Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T23:02:23.301Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - On the Use of Tag Questions by Co-participants of People with Dementia

Asymmetries of Knowledge, Power and Interactional Competence

from Part 3 - Dementia and Conversational Strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2024

By
Jacqueline Kindell ,
John Keady  and
Ray Wilkinson
Edited by
Peter Muntigl ,
Charlotta Plejert  and
Danielle Jones
Peter Muntigl
Affiliation:
Universiteit Gent, Belgium
Charlotta Plejert
Affiliation:
Linköpings Universitet, Sweden
Danielle Jones
Affiliation:
University of Bradford
Get access

Summary

In this chapter we use conversation analysis to analyse the use of tag questions by co-participants of people with dementia. Tag questions can function as a ‘current speaker selects next’ technique. They also prefer, and hence put interactional pressure on, the next speaker to produce a response that aligns with the tag-formatted turn. We examine three classes of co-participant-produced tag-formatted actions and analyse how their use is recipient-designed for people with dementia. Tag-formatted assertions and assessments present information that the person with dementia has already been told or might be expected to know, while simultaneously acknowledging that this information is, or should be, within the recipient’s epistemic domain. By eliciting agreement, they co-opt the person with dementia into the co-construction of this topical talk. Tag-formatted challenges are produced in response to an inappropriate turn by the person with dementia and, as well as challenging/complaining about that turn, act to elicit from the person with dementia an acknowledgement of its inappropriacy. We then show how tag questions are used to induce verbal acquiescence to a suggested activity. We discuss how these tag questions encroach into the person with dementia’s territories of knowledge, power and interactional competence, highlighting asymmetries between the person with dementia and the co-participant in these domains.

Keywords

dementiaConversation Analysistag questionsco-participantsadaptationelderspeak
Type
Chapter
Information
Dementia and Language
The Lived Experience in Interaction
 , pp. 151 - 174
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bristol, R. and Rossano, F. (2020) ‘Epistemic trespassing and disagreement.’ Journal of Memory and Language, 110: 104067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, D., McAlinden, F. and O’Leary, K. (1988) ‘Lakoff in context: The social and linguistic functions of tag questions.’ In Coates, J. and Cameron, D. (eds.) Women in Their Speech Communities: New Perspectives on Language and Sex. New York: Longman, pp. 74–93.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (2013) ‘Turn design.’ In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (eds.) Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley, pp. 131–149.Google Scholar
Ekberg, K., Ekberg, S., Weinglass, L., Rendl-Short, J., Bluebond-Langner, M., Yates, P., Bradford, N. and Danby, S. (2022) ‘Attending to child agency in paediatric palliative care consultations: Adult’s use of tag questions directed to the child.’ Sociology of Health & Illness, 44(3): 566–585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elsey, C. (2020) ‘Dementia in conversation: Observations from triadic memory clinic interactions.’ In Wilkinson, R., Rae, J. P. and Rasmussen, G (eds.) Atypical Interaction: The Impact of Communicative Impairments within Everyday Talk. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 195–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1978) ‘Response cries.’ Language 54(4): 787–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. H. (2004) ‘Participation.’ In Duranti, A. (ed.) A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 222–244.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. (1990) He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Gorno-Tempini, M. L., Hillis, A. E., Weintraub, S., Kertesz, A., Mendez, M., Cappa, S. F., Ogar, J. M., Rohrer, J. D., Black, S., Boeve, B. F., Manes, F., Dronkers, N. F., Vandenberghe, R. M. D., Rascovsky, K., Patterson, K., Miller, B. L., Knopman, D. S., Hodges, J. R., Mesulam, M. M. and Grossman, M. (2011) ‘Classification of primary progressive aphasia and its variants’. Neurology, 76(11): 1006–1014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heinemann, T. and Traverso, V. (2009) ‘Complaining in interaction.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 41: 2381–2384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hepburn, A. and Potter, J. (2010). ‘Interrogating tears: Some uses of tag questions in a child protection helpline.’ In Freed, A. F. and Ehrlich, S. (eds.) ‘Why Do You Ask?’: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 69–86.Google Scholar
Hepburn, A. and Potter, J. (2011) ‘Designing the recipient: Managing advice resistance in institutional settings.’ Social Psychology Quarterly, 74(2): 216–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984) Garfinkel and Ethnomethdology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1998) ‘Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry.’ Language in Society, 27(3): 291–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (2010) ‘Questioning in medicine.’ In Freed, A. F., and Ehrlich, S. (eds.) ‘Why Do You Ask?’: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 42–68.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012) ‘Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge.’ Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1):1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (2013) ‘Epistemics in conversation.’ In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (eds.) Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Boston, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 370–394.Google 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
Heritage, J., and Raymond, G. (2012) ‘Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions.’ In De Ruiter, J.‑P (ed.) Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodges, J. R. (2005) Addenbrook’s cognitive examination [Online]. www.neurovascularmedicine.com/ace.pdf.Google Scholar
Holt, E. (1996) ‘Reporting on talk: The use of direct reported speech in conversation.’ Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29(3): 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K. (2002) The Cambridge Grammar of English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004) ‘Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction.’ In Lerner, G. (ed) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jokel, R., Rochon, E. and Leonard, C. (2006) ‘Treating anomia in semantic dementia: Improvement, maintenance, or both?’ Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 16(3):241–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keisanen, T. (2007). ‘Stancetaking as an interactional activity: Challenging the prior speaker.’ In Englebretson, R. (ed.) Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 253–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kertesz, A., Jesso, S., Harciarek, M., Blair, M. and McMonagle, P. (2010) ‘What is semantic dementia? A cohort study of diagnostic and clinical boundaries.’ Archives of Neurology, 67(4): 483–489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kindell, J., Sage, K., Keady, J. and Wilkinson, R. (2013) ‘Adapting to conversation with semantic dementia: Using enactment as a compensatory strategy in everyday social interaction.’ International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 48(5): 497–507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Labov, W. and Fanshel, D. (1977) Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2013) ‘Action formation and ascription.’ In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (eds.) Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Boston, MA: Blackwell-Wiley, pp. 103–130.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1980) ‘“Telling my side”: “Limited access” as a “fishing” device.’ Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4): 186–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, G., Dalby, K. E. and Muth, E. (2019) ‘Working out availability, unavailability and awayness in social face-to-face encounters: The case of dementia.’ Discourse Studies, 21(3): 258–279.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. D. (2020) ‘One type of polar, information-seeking question and its stance of probability: Implications for the preference for agreement.’ Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(4): 425–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. (1974) ‘A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation.’ Language, 50(4): 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnabel, E. L., Wahl, H. W., Streib, C. and Schmidt, T. (2021) ‘Elderspeak in acute hospitals? The role of context, cognitive and functional impairment.’ Research on Aging, 43(9–10): 416–427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snowden, J., Goulding, P. J. and Neary, D. (1989) ‘Semantic dementia: A form of circumscribed cerebral atrophy.’ Behavioural Neurology, 2(3): 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snowden, J., Kindell, J. and Neary, D. (2006) ‘Diagnosing semantic dementia and managing communication difficulties.’ In Bryan, K. and Maxim, J. (eds.) Communication Disability in the Dementias. London: Whurr, pp. 125–146.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, M.-L. and Peräkylä, A. (2012) ‘Introduction.’ In Peräkylä, A. and Sorjonen, M.-L. (eds.) Emotion in Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, M. and Peräkylä, A. (2014) ‘Three orders in the organization of human action: On the interface between knowledge, power, and emotion in interaction and social relations.’ Language in Society, 43(2): 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., Mondada, L. and Steensig, J. (eds.) (2011) The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svennevig, J. and Landmark, A. M. D. (2019) ‘Accounting for forgetfulness in dementia interaction.’ Linguistics Vanguard, 5(s2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor-Rubin, C., Croot, K., Power, E., Savage, S. A., Hodges, J. R. and Togher, L. (2017) ‘Communication behaviors associated with successful conversation in semantic variant primary progressive aphasia.’ International Psychogeriatrics, 29(10): 1619–1632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkinson, R. (2014) ‘Intervening with Conversation Analysis in speech and language therapy: Improving aphasic conversation.’ Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(3): 219–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, R., Lock, S., Bryan, K. and Sage, K., 2011. ‘Interaction-focused intervention for acquired language disorders: Facilitating mutual adaptation in couples where one partner has aphasia.’ International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 13(1): 74–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, K., Kemper, S. and Hummert, M. L. (2004) ‘Enhancing communication with older adults overcoming elderspeak.’ Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 30(10): 17–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, K. N., Herman, R., Gajewski, B. and Wilson, K. (2009). ‘Elderspeak communication: Impact on dementia care.’ American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease & Other Dementias, 24(1): 11–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×