This chapter has provided an analysis of three different types of sequences that involve the management of problems or errors occurring in SLT therapy interactions. It has provided examples of the repair of intersubjectivity, examples of how SLTs use a range of strategies to facilitate the correction of errors of performance, and also how SLTs negatively evaluate errors of client understanding. It has shown that intersubjectivity is repaired in both social and task-related phases of therapy sessions. While repair is part of what SLTs initiate in the third turn, more significant for the completion of tasks is the way in which errors of
performance are managed. Errors produced by clients whilst they attempt to complete elements of tasks (errors of doing) are primarily managed in ways that preserve the client’s right to self-correct. The correction of performance errors are generally identified by the SLT, who initiates a correction sequence, such that the client can actually complete the correction in the next turn. Some error correction sequences involve limited disturbance of the momentum of the activity, while others involve multiple attempts to cue the client into the required correction.
Therapists use ‘specific’ correction initiation strategies (Radford, 2008), as opposed to broad generic correction initiators (e.g. What?). The use of specific strategies is a reflection of the fact that SLTs know the answer or response that is required of the client. These specific correction initiation strategies are a manifestation of the SLT’s role in supporting and guiding the client to achieve the desired task outcome. The initiation of correction sequences in ways that support the client to self-correct underscores the primacy of that aspect of the SLT’s role, which appears to be stronger than the aspect of the professional role related to evaluation.
As Simmons-Mackie & Damico (2008) has shown, exposed correction occurs more frequently in impairment-focused therapy and is far less frequent in therapy designed within a functional-social approach. Such correction sequences are an integral part of instructional activities aimed at achieving successful production of specific activities. The analysis in this chapter confirms that instructional activities do involve correction
sequences, but I would argue that the SLT’s efforts are directed more at facilitating the client’s ability to achieve successful outcomes than at simply providing the client with the correct answer/response. This is an important distinction, given that therapy activities are
designed to support progress, and as such will inevitably involve activities that might well be slightly beyond the client’s ability to achieve independently.
The challenge for both therapist and client is that any and all correction sequences carry with them some degree of implied negative evaluation. There would be no need for the SLT to cue a client as to how they could correct themselves if the client had actually responded accurately in the first place. The more correction initiation strategies the SLT produces with respect to a single error, the greater the risk that the client will interpret these ‘support’ strategies as forms of negative evaluation. Providing cues in such a way as to minimise the disruption of the task at hand requires the SLT’s ability to identify the underlying reason for the error and to design a correction initiation strategy that helps focus a client’s attention on the most effective way of producing the required response in the next turn. In turn, the selection of relevant correction initiation strategies also
presupposes that the client has some understanding of the task requirements.
Clark & Schaeffer (1989) suggest that one important aspect of interaction is the extent to which both parties have shared presuppositions about what is ‘common ground’
(1989:260) or what both parties are likely to know/know about. In a therapy session, as in everyday conversation, the clearest indication that clients share the same presuppositions as the SLT occurs when they build their next turn in a way that shows they understand the import of the SLT’s prior turn. In other words, each time clients use the correction
initiation strategies provided by the SLT to self-correct their original errors, they show they have understood the rationale behind the SLT’ use of such strategies. The analysis in this chapter has shown that there are times when clients do not seem to share the SLT’s presuppositions about the nature of the task. This can be seen in those situations where multiple correction initiation strategies are required before clients produce the correct answer/response. Sometimes, clients simply have no idea of what is required, despite the SLTs use of different CI strategies; hence SLTs need to ultimately provide the correct answer/response.
In the manner that SLTs use different correction initiation strategies, we can see something of the assumptions that they hold about the client’s ability to correct. When SLTs use repeat questions, there is an implicit assumption that clients require minimal prompting to identify the error and that they understand what the correct form should be. In describing aspects of performance that the client needs to attend to, the SLTs provide more
information for the client to base a subsequent correction on, without actually identifying the nature of the error. Thus, using descriptions as a correction initiation strategy carries the implication that the client has the ability to produce the correct response, with only minimal guidance from the SLT. Instructions, on the other, imply that the client is not able to independently produce the correct response, without the specific information about the aspect of the task that has resulted in the error occurring in the first place. There is some indication that clients with language impairments require more specific kinds of
information on which to base their correction of errors, than do client with speech impairments. The latter were more able to produce correct responses after a repeat question, which provides minimal support about the nature of the error, whereas clients with language impairments required descriptions and/or instructions to ultimately achieve a correct response.
The finding that SLTs invest considerable energy in trying to facilitate clients to self- correct is not simply a reflection of the general preference for self-management of errors identified by Schegloff et al (1977); it is part of the professional role of the SLT to
facilitate learning. The underlying impetus for supporting the client to self-correct errors is the development of neural pathways that will eventually enable the client to produce accurate responses to therapy tasks and, at some future point, to related activities in
everyday interaction. Progress towards whatever goals the client has identified will depend on the client actually learning to produce the required response to increasingly complex interactions. Therapy tasks are generally quite uni-dimensional and involve highly structured sequential patterns; there is usually only one right answer/response. Using strategies such as the description of features required for a correct response, or instructions regarding the required response, SLTs present the client with information about what is required of them. In our dataset, overt correction by the SLT only occurs when the client has provided ample evidence of the inability to produce the correct answer. As such, overt corrections are a ‘last resort’, a consequence of the over-arching triadic interaction that is the bedrock of structured therapy tasks. They do not necessarily help the client to produce new neural pathways; overt corrections simply bring a sequence initiated by the SLT to some kind of satisfactory close. In addition, there is a suggestion that there may be a difference in the way SLTs respond to errors of ‘knowing’ versus errors of ‘doing’. The two examples involving errors of ‘knowing’ found in the data involved overtly negative
evaluations, whereas errors of ‘doing’ are managed quite differently. This is something that could be explored in more detail with more data.
In the tightly constrained sequential environment that is central to task-related interactions, clients are offered the opportunity to learn primarily by doing, and only occasionally by
understanding their own performance and what is required to change this. It is a moot point as to whether such structured interactional environments will necessarily transfer to effective performance in everyday interactions. The next chapter will focus on one particular therapy interaction, where the client was actively encouraged to demonstrate both his understanding of what is required to produce intelligible speech and his ability to use this knowledge to evaluate his own performance on a range of tasks.