c t i o n and a n a l y s i s of data for t h i s study, s e v e r a l f a c t o r s should be mentioned. F i r s t i s that the multimodal t r a n s c r i p t i o n of the language samples c o l l e c t e d i s very labour I n t e n s i v e , and i s i m p r a c t i c a l f o r r o u t i n e c l i n i c a l use. However, c o l l e c t i o n and c a r e f u l o b s e r v a t i o n of videotaped language samples i s suggested as a more manageable method of a s s e s s i n g the communicative i n t e r a c t i o n patterns of the non-v e r b a l . For the purposes of r o u t i n e c l i n i c a l use, furthermore, i t would perhaps be more e f f i c i e n t to c o l l a p s e some of the com-m u n i t a t i v e i n t e n t c a t e g o r i e s . It may also be necessary to devise s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s of communicative i n t e n t and mode of communication for the v a r i o u s nonverbal c l i e n t s i n v o l v e d . Since mode of communication v a r i e s with the context of c o n v e r s a t i o n , one would want to c a r e f u l l y observe the communica-t i o n s k i l l s of the nonverbal c l i e n t i n a wide v a r i e t y of s i t u a -t i o n s , as w e l l as i n t e r v i e w those i n t e r a c t i n g with the c l i e n t when o b s e r v a t i o n s are not p o s s i b l e . In t h i s way, the c l i e n t ' s 7 9 e f f i c i e n c y of use of the various modes a v a i l a b l e to him could be eva l u a t e d , f o r the purpose of p r o v i d i n g him with the most appro-p r i a t e system for each communicative s i t u a t i o n . Also, during assessment of a nonverbal c l i e n t , i t would be advisable for the c l i n i c i a n to observe the modes of communication used for d i f f e r -ent communicative f u n c t i o n s . It may be necessary, then, to set up the assessment s i t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c a l l y to e l i c i t these func-t i o n s . And f i n a l l y , since modes of communication are a l l seen to c o n t r i b u t e i n some way to the ex p r e s s i o n of meaning, when a s s e s s i n g the expressive language l e v e l of the nonverbal c h i l d , a measure such as MLUm may be more app r o p r i a t e than the t r a d i -t i o n a l MLU used f o r v e r b a l c h i l d r e n . S e v e r a l i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r methods and p h i l o s o p h i e s of i n t e r -v e n t ion with nonverbal communicators are suggested by the r e s u l t s of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . They a l l r e l a t e , however, to the idea that the focus of i n t e r v e n t i o n should always be the teaching and reinforcement of a p p r o p r i a t e and e f f i c i e n t use of the v a r i o u s a v a i l a b l e modes of communication ( i n combination with, of course, other i n t e r v e n t i o n goals such as vocabulary and syntax b u i l d i n g ) . For example, i t would be i n a p p r o p r i a t e to expect a nonverbal c h i l d to use a mode such as Blissymbols or Sign Language to express Confirmation or D e n i a l , whereas the use of t h i s mode i s most a p p r o p r i a t e and e f f i c i e n t when p r o v i d i n g s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n requested by the c l i n i c i a n or a teacher. Furthermore, constant encouragement and reinforcement of use of the B l i s s - b o o k when in a c t i v e s i t u a t i o n s (such as when on a c l a s s outing) i s perhaps not the best use of a c l i n i c i a n ' s time, 80 when other modes of communication are s u f f i c i e n t to make one's needs known; although, i n some cases i t may a d d i t i o n a l l y be b e n e f i c i a l to design and implement a more portable B l i s s - b o o k . In other cases i t may be necessary to work on improving the i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y and s y s t e m a t i c i t y of the modes used. For example, although Sign Language may be used e x t e n s i v e l y i n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s , the signs may be poorly executed and often u n r e c o g n i z a b l e . In t h i s case, the c l i n i c i a n ' s time may be best spent i n improving the use of Sign Language, rather than e x t i n g u i s h i n g i t s use i n preference f o r another mode. And f i n a l l y , i t may of t e n be necessary to teach those i n t e r a c t i n g with nonverbal i n d i v i d u a l s (e.g. teachers, parents, other p r o f e s s i o n a l s ) , how to promote e f f e c t i v e use of a l l modes of communication i n a v a r i e t y of s i t u a t i o n s , while d i s c o u r a g i n g the ad u l t from e x p l i c i t l y c o n t r o l l i n g the modes used by the nonverbal. It i s d i f f i c u l t to g e n e r a l i z e f i n d i n g s from a case study. However, d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s i s p o s s i b l e i n i n v e s t i g a t i o n of one i n d i v i d u a l that i s not p o s s i b l e to perform when l a r g e groups are being s t u d i e d . Taken together with the r e s u l t s from other r e s e a r c h — b o t h case s t u d i e s and i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of l a r g e r g r o u p s — a corpus of r e l e v a n t data can be a r c h i v e d to inform both r e s e a r c h and c l i n i c a l q u estions. This study of Y's communication i s o f f e r e d as a c o n t r i b u t i o n to t h i s g r e a t e r research g o a l . 81 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ar g y l e , M. (1972); Non-verbal communication in human s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . In R.A. Hinde, Non-verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press. Beukelman, D. , Traynor, C , Poblete, M. & Warren, C. (1984). Microcomputer-based communication augmentation systems for two non-speaking, p h y s i c a l l y handicapped persons with severe v i s u a l impairment. Archives of P h y s i c a l Medicine  and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n 65 (4). 89-91. Beukelman, D. & Yorkston, K. (1978). Communication options f o r p a t i e n t s with brain stem l e s i o n s . Archives of P h y s i c a l  Medicine and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n 59 (7). 337-40. Beukelman, D. & Yorkston, K. (1980). Nonvocal communication: performance e v a l u a t i o n . Archives of P h y s i c a l Medicine and  R e h a b i l i t a t i o n 61 ( 6 ) . 272-5. Beukelman, D., Yorkston, K. & Dowden, P. (1985). Communication  Augmentation, A Casebook of C l i n i c a l Management. San Diego: College H i l l P r e s s . Beukelman, D., Yorkston, K., Gorhoff, S., Mitsuda, P. & Kenyon, V. Canon communicator use by a d u l t s : a r e t r o s p e c t i v e study. J o u r n a l of Speech and Hearing Disorders 46 ( 4 ) . 374-8. : Bruno, J . & Stoughton, A. (1984). Computer-aided communication device for a c h i l d with c e r e b r a l palsy. A r c h i v e s of P h y s i c a l Medicine and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n 65 (10). 603-5. C a l c u l a t o r , S. & Dollaghan, C. (1982). The use of communication boards i n a r e s i d e n t i a l s e t t i n g : an e v a l u a t i o n . J o u r n a l  of Speech and Hearing D i s o r d e r s 47 ( 3 ) . 281-7. C a l c u l a t o r , S. & Luchko, C« (1983). E v a l u a t i n g the e f f e c t i v e -ness of a communication board t r a i n i n g program. J o u r n a l of  Speech and Hearing D i s o r d e r s 48 ( 2 ) . 185-91. C a r l s o n , F. (1981). A format f o r s e l e c t i n g vocabulary f o r the nonspeaking c h i l d . Language, Speech, and Hearing S e r v i c e s  i n the Schools 12. 240-57. Coleman, C , Cook, A. & Meyers, L. (1980). Assessing non-oral c l i e n t s f o r a s s i s t i v e communication d e v i c e s . J o u r n a l of  Speech and Hearing D i s o r d e r s 45 (4). 515-26. Copeland, K. (1975). York: Grune and Aids f o r the Severely Handicapped . Stra t ton. New 82 Dore, J . (1978). Requestive systems i n nursery school conversa-t i o n s ; a n a l y s i s of t a l k in i t s s o c i a l context. In R. Campbell & P. Smith ( e d s . ) . Recent Advances i n the  Psychology of Language: Language Development and Mother-C h i l d I n t e r a c t i o n . New York: Plenum P r e s s . Druckman, D., R o z e l l e , R. & Baxter, J . (1982). Nonverbal  Communi cat i o n . Beverly H i l l s : Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s . Ekman, P. & F r i e s e n , W. (1969). The r e p e r t o i r e of nonverbal behaviour; c a t e g o r i e s , o r i g i n s , usage, and coding. Semiotica I. 49-98. Ekman, P., F r i e s e n , W. & E l l s w o r t h , P. (1972). Emotion i n the  Human Face: G u i d e l i n e s for Research and an I n t e g r a t i o n of  the F i n d i n g s . New York: Pergamon. Evans Mo r r i s , S. (1981). Communication i n t e r a c t i o n development at mealtimes f o r the m u l t i p l y handicapped c h i l d : i m p l i c a -t i o n s f o r the use of augmentative communication systems. Language, Speech, and Hearing S e r v i c e s i n the Schools 12 . 216-232. Fishman, S., Ti m l e r , G. & Yoder, D. (1985). S t r a t e g i e s f o r the pr e v e n t i o n and r e p a i r of communication breakdown in i n t e r -a c t i o n s with communication board u s e r s . Augmentative and  A l t e r n a t i v e Communication 1^  ( 1 ) . 38-51. Foddy, M. (1978). Patterns of gaze i n c o o p e r a t i v e and comp e t i t i v e n e g o t i a t i o n . Human R e l a t i o n s 31. 925-38. Hagen, C., P o r t e r , W. & Brink, J . (1973). Nonverbal communica-t i o n : an a l t e r n a t i v e mode of communication for the c h i l d with severe c e r e b r a l p a l s y . J o u r n a l of Speech and Hearing  D i s o r d e r s 38. 448-55. H a l l i d a y , M.A. (1975). Learning How to Mean; E x p l o r a t i o n s i n  the Development of Language. London: Edward Arnold. H a r r i s , D. (1978). D e s c r i p t i v e a n a l y s i s of communicative i n t e r a c t i o n processes i n v o l v i n g non-vocal s e v e r e l y p h y s i c a l l y handicapped c h i l d r e n . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin-Madison. H a r r i s , D. (1982). Communicative i n t e r a c t i o n processes i n v o l v i n g nonvocal p h y s i c a l l y handicapped c h i l d r e n . T o p i c s  i n Language D i s o r d e r s 2. 21-37. H a r r i s , D., L i p p e r t , J . , Yoder, D. & Vanderheiden, G. (1979). Blissymbo1ics: An augmentative symbol communication system f o r nonvocal s e v e r e l y handicapped c h i l d r e n . In R. York and E. Edgar ( e d s . ) , Teaching the Se v e r e l y Handicapped. Columbus, Ohio: S p e c i a l Press. 83 H a r r i s , D. & Vanderheiden, G. (1980a). Augmentative communication techniques. In R. Sc h i e f e l b u s c h ( e d . ) . Nonspeech language and communication: a n a l y s i s and  i n t e r v e n t i o n . Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park. P r e s s. H a r r i s , D. & Vanderheiden, G. (1980b). Enhancing the develop-ment of communicative i n t e r a c t i o n . In R. Schiefe1busch (ed . ) . Nonspeech language and communication: a n a l y s i s and  i n t e r v e n t i o n . B a ltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park P r e s s . Harris-Vanderheiden, D., Brown, W., Mackenzie, P., Reiner, S. & S c h e i b e l , C. (1975). Symbol communication for the mentally handicapped. Mental R e t a r d a t i o n 13. 34-7. Harris-Vanderheiden, D. & Vanderheiden, G. (1977). Basic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n the development of communicative and i n t e r a c t i v e s k i l l s of nonvocal severely handicapped c h i l d r e n . In E. Sontag, J . Smith, and N. Certo ( e d s . ) . E d u c a t i o n a l programming f o r the s e v e r e l y / p r o f o u n d l y  handicapped. Reston, VA: Council for E x c e p t i o n a l C h i l d r e n . Higginbotham, D. & Yoder, D. (1982). Communication w i t h i n n a t u r a l c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n : i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r sev e r e l y communicatively impaired persons. Topics i n  Language D i s o r d e r s 2_. 1-19. Kendon, A. (1983). Gesture and speech. How they i n t e r a c t . In J . Wieman & R. H a r r i s o n ( e d s . ) . Nonverbal I n t e r a c t i o n . Beverly H i l l s : Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s . Knapp, M. (1978). Nonverbal Communication i n Human I n t e r a c t i o n . New York: H o l t , Rinehart & Winston. L i g h t , J . (1984). More on i n t e r a c t i o n . Communicating  Together 2 (1). 15-17. L i g h t , J . , C o l l i e r , B. & Parnes, P. (1983). Communicative i n t e r a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g young nonspeaking p h y s i c a l l y handi-capped c h i l d r e n : a s i n g l e case study. Augmentative  Communication S e r v i c e Annual Report 1983. Toronto: Ontario C r i p p l e d C h i l d r e n ' s Centre. L i g h t , J . , C o l l i e r , B. & Parnes, P. (1985a). Communicative i n t e r a c t i o n between young nonspeaking p h y s i c a l l y d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n and t h e i r primary c a r e g i v e r s Part I: Discourse P a t t e r n s . Manuscript submitted for p u b l i c a t i o n . L i g h t , J . , C o l l i e r , B. & Parnes, P. (1985b). Communicative i n t e r a c t i o n between young nonspeaking p h y s i c a l l y d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n and t h e i r primary c a r e g i v e r s Part I I : Communi-c a t i v e Functions. Manuscript submitted for p u b l i c a t i o n . 84 . L i g h t , J . , C o l l i e r , B. & Parnes, P. (1985c). Communicative i n t e r a c t i o n between young nonspeaking p h y s i c a l l y d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n and t h e i r primary c a r e g i v e r s Part I I I : Modes of Communication. Manuscript submitted for p u b l i c a t i o n . McDonald, E. & S c h u l t z , A. (1973). Communication boards f o r c e r e b r a l - p a 1 s l e d c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of Speech and Hearing  D i s o r d e r s 38. 73-88. McNaughton, S. & Kates, B. (1980). The a p p l i c a t i o n of BIissymbo1ics . In R. S c h l e f e l b u s c h ( e d . ) . Nonspeech  Language and Communication: A n a l y s i s and I n t e r v e n t i o n . B a l t i m o r e : U n i v e r s i t y Park P r e s s . Mehrabian, A. & F e r r i s , S. (1967). Inference of a t t i t u d e s from nonverbal communication In two channels. J o u r n a l of  C o n s u l t i n g Psychology 31. 248-52. Mehrabian, A. & Weiner, M. (1967). Decoding of i n c o n s i s t e n t communications. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l  Psychology 6. 109-14. M i l l e r , J.F. (1981). Assessing language production i n  c h i l d r e n . Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park P r e s s . ^ M i l l e r , J.F. & Chapman, R.S. (1979). The r e l a t i o n s between age and mean length of utterance in morphemes. Unpublished manuscript, U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin-Madison. Moerk, E. (197 7). Pragmatic and Semantic Aspects of E a r l y Language Development. Baltimore, Maryland: U n i v e r s i t y Park P r e s s . Musselwhite, C. & St. Louis, K. (1982). Communication Programming f o r the Severely Handicapped: Vocal and  Non-vocal S t r a t e g i e s . Houston: C o l l e g e - H i l l P r e s s . Myers, T. (ed.) (1979). The Development of Conversation and  Discourse . Edinburgh: Edinburgh U n i v e r s i t y Press. Owens, R. & House, L. (1984). Decision-making processes i n augmentative communication. J o u r n a l of Speech and Hearing  D i s o r d e r s 49 . 18-25. Poyotos, F. (1980). I n t e r a c t i v e f u n c t i o n s and l i m i t a t i o n s of v e r b a l and nonverbal behaviours i n n a t u r a l c o n v e r s a t i o n . Semiotica 30. 211-44. Poyotos, F. (1983). New p e r s p e c t i v e s i n nonverbal communication. Oxford: Pergamon Press. S c h i e f e l b u s c h , R. (ed.) (1980). Nonspeech language and communication: a n a l y s i s and i n t e r v e n t i o n . Baltimore, Maryland: U n i v e r s i t y Park P r e s s . 85 Shane, H. & Ba s h i r , A. (1980). E l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a for the adoption of an augmentative communication system: p r e l i m i n a r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . J ournal of Speech and Hearing  D i s o r d e r s 45. 408-14. S i n c l a i r , J . & Coultard, R. (1975). Towards an A n a l y s i s of  Discourse: the E n g l i s h used by Teachers and P u p i l s . London: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Silverman, F. (1980). Communication f o r the Speechless. Englewood C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l Inc. Vanderheiden, G. & G r i l l e y , . K . (eds.) (1975). Nonvocal Communi- c a t i o n Techniques and Aids f o r the Severely Handicapped. Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park P r e s s . V i c k e r , B. (ed.) (1974). Nonoral Communication System P r o j e c t .  1964/73. Iowa C i t y : U n i v e r s i t y H o s p i t a l School, U n i v e r s i t y of Iowa. Weeks, T. (1979). Born to T a l k . Rowley, Massachusetts: Newberry House P u b l i s h e r s . Wexler, K. , Blau, A., L e s l i e , S. & Dore, J . (1983). Conversa-t i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n of nonspeaking c e r e b r a l p a l s i e d i n d i v i -duals and t h e i r speaking p a r t n e r s , with and without augmentative communication a i d s . Unpublished manuscript, Helen Hayes H o s p i t a l : New York. Yoder, D. & Kraat, A. (1983). I n t e r v e n t i o n i s s u e s i n nonspeech communication. In J . M i l l e r , D. Yoder and R. S c h i e f e l b u s c h ( e d s . ) , Contemporary Issues i n Communication I n t e r v e n t i o n . ASHA Reports: 12. SAMPLE TRANSCRIPTION OF TAPE 2b Y AND R IN SPEECH THERAPY SESSION Y R COMMENTS IC V B TC G/S/FE CA What sort of weather is i t going to be? Y and R have been talking about Y's upcoming trip to Malta. Coding System Legend: Modes of Communication: G = Gesture B = Blissymbol CA = Communicative Activity ICV = Intonation Contour-Vocalization FE = Facial Expression Communicative Intents: Reql = Request Informationty ReqA = Request Attention Prol = Provide Information ProEx= Provide Exclamatory Information C/D = Confirmation of Denial NOT = Notice Discourse Functions: TC = Topic Continuation R = Response R IC — ^ V /ha/ Prol S HOT HOT R TC Right Is i t going to be rainy or is i t going to be sunny? IC ^\ V /no/ Prol S RAIN IC ^ \ V / j E / C/D TC Is i t going to be raining? R TC Is i t really? Well, I hope not I hope not. APPENDIX A (cont'd.) Y R COMMENTS TC Be cold as well? Y and R s t i l l talking about trip to Malta. R G nods 'yes' C/D R TC Good heavens, you're going to have rain, you're going to have sunshine, and i t ' s going to be cold. Oh, you poor thing Y. If i t ' s going to be cold, and you're going to have rain, what w i l l you have to take with you to wear? R B swimsuit Prol R TC Your swimsuit . . . . . . what else are you going to take with you to wear? (some of R's utterances are omitted here) R B pajamas Prol 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0096254/manifest

Comment

Related Items