People with aphasia and their family members proposing joint future activities in everyday conversations: A...

In everyday conversations, a person with aphasia (PWA) compensates for their language impairment by relying on multimodal and material resources, as well as on their conversation partners. However, some social actions people perform in authentic interaction, proposing a joint future activity, for example, ordinarily rely on a speaker producing a multi-word utterance. Thus, the language impairment connected to aphasia may impede the production of such proposals, consequently hindering the participation of PWAs in the planning of future activities.

To investigate (1) how people with post-stroke chronic aphasia construct proposals of joint future activities in everyday conversations compared with their familiar conversation partners (FCPs); and (2) how aphasia severity impacts on such proposals and their uptake.

Ten hours of video-recorded everyday conversations from seven persons with mild and severe aphasia of varying subtypes and their FCPs were explored using conversation analysis. We identified 59 instances where either party proposed a joint future activity and grouped such proposals according to their linguistic format and sequential position. Data are in Finnish.

People with mild aphasia made about the same number of proposals as their FCPs and used similar linguistic formats to their FCPs when proposing joint future activities. This included comparable patterns associated with producing a time reference, which was routinely used when a proposal initiated a planning activity. Mild aphasia manifested itself as within-turn word searches that were typically self-repaired. In contrast, people with severe aphasia made considerably fewer proposals compared with their FCPs, the proposal formats being linguistically unidentifiable. This resulted in delayed acknowledgement of the PWAs' talk as a proposal.

Mild aphasia appears not to impede PWAs' ability to participate in the planning of joint future activities, whereas severe aphasia is a potential limitation. To address this possible participatory barrier, we discuss clinical implications for both therapist-led aphasia treatment and conversation partner training.

What is already known on the subject PWAs use multimodal resources to compensate for their language impairment in everyday conversations. However, certain social actions, such as proposing a joint future activity, cannot ordinarily be accomplished without language. What this paper adds to existing knowledge The study demonstrates that proposing joint future activities is a common social action in everyday conversations between PWAs and their family members. People with mild aphasia used typical linguistic proposal formats, and aphasic word-finding problems did not prevent FCPs from understanding the talk as a proposal. People with severe aphasia constructed proposals infrequently using their remaining linguistic resources, a newspaper connecting the talk to the future and the support from FCPs. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? We suggest designing aphasia treatment with reference to the social action of proposing a joint future activity. Therapist-led treatment could model typical linguistic proposal formats, whereas communication partner training could incorporate FCP strategies that scaffold PWAs' opportunities to construct proposals of joint future activities. This would enhance aphasia treatment's ecological validity, promote its generalization and ultimately enable PWAs to participate in everyday planning activities.