Conclusiones del Capitulo

This chapter has focused on positive evaluations because these are the most common action accomplished in third turn position; the range of other actions produced in third-turn positions will form the focus of the next chapter. What the analysis in this chapter has shown is that the triadic structure of talk surrounding completion of tasks is a ubiquitous feature of task-based therapy. The SLT designs, introduces, monitors, supports and evaluates performance on tasks. Performance is rated as good when there is some orientation to the task parameters in the client’s performance, but an upgraded form of

‘successful’ performance of the task. The term good can be followed by a repetition of the client’s prior turn/utterance, in which case it either signals some kind of affirmation or alignment or, alternatively, indicates some reparative work might be needed, despite the initial positive evaluation (Couper-Kuhlen & Selting, 1996).

When we look at the language used by SLTs to provide feedback on performance, it is nearly all ‘good’; the word good is massively present in third-turn evaluation slots in IRE sequences related to completion of therapy tasks in SLT interactions. Indeed, words and phrases used in the third turn emphasise the positive, even when the performance may not be accurate or appropriate. There seems to be an overwhelming impetus to maintain a positive focus, no matter what occurs during the therapy tasks. Good becomes almost a default position. This term is positive and functions as an evaluation, though it lacks clear indexicality, which means that the client, and the analyst, must work out what the good is indexing.

Plain good is ambiguous. The analysis has provided some insight into what the term good

is potentially doing, but answers to why the SLT uses good at specific points in the interaction remain elusive. Good appears to be designed for some level of ambiguity; it carries a range of potential semantic and pragmatic meanings, pointing to the positive end of the ‘good-bad’ spectrum of evaluations, yet it leaves the individual scope for deciding

what is actually being indexed. The lack of clear indexicality is one feature that makes this term ambiguous; the other feature that suggests ambiguity is that the term marks both evaluation and activity closure. In addition, plain good occurs in environments where client performance is arguably ‘not good’, which means it is not always an evaluation of

performance as such, but potentially a mechanism for signalling approval of continued client engagement or client effort. Correct, or more accurate, responses to tasks generally get an upgraded response, which has much stronger indexicality – either pointing to the client (good boy) or to the task (well done). Whatever the nature of the positive evaluation used, positive evaluations in the third turn are examples of minimal expansions (Schegloff, 2007), turns that are designed to close down the activity completed in the triadic sequence. Tasks that involve working on components of speech and language require the SLT’s knowledge and expertise to define the parameters of performance, as these are likely to be outside the average client’s experience. But this reliance on the SLT potentially leads to a problem. If the client does not develop some kind of internal representation of what a

‘good’ performance involves, this will impact on the carry-over, into everyday life, of the skills, orientation, awareness developed through the task. The ultimate goal of therapy is to enable clients to use speech and language abilities for successful interaction in their

everyday life. The strong IRE nature of talk related to task completion allows little or no space for clients to develop an ability to judge their own performance. The institutionality of the talk, as seen through the repeated use of IRE sequences controlled by the SLT, seems to work against one of the important long-term goals of the interaction, namely independent ability to perform speech or language activities ‘well’.

SLTs maintain a positive stance towards their clients, even when client performance is not quite up to scratch. The way third-turn evaluations are produced sets up a stance that is monologic rather than dialogic; it is not something that is open for discussion. The location of these positive evaluations in the third turn of a sequence creates significant difficulties for client engagement with the evaluation, primarily because third turn evaluations

effectively close down the sequence and prepare the way for a new activity to be launched. In addition, most of the third-turn evaluations do not provide for a clear referent for

evaluative stance, making it almost impossible for the client to take up a corresponding stance. The maintenance of a positive stance towards the client and the client’s

performance on tasks, through the use of evaluative turns at the boundary of most

activities, effectively precludes any real engagement with the client about the meaning of the tasks, and about the relationship between client performance on task and real life communication demands.

Positive evaluations were more far more numerous than negative evaluations, however negative evaluations do occur in third-turn position. The following chapter will explore the ways in which SLTs use the third turn to negatively evaluate a client’s performance, either implicitly or overtly by initiating repair or correction sequences on something about the clients performance.