Locating and Affiliating: A framework for understanding the non-verbal multimodal communication of a young man with complex communication needs

jircd (print) issn 2040–5111jircd (online) issn 2040–512x

jircd vol 4.2 2012 249–271©2013, equinox publishing

doi : 10.1558/jircd.v4i2.249

Article

Life’s a bonding experience: A framework for the communication of a non-verbal

intellectually disabled teenager

Shoshana J. Dreyfus

University of Sydney

Abstract

This paper presents a framework for the description of the semiotic world of a male adolescent (17 years) with a severe intellectual disability who does not use speech as his primary form of communication. The framework is based on selected aspects of systemic functional linguistic theory, including exchange structure analysis and affiliation theory. The framework is based on a proficiency model, showing what a person can do, rather than what they can’t do. It presents a new way of describing nonverbal multimodal communication. The research was conducted by a linguist, who happens to be the young man’s mother.

Keywords: communication impairment; nonverbal communication; systemic functional linguistics

1. IntroductionDespite the knowledge that people with severe intellectual disabilities and communication impairments communicate in atypical ways, there is still a shortage of research that theorizes the way these people make meaning. This study aims to contribute to understandings of meaning making by people with intellectual disabilities and communication disorders so that we may

* Email: [email protected]

250 Life is a bonding experience

better provide for their communication needs. This study adopts a proficiency model, focusing on what a person can do. Specifically, it focuses on the com-munication of one young man, named Bodhi, who has a severe intellectual dis-ability and a severe communication impairment, and a record of challenging behaviour. The study deploys selected aspects of systemic functional linguistic theory to describe part of Bodhi’s semiotic world, identified by interactions initiated by him. In doing so, it provides a framework for understanding his idiosyncratic communication, which can, in turn, be used to train people who work with him. The paper first introduces Bodhi, then describes the theoreti-cal framework used for the study and provides a map of the modes of expres-sion Bodhi uses to communicate. Following this, it explains the model used to describe Bodhi’s communication, providing examples to illustrate this model. Finally, it argues that this model may be used to contribute to a person-centred model of care for people with severe intellectual disabilities and communication disorders as it provides a new way to understand their communication needs.

2. Background to BodhiBodhi is a 17-year old young man who was born with a rare chromosome disorder (46xydel7q21-22), resulting in severe intellectual disability, epilepsy and very little language. While he has no physical disability per se, his level of need is such that he requires help with every aspect of his daily life. He has complex communication needs and has often exhibited challenging behav-iour. Examples of his challenging behaviour include scratching and pinching others, banging doors, toilet seats and garbage bin lids, screeching, tearing books, tipping chairs over, biting or breaking DVDs and taking his seatbelt off when travelling in a car. As a result, in both his educational and residential setting, he is in a grouping with a staff ratio that is never less than two staff to four students/residents. Bodhi has only two words, ‘Dad’ and ‘Mum’, which are used for a variety of purposes. Thus, he essentially communicates without speech, using instead a variety of modes of expression to communicate his meanings. Even though Bodhi has not developed speech as his primary mode of communication, it can be argued that his way of communicating is similar to the protolinguistic phase of language development, which occurs in typi-cally developing children between approximately the age of nine and eighteen months (Halliday 1975; Painter 1989). This is due to the fact that protolan-guage is described as being comprised of meanings realized by soundings (Halliday 1994), with no abstract stratum of lexicogrammar sandwiched between.1 However, protolanguage is the first stage of language develop-ment of typically developing children, that is to say, it is the communication system infants have before they develop language. As Bodhi is 17 years old and has had basically the same communication system for many years, we

Shoshana J. Dreyfus 251

can assume he is not going on to develop spoken language. Therefore, while Bodhi’s communication system is similar to protolanguage in that it has no abstract layer of lexicogrammar, it is not a protolanguage, and it is therefore referred to as a microlanguage – a language that is able to realize only a small number of meanings. Both microlanguage and protolanguage are restricted in the meanings they are able to realize (see Dreyfus 2007). Additionally, as both protolanguage and microlanguage are highly undifferentiated systems of communication, it takes a caregiver who knows a proto- or microlanguager well to understand their communication. Likewise with Bodhi, it is only his most intimate caregivers who understand his microlanguage, and in order for communication to be successful, they need to work closely with him in co-constructing his meanings. However, Bodhi engages with a much wider circle of people in numerous activities across a variety of settings, such as school, day programmes, his group home and life in the community. Caregivers and other communication partners often find it hard to understand Bodhi’s micro-language, which can result in him exhibiting challenging behaviour. The link between communication and challenging behaviour is well established in the literature with successful communication interventions resulting in a decrease in challenging behaviour (see for example Durand and Berotti 1991; Mirenda 1997). It is hoped, therefore, that the description being proposed in this paper will contribute to richer understandings of microlanguage that may in turn contribute to preventing or decreasing challenging behaviour. Having a microlanguage does not prevent Bodhi from initiating interac-tions. In fact, 64% (or 83) of 130 exchanges in two domestic settings were initiated by him (Dreyfus 2007). Given his interest in initiating interactions and the corresponding challenging behaviour if people do not understand and respond in a manner that is satisfactory to him, an accurate picture of his mul-timodal communication is necessary to explain to his communication part-ners how and what he means, as well as how to respond appropriately. This paper focuses on the communication exchanges that Bodhi initiates, as these exchanges, in some sense, show us what Bodhi wants to communicate about. The paper thus aims to paint a picture of Bodhi’s semiotic world as can be seen from the kinds of interactions he initiates. Further, in an environment where ‘person-centred’ care is the focus of service delivery (DADHC 2009), we need guidance in developing ways to understand and respond to the microlanguage of non-verbal intellectually disabled people so that we may address their com-munication needs as part of their person-centred care.

3. Theoretical frameworkThe theoretical framework used to describe Bodhi’s microlanguage comes from selected aspects of Systemic Functional Linguistic (hereafter SFL) theory.


These include Exchange Structure Analysis and Affiliation theory. However, it is also necessary to briefly examine what SFL studies of infant protolanguage can offer in terms of understanding microlanguage. Within Systemic Functional Linguistics there are a number of studies of child language development that provide detailed descriptions of infants’ pro-tolanguage (see for example Halliday 1975; Painter 1984/9, 2003; Torr 1997). Even though these studies are rooted in perspectives that presume that chil-dren will become speakers of their mother tongue, they are useful in that they provide a rich description of protolanguage, which, as mentioned, is similar to Bodhi’s microlanguage. Specifically, Halliday (1975) groups the functional meanings of his son’s protolanguage into different microfunctions (which evolve into macrofunctions before becoming the metafunctions of adult lan-guage). These microfunctions are named according to the function they seem to be realizing (see Table 1).

Table 1: Microfunctions of early protolanguage

Microfunction Function/Meaning gloss

Instrumental ‘I want that – give me’

Regulatory ‘I like that – you do it’

Interactional ‘you and me together’

Personal ‘that’s interesting’

One of the differences between Halliday’s descriptions of protolanguage and the microlanguage being described in this paper is that Halliday looks at the child’s utterances only, and the way these utterances eventually develop into the lexicogrammatical unit of the clause. In this paper, I not only examine Bodhi’s many modes of expression, I also examine exchanges, units of meaning above the clause that take into account both Bodhi’s com-munication moves and the corresponding responses by the communication partner. It is recognized by researchers (such as Bedrosian 1997) who study the multimodal communication of people with communication disorders that in order to truly understand the nature of nonverbal communication, it is necessary to also examine the communication partner’s contributions to the interactions, as it is through co-construction and negotiation with the communication partner that the nonverbal communicator is able to make their meanings. In order to examine both Bodhi’s and the communication partner’s contributions, I have used Exchange Structure Analysis (after Sinclair and Coulthard 1975; Martin 1992; Ventola 1987) from the discourse semantic system of Negotiation (Martin 1992). Exchange Structure Analysis (ESA)


allows a look at spoken language in terms of how speakers’ utterances cluster into bundles of moves called exchanges. Each exchange sees the transaction of either goods-&-services or information, and thus moves are based on the Mood of the clauses within each person’s turn, that is whether clauses have a Subject and Finite (akin to the auxiliary verb) element, and if so, in what order; Declarative clauses that realize statements have the order of Subject followed by Finite; Interrogative clauses that realize questions have the order of Finite followed by Subject (when a polar or yes/no ques-tion); Imperative clauses that realize commands have no Subject nor Finite. As Bodhi does not communicate in clauses, we cannot use the system of Mood to decide what is being exchanged. However, he does enact turns, and in combination with the communication partner’s responses, these turns can be seen to cluster into exchanges where ‘things’ are negotiated and exchanged. In order to describe the nature of what Bodhi negotiates in the exchanges he initiates, it has been necessary to draw on affiliation theory. Affiliation theory highlights what Malinowski (1948/2004) calls the phatic function of language, where communication is used to ‘enact communal bonds’ (Zappavigna forth-coming). Affiliation focuses on how people interact to create relationships with each other, to bond. While drawing on the work of many scholars in relation to affiliation such as Martin (2010), Knight (2010) and Zappavigna (2011), in this paper I use Knight’s (2010: 35) definition of affiliation as ‘the communal identification of participants into communities of bonds’. Both Knight (2010) and Zappavigna (2011) have shown that people frequently negotiate their alignment to form social bonds with each other, using a variety of strategies. As will be demonstrated below, this is also the case for Bodhi – he uses his multimodal means to form social bonds with those around him. With regard to the concept of bonding, I draw on the work of Martin and Stenglin (2007), Stenglin (2009), Martin (2010) and Knight (2010), where bonding is defined as the coupling of ideational and interpersonal meanings, which realize social bonds. Thus one way to view phatic communication is that people propose bonds for others to respond to, commune over or affiliate around. The con-cepts of affiliation and bonding are useful framing Bodhi’s communication system as I argue that one way to look at Bodhi’s initiation of interactions is that he is proposing bonds that people have to resolve for him. This presents a new angle for looking at the way people with communication disorders nego-tiate their social environment. Finally, a point needs to be made about the extant studies of language dis-order that use SFL as their theoretical framework (see for example Armstrong 1991, 1992, 1993, 2001, 2005; Ferguson 1992a, 1992b, 1994, 1998a, 1998b; Mortensen 1992, 2005; Togher 1998, 2000, 2001; Togher et al. 1997a, 1997b,


1999). While these studies are extensive in their application of SFL theory to language disorder, all the subjects of these studies speak. There are no studies other than Dreyfus (2007, 2008, 2011) that use SFL to study human nonverbal communication. There are, of course, studies that use SFL to study various aspects of the nonverbal multimodal communication of nonhuman primates (see for example Benson et al. 2002, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c), however these studies use the theory to show the sophistication of bonobo communica-tion and do not present a model of nonverbal communication the way I am attempting to.

4. Data and analysisThe data were collected and analysed by Bodhi’s mother, who is a systemic functional linguist. While being both mother and researcher may seem to present a conflict of interest, it is not new to be a parent researcher, Piaget probably being one of the most well known in the broad field of education. Additionally, within the field of SFL theory there are a number of studies of children’s language undertaken by parents (see Halliday 1975; Painter 1984; Derewianka 1995; Simpson 1997; Torr 1997). In acknowledging both roles, I make my position clear: as a mother, my concern and motivation is to help improve Bodhi’s communication. As a researcher, my concern is to collect authentic data, analyse it systematically using the tools of SFL theory, and interpret and discuss the findings. Of course the two roles were not always inseparable, especially when the data were being collected in our home and I was in the role as observer. Since I am part of Bodhi’s life, and as I was aiming to capture naturally occurring interactions, sometimes I was involved in them, even if I was not the main communication partner. If I had refused to inter-act with Bodhi and the other communication partners, it would have made the interactions difficult, particularly as Bodhi is not cognizant of my role as researcher. Further, as the abovementioned SFL studies of language develop-ment have shown, it is possible to be both parent and observer/researcher, and in fact, this position provides unique opportunities for both data collection and insights into the communication. Data was collected via video, audio and observation on and off across a period spanning 10 years, from 2002–2012, from when Bodhi was seven years old. The data is divided into two time frames: the first being the data collected for my PhD study (from 2002–2006: see Dreyfus 2007). The second time frame is random data sampling post-PhD, which was collected during the course of life with Bodhi. The bulk of the data was observation, consisting of hundreds of interactions. The observation data were ongoing over the years, given they were collected by Bodhi’s mother. These were supplemented by ten 45-minute


video tapes, and three 90-minute audio tapes, in order to visually and aurally capture the multimodal nature of Bodhi’s communication. The data were collected of Bodhi communicating with a variety of people including family members, carers, friends and teachers, and in a variety of settings including in the home, the local community and at school. Selected data were divided into activity sequences and within those sequences, the data were divided into turns and exchanges. One hundred exchanges that are initiated by Bodhi were analysed. Exchanges initiated by Bodhi paint a picture of the kind of semiotic world he tries to create for himself. Before describing these exchanges, and the functions they realize, first I briefly describe the many modes of expression Bodhi uses to make meaning.

4.1 Bodhi’s modes of expressionAs described in Dreyfus (2011), Bodhi is a multimodal communicator using a variety of modes of expression to create his meanings.2 These include vocaliza-tions, gestures, artefacts, actions, behaviour and eye gaze and while they are used in combination, they will be introduced separately in turn. Vocalizations include sounds that approximate words, such as [mΛm] for mother, [dæd] for father, and sounds that do not approximate words, such as the sound [i], which Bodhi uses in conjunction with other modes of communication when he is initiating an interaction. Word approxima-tions such as [mΛm] and [dæd] are used for a variety of functions includ-ing asking where Mum or Dad are, telling that Mum or Dad are ‘here’ (wherever Bodhi is). Example 1 shows Bodhi using the sound [i] (in con-junction with other modes of expression) when asking his grandmother for a drink.

Example 1: Using non-word approximations (from activity sequence of ‘getting a drink’ in audio tape of ‘breakfast with grandma’)

Bodhi: [i i i i] (tapping his cup and looking at his grandmother)Grandmother: Do you want a drink?Bodhi: (giggles)Grandmother: Well, come on then

Bodhi uses a range of gestures including pointing (both distal and contact), to indicate experiential meaning or ‘what’ he is communicating about. He also has a small number of gestural signs, which include Makaton signs or varia-tions on Makaton signs as well as common signs. These are ‘toilet’, ‘yes’ (tapping chest), shaking head for ‘no’ and waving goodbye. The waving goodbye is used both in farewell and to tell people to go away, to ‘wave them off ’ so to speak. Bodhi also communicates by pointing to actual objects, or to picture symbols from the computer program Boardmaker™ that have been grouped


into different clusters, such as transportation, favourite activities, food and drink, and commonly visited places. He carries these pictures on a key ring that hangs from his belt. He also uses photos to communicate about people, and to initiate naming games about people he knows and likes. Bodhi also uses a variety of actions, such as leading someone somewhere if he wants them to come with him. Finally, Bodhi intermittently employs challenging behav-iour to communicate. Examples of this include head-butting or kicking a door when he wants to go out.

4.2 Functional exchanges initiated by BodhiThe following sections in the paper explore how the modes of expression described above cluster into functional exchanges. One of the ways to deter-mine the functionality of Bodhi’s communication is through an examination of what happens when communication partners misunderstand him. As shown in Dreyfus (2008), misunderstandings help guide both the commu-nication partner and the analyst to understand Bodhi’s communication. This is due to the fact that when Bodhi initiates an interaction that is misunder-stood, meaning the communication partner does not respond in the ‘right’ way, Bodhi replays his move with increased force until they get it right. This is exemplified in detail further on in the paper. As a result of close examination of the exchanges Bodhi initiates in particu-lar activity sequences, I argue that, in conjunction with the co-construction of his communication partners, Bodhi creates two general realms of meaning: locating and affiliating, and these are social in orientation and foreground Bodhi’s drive to connect with people. These exchanges are further subdivided as can be seen from Figure 1.

Figure 1: Bodhi’s self-‐initiated semiotic system

Figure 1: Bodhi’s system of self-initiated exchanges.

Figure 1 shows the systemic functional linguistic notation for systems of choice for making meaning. The left-most point names the system of choices being entered. The arrow pointing to the right enters the system. Each of the


choices within the system is shown at the end of the horizontal lines. These are explained below, beginning with locating.

4.3 LocatingLocating refers to the semiotic activity where Bodhi works out who is and isn’t present in the environment, as possible people to bond with. As can be seen in Figure 1, there are two types of locating: aligning and dis-aligning.

4.4 AligningAligning is where Bodhi tries to find out who is available to bond with. Align-ing exchanges are resolved by the communication partner telling Bodhi who is present in the immediate environment, or who will be present in the environ-ment in the future. Bodhi initiates these kinds of interactions regularly when entering a new environment or leaving one, or when others come and go from an environment he is in. A typical example of aligning is in example 2, where Bodhi comes to his family home with a carer and asks where the rest of the members of his family are:3

Example 2: Aligning (in activity sequence of ‘coming home’ – from observation data)

(Mother opens the front door and Bodhi and carer come in)Mother: Hi BodhiBodhi: [dæd dæd]Mother: Dad’s at workBodhi: [Λ Λ]Mother: Are you asking about Kai?Bodhi: [Λ Λ]Mother: Are you asking about Davi?Bodhi: (taps his chest = ‘yes’)Mother: Davi’s at Layla’s houseBodhi: [Λ]Mother: Are you asking about Kai?Bodhi: (taps his chest = ‘yes’)Mother: Kai’s in the lounge room

This example shows Bodhi’s mother responding to Bodhi’s naming of each member of the family with information that articulates who is in his align-ment community when his environment changes. As he has word approxima-tions for his family members, he can easily use these to ask about the family’s whereabouts. But this is more difficult for other people that he does not have clear word approximations for. While Bodhi sometimes uses vocalic sounds that approximate the vowel sounds in certain people’s names, these are not easily differentiated. Photos are also used to identify people, and are in fact an


important part of Bodhi’s communication resources. This is well understood in the school Bodhi attends, where there are many non-verbal students. For example, in Bodhi’s class, there are pictures of all the teachers and students, and if someone is away or leaves the classroom, Bodhi immediately finds the picture of that person and asks another adult where they are. In Figure 2 Bodhi’s alignment network is fleshed out with the people he attempts to align with:

Figure 2: Bodhi’s system of alignment.

Figure 2 shows the system at stake, alignment, to the left. Bodhi has shown that he wants to commune with either his father, mother, brothers, carers or various other people such as friends and extended family, and even his dog. The diagonal arrows pointing down from each of these choices mean that each choice is realized by a particular mode of expression, and at the bottom of the diagonal arrow the expression of that choice is presented.

4.5 DisaligningBodhi also attempts to delimit who is in his alignment community by ‘waving off ’ people he does not want to be there. For example, the idiosyncratic sign of waving as described above has the function of telling people that he no longer wants them in his alignment community. Bodhi frequently dis-aligns in situa-tions where he wants or expects certain people but not others. For example, if a carer has brought Bodhi home and Bodhi wants them to leave so his parents will take care of him rather than the carer, he dis-aligns by waving them off. This can be seen in Example 3 below:


Example 3: Dis-aligning (in activity sequence of ‘settling in at home’ – from video data)

Bodhi: (‘waves off ’ carer)Mother: No, Elizabeth is not going yet Bodhi.

After Bodhi establishes who is in his community at any given point in time through aligning and dis-aligning, he then focuses on what he will be doing with someone in his alignment community. This is called negotiating.

4.6 NegotiatingNegotiating describes interactions initiated by Bodhi, where he proposes something be done for him. These interactions are resolved by the communi-cation partner doing what it is that Bodhi wants. There are numerous general activities Bodhi negotiates and numerous specific activities. For example, he may ask for dinner by pointing to a ‘dinner’ picture, however following this, he also negotiates specifically what he will be eating for dinner, which bowl or plate he will use, where he will eat his dinner and who shall accompany him. This can be seen in example 4.

Example 4: Negotiating (in activity sequence of ‘getting dinner’ at home from video data)

Turn 1 Bodhi: [ɜ ɜ ɜ ɜ] (contact pointing his bowl and looking at mother who is holding the bowl)

Turn 2 Mother: Would you like dinner in your bowl? Turn 3 Bodhi: [ɜ] (contact pointing his bowl and smiling)Turn 4 Mother: In your brown bowlTurn 5 Bodhi: [ɜ] (taps his chest 3 times = yes)Turn 6 Bodhi: [ɜ] (walks over to the stove and contact points the pot)Turn 7 Mother: Are you going to have your beans in your brown bowl? Turn 8 Bodhi: (taps his chest twice and smiles)Turn 9–12 …Turn 13 Bodhi: [ɜ ɜ] (distal points towards refrigerator)

No responseTurn 14 Bodhi: [ɜ ɜ] (distal points towards refrigerator again) Turn 15 Father: That’s the fridge… Oh are you talking about yoghurt Bodhi?Turn 16 Bodhi: [ɜ] (taps his chest = yes)Turn 17 Father: Yes. You go and look for the yoghurt.Turn 18 Bodhi: (walks to the fridge and gets the yoghurt)Turns 19–35 …


Turn 36 Bodhi: [i i] (contact points mother’s chest) Turn 37 Mother: You want me?Turn 38 Bodhi: [i i] (lifts the spoon and drops it on the edge of the bowl)Turn 39 Mother: You want me to mix it in?Turn 40 Bodhi: (chest tap - = yes)Turn 41 Mother: All right. Let’s mix it in.

Example 4 shows the negotiating sequences that Bodhi initiates with com-munication partners to sort out exactly what needs to get done. As can also be seen from example 4, Bodhi uses a range of modes of expression to initiate negotiating sequences, including vocalizations (non-word approximations), gestures, such as contact pointing, and artefacts, such as the bowl.

4.7 CommuningThe third kind of interaction initiated by Bodhi is communing, which describes interactions where Bodhi enlists the communication partner to share in his joy by proposing a bond of communing over a cherished experience. The communication partner has to resolve the proposed bond by sharing verbally with Bodhi what he identifies as important. These interactions typically follow negotiating, as once Bodhi has negotiated what is happening, he then wants to share his pleasure about it. This sequence can be seen in example 5, where Bodhi first negotiates getting a drink with his grandmother, then communes with his mother about the fact that his grandmother is getting him a drink.

Example 5: Communing following negotiating (in activity sequence of ‘getting a drink’ – from audio data)

Negotiating

Bodhi: [i i i i] (pointing to cup)Grandmother: Do you want a drink?Bodhi: (giggles)Grandmother: Well come on then

CommuningBodhi: [ɜ hΛ ɜ hi i i i] Mother: Is Grandma getting you a drink?

As can be seen in example 5, the mood form of the response to the commun-ing bond proposed by Bodhi is not important as the communication partner responds with an interrogative, when they could have easily responded with a declarative. Example 6, on the other hand, shows the communication partner respond-ing with a declarative in the communing exchange, which similarly to example 5, follows some negotiation.


Example 6: Communing (in activity sequence of ‘getting dinner’ - from video data)

Negotiating

Bodhi: [ɜ ɜ] (distal points towards fridge) Father: That’s the fridge. Oh are you talking about yoghurt

Bodhi?Bodhi: (chest tap twice = yes) [ɜ]Father: Yes. You go and look for the yoghurtBodhi: (Goes to fridge and gets the yoghurt and brings it

to the bench where mother is preparing the food)

CommuningBodhi: (points to yoghurt) [ɜ ɜ]Mother: You’re having yoghurtBodhi: (giggles)

Communing exchanges are initiated frequently by Bodhi, as it seems that he loves to share his joy about the situations and activities in his life. He com-munes after both negotiating and aligning exchanges. Communing after an aligning exchange can be seen in example 7 where Bodhi communes with his mother about the fact that a close friend has come to visit.

Example 7: Communing after aligning (from observation data)

AligningBodhi: [i i] (contact points friend’s chest)Rhett: Hi Bodhi. Yes, it’s me, Rhett. I’m here

CommuningBodhi: [i i] (distal pointing to Rhett, eye gaze to mother)Mother: Rhett’s here!

Communing is a most important part of Bodhi’s communication system. In fact, it is so important that he sometimes communes when he does not have anything specific to commune about. For example, Bodhi has an idiosyncratic sign for telling the communication partner that he has a sore on his finger, even though he doesn’t have a sore. When he initiates an exchange with this sign, the communication partner is meant to commiserate with him about his fictitious sore. This occurs in example 8 below, where in the midst of negotiat-ing and communing about dinner with his mother, he initiates the following interaction.

Example 8: Communing over a fictitious sore finger (from video data)

Bodhi: [ɜ ɜ ɜ] (contact pointing his own curled up hand)Mother: Oh, Have you got a sore? Have you got a sore Bodhi?Bodhi: (taps his chest = yes, claps and smiles)


While communing exchanges are frequently initiated by Bodhi, they are the least understood by carers. This is partly because Bodhi uses similar modes of expression to initiate different kinds of exchanges. However, communing exchanges can be identified in two ways. The first way is their place in the sequence of unfolding exchanges. That is to say, in order to commune, Bodhi typically needs to have something to commune about, thus communing exchanges often follow negotiating or aligning exchanges, as shown in examples 6 and 7. However, these different types of exchanges can come in quick succession, which can also contribute to con-fusion. Those who know Bodhi well, such as his parents, know that he likes to commune and often conflate the response to a negotiating exchange with the response to a communing exchange, or initiate a communing exchange because they know that is what Bodhi likes. This can be seen in Example 9 (which is from Example 4, with the communing exchanges re-inserted), showing this sequencing of communing exchanges with other types of exchanges.

Example 9: Sequences of negotiating and communing exchanges (in activity sequence of ‘getting dinner’ – from video data)

Exchange type Move Person Conversation

Negotiating

Initiating negotiating

Bodhi: [ɜ ɜ ɜ ɜ] (contact pointing his bowl and looking at mother who is holding the bowl)

Response to negotiating

Mother: Would you like dinner?

Replaying Initiation

Bodhi: [ɜ] (contact pointing his bowl and smiling)

Response Mother: In your brown bowl

Confirming Bodhi: [ɜ] (taps his chest 3 times = yes)

Negotiating


Bodhi: [ɜ] (walks over to the stove and contact points the pot)

Response to negotiating

Mother: Are you going to have your beans?

Confirming Bodhi: (taps his chest twice and smiles)

CommuningCommuning Mother: in your brown bowl

Confirming Bodhi: (taps his chest twice and smiles)


Negotiating


Bodhi: [ɜ ɜ] (distal points towards refrigerator)

Replay Bodhi: [ɜ ɜ] (distal points towards refrigerator again)

Clarification request

Father: That’s the fridge. Oh, are you talking about yoghurt Bodhi?

Clarification Bodhi: [ɜ] (taps his chest = yes)

Response Father: Yes. You go and look for the yoghurt.

Confirming Bodhi: (walks to the fridge and gets the yoghurt)

Communing

Initiating communing

Bodhi: (contact points his bowl and then the yoghurt container)

Response to communing

Mother: Are going to have some yoghurt in your dinner?

Confirming Bodhi: (taps chest = yes)

Communing

Initiating communing

Bodhi: [i i] (contact points the yoghurt container)


Mother: You’re having yoghurt!

Confirming Bodhi: (claps hands and laughs)

Replay Mother: You’re having yoghurt!

Confirming Bodhi: (claps hands and smiles)

4.8 Distinguishing types of exchangesAs can be seen in Example 9, there is not much difference between Bodhi’s initiations of communing moves and his initiations of negotiating moves. For both, he uses vocalizations that are non-word approximations, and contact or distal pointing. It is up to the communication partner to distinguish between them and each requires a different response. Negotiating exchanges require the communication partner to do something – that is supply goods or ser-vices, whereas communing exchanges require the communication partner to articulate verbally whatever Bodhi is indicating he wants to commune about. Bodhi is very clear about this and does not accept the ‘wrong’ response. When the response is wrong, Bodhi replays his initiating move, often with increased force (through loudness, intensity or increased emotion). When the response is right, Bodhi confirms this by either moving onto the next activity, being silent or showing he is happy. Example 10 shows Bodhi trying to commune but the communication partner, his teacher, thinks he is trying to negotiate. Specifically, Bodhi is trying to get her to commune about the fact that he can


see someone using the toilet next to the school playground, but the communi-cation partner thinks he is asking to go and flush the toilet, which had been a particular obsession of his at the time.

Example 10: Misunderstanding of communing exchange (in activity sequence of ‘walking around the playground’ – from observation data)


Communing

Initiating communing Bodhi: [i i] (stops walking, signs toilet)

Responding to negotiating

Teacher: Alright then. Off you go. Go to the toilet.

Replay initiation of communing

Bodhi: [i i] (stamps foot, signs toilet)

Replay response to negotiating

Teacher: Well go on. Go to the toilet

Replay initiation of communing

Bodhi: [i i] (starting to get upset)

Response to communing Teacher: (stops and then looks over to the toilet) Oh Bodhi, you’re telling me you can see there’s someone in the toilet!

Confirming Bodhi: (smiles and resumes walking)

Example 10 shows Bodhi continuing to replay his initiating move with increased intensity until the communication partner communes with him, at which point he resumes his walk with her around the playground. Example 11, conversely, shows Bodhi initiating a negotiating exchange but the communication partner thinks he is communing. This example is when Bodhi is going somewhere in the car with his mother when they pass the street where some friends live. Example 11 shows Bodhi’s mother expecting Bodhi to commune, as this is their routine in this activity sequence of driving through the local area, passing familiar landmarks and streets, however Bodhi surprises her by ini-tiating a negotiating exchange, which she then responds to with a proposed action.


Example 11: Misunderstanding of a negotiating exchange (in activity sequence of ‘driving around the local area’ – from observation data)


Negotiating

Initiating negotiating exchange

Bodhi: [i i] (distal points to Rhett & Ruth’s street)


That’s where Rhett & Ruth live

Replay initiation of negotiating

Bodhi: [i i] (arm points to same street)

Clarification request Mother: Do you want to go and visit them?

Clarification Bodhi: (chest tap = yes)Response to negotiating Mother: Ok. Let’s go and see if they’re

home

Thus the communication partner needs to consider a number of things when working out which kinds of exchanges Bodhi is initiating. These include where in the activity sequence the exchange occurs and the kind of response Bodhi gives them. It is not unusual to consider responses as a way of retro-spectively determining the function of moves in an exchange, indeed both linguists studying the discourse of ‘normal’ speakers and speech pathologists studying the communication of those with language disorder use this strat-egy (see for example Ventola’s (1987) study of service encounters, and Harris’s (1982) study of the communication practices of three non-speaking physically handicapped children). The network of exchanges Bodhi initiates with the realizations is as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Bodhi’s self-initiated semiotic system.


Figure 3 shows the two realms of meaning that Bodhi identifies as impor-tant to him: locating who and where people are, and affiliating, that is, joining together with people to negotiate doing things or to commune. It also shows the division of locating exchanges into aligning and dis-aligning. Aligning exchanges are realized by Bodhi identifying who he wants to align with, and the communication partner responding with information about that person. Dis-aligning exchanges involve Bodhi ‘waving off ’ the person he wants to dis-align with, at which point the communication partner discusses with Bodhi whether the person being waved off is going or staying. Affiliating exchanges divide into negotiating and communing exchanges. Negotiating exchanges are realized by Bodhi identifying what he wants to negotiate, using various modes of expression such as pointing, and the communication partner resolving these by supplying the goods or services Bodhi wants. Like negotiating exchanges, communing exchanges are real-ized by Bodhi identifying what he wants to commune about through various modes of expression, but these exchanges are resolved by the communica-tion partner sharing Bodhi’s joy by verbally articulating what it is he is com-muning about.

5. ConclusionThis paper has presented a framework for describing the meaning making system identified from interactions initiated by Bodhi, an intellectually disabled young man who has complex communication needs. This frame-work provides a new way to think about the communication of people with complex communication needs like Bodhi, focusing on the functions of the exchanges initiated by him. The paper described the functions according to how they work to enact two kinds of meaning: locating and affiliating. In particular, the framework describes the distinction between exchanges that function to negotiate good and services and exchanges that function to negotiate social bonds. The study provides evidence that negotiating social bonds is equally important for someone who does not use speech to com-municate. The significance of this kind of depiction is that it can be used to both teach communication partners to better understand Bodhi, and others like him, with the aim of producing better communication partners for intellectually disabled people with complex communication needs. This framework is offered as one way of understanding and responding to the communication needs of people with intellectual disabilities and commu-nication disorders, which may contribute to the provision of person centred care.


Notes1. There has been discussion amongst linguists (see for example Matthiessen 2007, Martin

2011), about whether protolanguage consists of two strata, as Halliday (1975) first articu-lated, or one. This paper follows Martin’s (2011) definition of protolanguage consisting of one stratum, where meanings are expressed by soundings within the one stratum.

2. Actually, we are all multimodal communicators, as gesture theorists such as Kendon (2004) have shown. Cleirigh (in preparation) calls this kinological communication, while Thibault (2004) argues we have a signifying body.

3. While Bodhi’s communication moves are highly undifferentiated, he knows what he is trying to communicate. This means if the communication partner does not supply the ‘right’ response to his move, he will replay it till they get it right. If the communication partner gets it right, Bodhi moves on to the next thing. As Bodhi moves onto uttering his sound for the next person in Example 2, this can be construed as Bodhi asking where the various mem-bers of his family are. But it is also important to note that the communication partner plays a pivotal role in co-constructing these meanings with him.

Statement of interestThis research began with my PhD, which I undertook from 2002–2006. It was funded by a University of Wollongong scholarship. I have continued this research since completing my PhD when I was employed as a postdoctoral fellow and lecturer at the University of Sydney from 2009–2011. The author reports no conflicts of interest.

About the authorShoshana Dreyfus is a freelance researcher and teacher in the area of applied linguistics, systemic functional linguistics, discourse analysis, academic lit-eracy and language education. Specifically her research interests involve lan-guage disorder, English for academic purposes and discourse analysis.

ReferencesArmstrong, E. (1991). The potential of cohesion analysis in the analysis and treatment

of aphasic discourse. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 5 (1): 39–51. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3109/02699209108985501

Armstrong, E. (1992). Clause complex relations in aphasic discourse: A longitudinal case study. Journal of Neurolinguistics 7 (4): 261–275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0911- 6044(92)90018-R

Armstrong, E. (1993). Aphasia rehabilitation: A sociolinguistic perspective. In M. M. Forbes (ed.) Aphasia Treatment: World Perspectives, 263–290. San Diego, CA: Singular.

Armstrong, E. (2001). Connecting lexical patterns of verb usage with discourse mean-ings in aphasia. Aphasiology 15 (10/11): 1029–1045. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0268704 0143000375


Armstrong, E. (2005). Language disorder: A functional linguistic perspective. Clinical Lin-guistics and Phonetics 19 (3): 137–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699200410001698599

Bedrosian, J. L. (1997). Language acquisition in young AAC system users: Issues and directions for future research. AAC Augmentative and Alternative Communication 13: 179–185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07434619712331277998

Benson, J. D., Debashish, M., Greaves, W. S., Lukas, J., Savage-Rumbaugh, S. and Tagli-alatela, J. (2005c). The multistratal dimension: A methodology for phonemic analysis of vocalizations of language competent bonobos. In J. D. Benson and W. S. Greaves (eds) Functional Dimensions of Ape-human Discourse. London and Oakville: Equinox.

Benson, J. D., Fries, P., Greaves, W. S., Iwamoto, K., Savage-Rumbaugh, S. and Taglialatela, J. (2002). Confrontation and support in bonobo-human discourse. Functions of Language 9 (1): 1–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/fol.9.1.02ben

Benson, J. D., Greaves, W. S., O’Donnell, M. and Taglialatela, J. (2005a). The ideational dimension: Evidence for symbolic language processing in a bonobo (Pan paniscus). In J. D. Benson and W. S. Greaves (eds) Functional Dimensions of Ape-human Discourse. London and Oakville: Equinox.

Benson, J. D., Greaves, W. S., Savage-Rumbaugh, S. Taglialatela, J. and Thibault, P. (2005b). The evolutionary dimension: the thin end of the wedge – grammar and discourse in the evolution of language. In J. D. Benson and W. S. Greaves (eds) Functional Dimensions of Ape-human Discourse. London and Oakville: Equinox.

Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociol-ogy of Education 20 (2): 157–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01425699995380

Cleirigh, C. (in preparation). The life of meaning. Draft manuscript.

Department of Ageing Disability and Homecare DADHC (2009). Exploring and Imple-menting Person Centred Approaches. Sydney, NSW: Australian Catholic University.

Derewianka, B. (1995). Language development in the transition from childhood to adoles-cence: The role of grammatical metaphor. Department of English and Linguistics. Mac-quarie University, Sydney. PhD.

Dreyfus, S. (2011). Grappling with a non-speech language: Describing and theorising the nonverbal multimodal communication of a child with an intellectual disability. In S. Dreyfus, S. Hood and M. Stenglin (eds) Semiotic Margins: Meaning in Multimodalities, 31–52. London: Continuum.

Dreyfus, S. (2008). A systemic functional approach to misunderstandings. Bridging Dis-courses’ Online Proceedings of the Australian Systemic Functional Linguistics Associa-tion conference, July 2007, University of Wollongong.

Dreyfus, S. (2007). When there is no speech: a case study of the nonverbal multimodal com-munication of a child with an intellectual disability. Unpublished PhD. University of Wollongong.

Durand, V. M. and D. Berotti (1991). Treating behavior problems with communication. ASHA, 33: 37–39.


Ferguson, A. (1992a). Interpersonal aspects of aphasic communication. Journal of Neuro-linguistics 7 (4): 277–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0911-6044(92)90019-S

Ferguson, A. (1992b). Conversational repair of word-finding difficulty. In M. L. Lemme (ed.) Clinical Aphasiology, 299–310. Austin TX: Pro-Ed.

Ferguson, A. (1994). The influence of aphasia, familiarity and activity on conversational repair. Aphasiology 8 (2): 143–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02687039408248647

Ferguson, A. (1998a). Analysis of learning interactions. Speech Pathology Australia National Conference, Fremantle.

Ferguson, A. (1998b). Analysis of interactions in aphasia assessment and treatment ses-sions. Aphasiology Symposium of Australia.

Gerber, S. and A. Kraat (1992). Use of a developmental model of language acquisition: Applications to children using AAC systems. AAC Augmentative and Alternative Com-munication 8: 19–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07434619212331276013

Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning How to Mean. London: Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education 5: 93–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0898-5898(93)90026-7

Harris, D. (1982). Communicative interaction processes involving nonvocal physically handicapped children. Topics in Language Disorders 2 (2): 21–37. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1097/00011363-198203000-00005

Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge and New York: Cam-bridge University Press.

Macken-Horarik, M. (1996). Construing the invisible: Specialized literacy practices in junior secondary English. Department of Semiotics. Sydney, University of Sydney. PhD.

Malinowski, B. (2004). Magic, Science and Religion and Other Essays. Lavergne, TN: Kes-singer. Original edition, 1948.

Martin, J. R. (1992). English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Martin, J. R. (2010). Introduction: Semantic variation'. In M. Bednarek and J. R. Martin (eds), New Discourse on Language: Functional Perspectives on Multimodality, Identity, and Affiliation, 1–34. London and New York: Continuum.

Martin, J. R. (2011). Metalinguistic divergence: Centrifugal dimensionality in SFL. Beijing Annual Review of Functional Linguistics 3: 8–32.

Martin, J. R. and Stenglin, M. (2007). Materialising reconciliation: negotiating difference in a post-colonial exhibition. In T. Royce and W. Bowcher (eds) New Directions in the Analysis of Multimodal Discourse, 215–238. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2007). The 'architecture' of language according to systemic func-tional theory: Developments since the 1970s. In R. Hasan, C. M. I. M. Matthiessen and J. Webster (eds) Continuing Discourse on Language, 2, 505–56. London: Equinox.

Mirenda, P. (1997). Supporting individuals with challenging behavior through functional


communication training and AAC: Research review. AAC Augmentative and Alternative Communication 13: 207–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07434619712331278048

Mortensen, L. (1992). A Transitivity analysis of discourse in dementia of the Alzheim-er's type. Journal of Neurolinguistics 7 (4): 309–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0911- 6044(92)90021-N

Mortensen, L. (2005). Written discourse and acquired brain impairment: Evaluation of structural and semantic features of personal letters from a Systemic Functional perspec-tive. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 19 (3): 227–247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699200410001698652

Painter, C. (2004). The ‘interpersonal first’ principle in child language development. In G. Williams and A. Lukin (eds) Language Development: Functional Perspectives on Evolu-tion and Ontogenesis, 133–153. London and New York: Continuum.

Painter, C. (2003). Developing attitude: an onotogenetic perspective on APPRAISAL. Text 23 (2): 183–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.008

Painter, C. (1984). Into the Mother Tongue: A Case Study in Early Language Development. London: Frances Pinter.

Simpson, A. M. (1997). ‘It's my turn’: Critical discourse analysis and the emergence of gen-dered subjectivity through children's games. Humanities and Social Sciences. University of Western Sydney, Sydney. PhD.

Sinclair, J. M. and Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stenglin, M. (2009). Space Odyssey: Towards a social semiotic model of 3D space. Visual Communication, 8 (1): 35–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1470357208099147

Stern, D., Hofer, L., Haft, W. and Dore, J. (1985). Affect attunement: The sharing of feeling states between mother and infant by means of inter-modal fluency. In T. M. Field and N. A. Fox (eds) Social Perception in Infants, 249–268. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Thibault, P. (2004). Brain, Mind, and the Signifying Body: An Ecosocial Semiotic Theory. London, Continuum.

Torr, J. (1997). From Child Tongue to Mother Tongue: A Case Study of Language Develop-ment in the First Two and a Half Years. Nottingham: University of Nottingham.

Trevarthen, C. (1992). An infant's motives for speaking and thinking in the culture. In A. H. Wood (ed.) The Dialogic Alternative: Towards a Theory of Language and Mind, 99–137. Oslo: Scandanavian University Press.

Togher, L. (1998). Interpersonal communication skills in the traumatic brain injury popula-tion: An analysis across situations. School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Faculty of Health Sciences. University of Sydney, Sydney. PhD

Togher, L. (2000). Giving information: The importance of context on communicative opportunity for people with traumatic brain injury. Aphasiology 14 (4): 365–390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/026870300401414


Togher, L. (2001). Discourse sampling in the 21st century. Journal of Communication Disor-ders 34 (1-2): 131–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9924(00)00045-9

Togher, L., Hand, L. and Code, C. (1997a). Analyzing discourse in the traumatic brain injury population: Telephone interactions with different communication partners. Brain Injury 11 (3): 169–189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/026990597123629

Togher, L., Hand, L. and Code, C. (1997b). Measuring service encounters in the traumatic brain injury population. Aphasiology 11 (4/5): .491–504.

Togher, L., Hand, L. and Code, C. (1999a). Exchanges of information in the talk of people with traumatic brain injury. In S. McDonald, L. Togher and C. Code (eds) Communica-tion Disorders Following Traumatic Brain Injury, 113–146. Sussex: Psychology Press Ltd.

Torr, J. (1997). From Child Tongue to Mother Tongue: A Case Study of Language Develop-ment in the First Two and a Half Years. Nottingham: University of Nottingham.

Trevarthen, C. (1993). The functions of emotions in early infant communication and devel-opment. In J. Nadel and L. Camaioni (eds) New Perspectives in Early Communicative Development,48–81. London: Routledge.

Ventola, E. (1987). The Structure of Social Interaction: A Systemic Approach to the Semiotics of Service Encounters. London: Frances Pinter.

Zappavigna, M. (2011). Ambient affiliation: A linguistic perspective on Twitter. New Media & Society 13 (5): 788–806. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444810385097

Zappavigna, M. (forthcoming) Coffee tweets: Bonding around the bean on Twitter. In P. Seargeant and C. Tagg (eds.) The Language of Social Media: Communication and Com-munity on the Internet. London: Palgrave.

Documents

Locating and Affiliating: A framework for understanding the non-verbal multimodal communication of a young man with complex communication needs