{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02017094017094017, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.1991525423728815, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Problems with the understandability of aphasic talk: mentions of persons as a trouble source in interaction

Background: In this single case study we draw on conversation analytic methods and findings to investigate how a speaker with aphasia produces mentions of persons within conversation and how these mentions are regularly treated by the speaker’s recipient as difficult to understand. As well as names, mentioning persons can involve other types of linguistic forms including category terms (such as “father”, “baby”, and “scanner girl” which are used in this data set) and pronouns. Mentioning can also involve different forms of action in relation to the mentioned person (e.g., referring to someone versus describing someone). Recurrently in this data set the recipient uses other-initiation of repair to display problems in understanding which particular individual is being mentioned by the person with aphasia (PWA) and what action is being signified in relation to that person. Aims: To investigate in what ways the PWA’s mentioning of persons in conversation leads to displays of problematic understanding for the recipient, and to investigate possible factors involved in the problematic nature of this speaker’s person mentions. Methods & Procedures: The PWA was assessed on tests of language and executive functioning and was recorded in conversation with a research speech and language therapist. The conversational data were transcribed and analysed using conversation analytic methods. The PWA was also assessed on a battery of language and executive function tests. Outcomes & Results: We analyse four instances within one continuous episode of conversation where the mention of a person by the PWA results in a difficulty for the recipient in understanding which particular person is being mentioned. It is also evident that a difficulty in understanding one person mention can impact negatively on the recipient’s ability to understand other, linked, person mentions. On some occasions the linguistic forms used by the PWA to signify particular people did not appear to be well chosen in terms of taking into account the knowledge state of the recipient and how she would recognise who was being mentioned. The PWA’s talk also led to difficulties for the recipient in recognising what kind of mentioning (e.g., referring or describing) the PWA was engaged in at particular points in the conversation. Conclusions: While problems with the retrieval of names are a well-attested feature of aphasia, this paper focuses on the broader area of mentioning persons in conversation, and analyses the previously little-researched phenomenon of how person mentions produced by a PWA can be difficult to understand. It is suggested that this PWA’s pattern of producing mentions of person that are difficult to understand may be linked to her profile of executive function deficits as well as linguistic deficits.