Every year some 14,000 people in Finland suffer disturbances in the circulation of blood in the brain (stroke). In one third of these an aphasic symptom is diagnosed. Aphasia refers to the loss of already acquired speech as a consequence of illness or damage to the brain. There are many types of aphasia and there is great variation in its severity. Aphasia may manifest itself as difficulty either in the production or reception of speech. At its most severe, known as global aphasia, comprehension and production of both speech and written language are seriously impaired. In this study within the discipline of social psychology, the phenomenon under examination is the participation in interviews of aphasic speakers and an analysis of the narratives related in those situations. The research data consist of conversations with four aphasic speakers. There are five separate interview situations; three of these include the participation of the spouse of the aphasic person. The interviews were conducted in the course of 1996 and 1997.

The data are analysed using two qualitative research methods. These are conversation analysis and narrative method, namely the analysis of the data from a narrative perspective.

In conversation analysis the object of scrutiny is what is known as the organisation of turn-taking. In the analysis the focus is on how couples narrate together about suffering a stroke. Narrating together and shared narration are defined as harmonious co-operation, which either supports or complements the discourse of one speaker. Narration may also be non-harmonious but still construct commonality and define an intimate human relationship. In this research, emphasising the joint nature of narrative is a critical reaction to arguments presented in earlier research in which the participation of the spouses is defined as speaking on behalf of the ailing spouse in a manner which limits his/her self-determination.

“Getting stuck” is the expression for episodes in the interaction when the fluent progress of the conversation is impeded due to the failure of the aphasic participant to find words. In episodes where participants get stuck, work is done, again together, so that the conversation, which stuck for lack of a word or expression, can be resumed. Repair organisation is a conversational practice by which an attempt is made to sustain and produce mutual understanding when for some reason it threatens to break down. Two types of sticking episodes were extracted from the data: “real sticking points” and “exam sticking points”. These differ with regard to structure and function as means by which the participants in the conversation construct shared reality. A real sticking point entails the search for a word, which is essential to the content of the narrative, whereas an exam sticking point gains meaning through the narrator’s demonstrated ability to narrate. The exam sticking point is interpreted to construct more clearly the social world of the competent member’s identity, especially to the aphasic participant.

The research employs narrative analysis to seek for content of stories it is assumed that the aphasia has not destroyed. Aphasia is apparent in the manner of narrating and this duly complicates the analysis, for which reason it was not possible to limit the analysis to verbally expressed content. Thus matters of form in the narratives were analysed as elements constructing the story. From the narratives both joint, shared core stories and personal identity stories were extrapolated. Core stories were of two kinds; a story on the course of the illness and a story of change. In these the thematics of the illness were emphasised, the time of the narrative remaining in the present. The future is left open or its existence is not acknowledged. However, in personal identity stories the future takes shape in keeping with the narrative line. The future is acknowledged and life goes on in the narrative lines constructing the self, which as speech acts “oppose” the social identity of a sick person. When the story of illness is told, an identity is told of the self in a manner, which transcends the time that stopped at illness.

The overall task of the research was to analyse the interaction between the aphasic speaker and others present in the interview situation and their conversational co-operation. The research results emphasise interactive features, which do not differ from the interaction ongoing between so-called normal speakers. The research did not seek out those aspects which aphasia impedes; rather it concentrated on those which support successful interaction and narration in spite of aphasia. The research argues that the aphasic participant can utilise those rules and practices which promote the progress of the conversation and others present in the situation in order to produce meanings and take a meaningful part in the conversation and to tell his/her own story. The research shows how intersubjectivity or experience of belonging to a common, shared social reality is sustained and produced in face-to-face interaction situations in spite of linguistic difficulties. The aphasic person has a story or stories to tell which the research also renders visible. Aphasia will surely always be a threat to the experience of belonging to the same social reality as other people. It does not, however, prevent intersubjectivity. The essential issue is whether the people who encounter the aphasic person have the will to listen and the patience or means to seek to understand the story or stories in spite of linguistic impediment.

Key words: intersubjective world, interaction, narrative, conversation analysis, aphasia

Endangered intersubjectivity – stories told by using AAC? Workshop on Narrative Research 27. - 28.10.2005. Linköping, Sweden.

Can we create a story for us? Narrating allergy. Narrative Matters 2004 20. - 23.5.2004. Fredericton, Canada. (with Varpu Löyttyniemi).

Aphasia and conversational story-telling. The Science of Aphasia - conference, 8. - 13.9.2000 Aghia Pelaghia, Kreeta. (with Minna Laakso).

Stroke Rehabilitation as a Process? 14. Pohjoismainen sosiaalilääketieteen kongressi 11.9.1997, Helsinki, Finland.