Clarke, M. (2016). Co-construction, asymmetry and multimodality in children’s conversations. In M. M. Smith & J. Murray (Eds.), The silent partner? Language, interaction and aided communication (pp. 177–198). J&R Press.
This chapter reviewed the body of research on quantitative as well as qualitative approaches to analysis of the face-to-face interaction research with children who use augmentative and alternative communication. In reviewing the conversation analysis literature, the review focused on insights related to asymmetry, timing, and multimodality in conversations of children with cerebral palsy aged 7;11 to 14;10 years engaged with adult and peer partners. During AAC-mediated conversations, speaking partners frequently take the lead in designating interactional slots through first pair parts in the form of questions requiring minimal responses, encountering few interactional troubles. Less frequently, aided communicators will initiate communication aid turns, but speaking partners encounter more difficulty understanding the intent and content. Thus, the constraints provided in this asymmetry, whereby communication aid turns primarily occupy the second pair part position, provide advantages in the ease of production for the aided communicator and the understanding of the speaking partner. AAC turn construction introduces delays in progressivity, which may be handled differently depending on its sequential position. In second pair parts delays to progressivity are relatively unproblematic as communication board activity serves as a pre-beginning signal; however, delays associated with first pair parts may be more vulnerable to permeability. Multimodality can influence the content of AAC-mediated contributions by the way communication partners respond to and propagate triadic interaction frameworks. In other words, co-construction occurs through shared orientation to the communication device and the use of embodied resources by either the speaking partner or the aided communicator. For example, the sequential placement of the aided communicator’s looking the partner’s voicing of an indication may be treated as a signal for self-repair, while the speaking partner’s subtle vocalizations during pre-beginning device actions may be treated as encouraging or discouraging of symbol selection.