Book contents
- Dementia and Language
- Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics
- Dementia and Language
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Transcript notation key
- Part 1 Introduction
- Part 2 Dementia and Diagnostics
- Part 3 Dementia and Conversational Strategies
- Part 4 Dementia and Epistemics
- 9 Identifying Family Members in Photographs
- 10 ‘You Know This Better’
- 11 Maintaining Personhood and Authority in Everyday Talk of a Family Living with Dementia
- Part 5 Communicative Challenges in Everyday Social Life
- Index
- References
10 - ‘You Know This Better’
Interactional Challenges for Couples Living with Dementia when the Epistemic Status Regarding Shared Past Events Is Uncertain
from Part 4 - Dementia and Epistemics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 November 2024
Book contents
- Dementia and Language
- Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics
- Dementia and Language
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Transcript notation key
- Part 1 Introduction
- Part 2 Dementia and Diagnostics
- Part 3 Dementia and Conversational Strategies
- Part 4 Dementia and Epistemics
- 9 Identifying Family Members in Photographs
- 10 ‘You Know This Better’
- 11 Maintaining Personhood and Authority in Everyday Talk of a Family Living with Dementia
- Part 5 Communicative Challenges in Everyday Social Life
- Index
- References
Summary
In this chapter, we investigate how a couple where one of the spouses is diagnosed with dementia handle challenges in narrations of past shared events that arise when the spouse with dementia has limited access to these events. Partners of people diagnosed with dementia recurrently have to take into consideration that their spouse may not remember details in stories they tell, even though the person with dementia is a main participant in the events being retold. The design of such stories is complex as the interactants must keep track of both the content of the story and manage the potential sensitivity of telling a story that should already be known to both spouses. We show how the spouse without dementia (re)organizes the participation framework in resourceful ways and delicately deals with her spouse’s limited memory using a variety of face-saving practices. The analyses highlight how issues related to knowledge and dementia can benefit from using an interactional and distributed perspective. While access and rights to knowledge is usually divided between participants depending on the knowledge domain and the participants’ relation to the topic, in the case of a dementia disease a more flexible approach towards such divisions could be advantageous.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Dementia and LanguageThe Lived Experience in Interaction, pp. 226 - 248Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Black, R. (2011) ‘Dementia and epistemic authority: A conversation analytic case study.’ Studies in Applied Linguistics and TESOL, 11(2): 65–93.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2011) ‘Revisiting Goffman’s postulates on participant statuses in verbal interaction.’ Language and Linguistics Compass, 5(7): 454–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1979) ‘The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation.’ In Psathas, G. (ed.) Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington Publishers, pp. 97–121.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1996) ‘Transparent vision.’ In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A. and Thompson, S. A. (eds.) Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 370–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. (1992) ‘Context, activity and participation.’ In Auer, P. and di Luzio, A. (eds.) The Contextualization of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 77–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. (2004) ‘Participation.’ In Duranti, A. (ed.) A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Maldan, MA: Blackwell, pp. 222–244.Google Scholar
Hamilton, H. (2019) Language, Dementia and Meaning Making. Navigating Challenges of Cognition and Face in Everyday Life. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, T., Lindström, A. and Steensig, J. (2011) Addressing epistemic incongruence in question–answer sequences through the use of epistemic adverbs.’ In Stivers, T., Mondada, L. and Steensig, J. (eds.) The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 107–130. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511921674.006.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984) ‘A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement.’ In Maxwell Atkinson, J. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 299–345.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1985) ‘Analyzing news interviews: aspects of the production of talk for an “overhearing” audience.’ In van Dijk, T. A. (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Academic Press, vol. 3, pp. 95–117.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012) ‘Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge.’ Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. and Raymond, G. (2005) ‘The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction.’ Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1): 15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hydén, L-C. and Nilsson, E. (2015) ‘Couples with dementia: Positioning the “we”.’ Dementia, 14(6): 716–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hydén, L. C. and Samuelsson, C. (2019) ‘“So they are not alive?”: Dementia, reality disjunctions and conversational strategies.’ Dementia, 18(7–8): 2662–2678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Josephs, K. A. (2007) ‘Capgras syndrome and its relationship to neurodegenerative disease.’ Archives in Neurology, 64(12): 1762–1766.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koole, T. (2012) ‘The epistemics of student problems: Explaining mathematics in a multi-lingual class.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 44: 1902–1916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. and Fanshel, D. (1977) Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Landmark, A. M. D., Nilsson, E., Ekström, A. and Svennevig, J. (2021) ‘Couples living with dementia managing conflicting knowledge claims.’ Discourse Studies, 23(2): 191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindholm, C. (2008) ‘Laughter, communication problems and dementia.’ Communication & Medicine, 5(1): 3–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindholm, C. (2016) ‘Boundaries of participation in care home settings: Use of the Swedish token jaså by a person with dementia.’ Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 30(10): 832–848.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindholm, C. and Stevanovic, M. (2022) ‘Challenges of trust in atypical interaction.’ Pragmatics and Society 13(1): 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linell, P. (2009) Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar
Linell, P. and Luckmann, T. (1991) ‘Asymmetries in dialogue: Some conceptual preliminaries.’ In Marková, I and Foppa, K. (eds.) Asymmetries in Dialogue. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Marcusson, J., Blennow, K., Skoog, I. and Wallin, A. (2011) Alzheimers sjukdom och andra kognitiva sjukdomar [Alzheimer’s disease and other cognitive diseases]. Stockholm: Liber AB.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2016) ‘Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction.’ Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(3): 336–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muntigl, P. and Choi, K. T. (2010) ‘Not remembering as a practical epistemic resource in couples therapy.’ Discourse Studies, 12(3): 331–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muntigl, P., Hödl, S. and Ransmayr, G. (2014) ‘Epistemics and frontotemporal dementia.’ Journal of Theories and Research in Education, 9(1): 69–95.Google Scholar
Nilsson, E. (2017) ‘Fishing for answers: Couples living with dementia managing trouble with recollection.’ Educational Gerontology, 43(2): 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, E. and Olaison, A. (2019) ‘What is yet to come? Couples living with dementia orienting themselves towards an uncertain future.’ Qualitative Social Work, 18(3): 475–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, E., Ekström, A. and Majlesi, A‑R. (2018) ‘Speaking for and about a spouse with dementia: A matter of inclusion or exclusion?’ Discourse Studies, 20(6).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. M. (1980) ‘Telling my side: “Limited access” as a “fishing” device.’ Sociological Inquiry, 50: 186–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rae, J. (2001) ‘Organizing participation in interaction: Doing participation framework.’ Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34(2): 253–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. (1973) ‘On some puns with some intimations.’ In Shuy, R. W. (ed.) Sociolinguistics: Current Trends and Prospects. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 135–144.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992) Lectures on Conversation. Vols. I & II, Jefferson, G. (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Stivers, T., Mondada, L. and Steensig, J. (2011) ‘Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction.’ In Stivers, T., Mondada, L. and Steensig, J. (eds.) The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svennevig, J. and Landmark, A. M. D. (2019) ‘Accounting for forgetfulness in dementia interaction.’ Linguistics Vanguard, 5(s2): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, R. (2007) ‘Managing linguistic incompetence as a delicate issue in aphasic talk-in-interaction: On the use of laughter in prolonged repair sequences.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 39(3): 542–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, S. and Kitzinger, C. (2006) ‘Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction tokens in conversation.’ Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(2): 150–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, V., Webb, J., Dowling, S. and Gall, M. (2019) ‘Direct and indirect ways of managing epistemic asymmetries when eliciting memories.’ Discourse Studies, 21(2): 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar