Reframing less conventional speech to disrupt conventions of "compulsory fluency"

Communication is the medium through which we connect in all facets of life and two major domains comprise communication: speech and language. Language is culturally cultivated as a structure and form for communication; speech is the physical articulation of the language. Our North American cultural context includes ideals of communication that Dolmage (2014) calls "proprietary" and entail speech that is fast-paced and focused on independence and productivity. Accordingly, priority is given to clear, concise use of language and corresponding patterns of communication are idealized and perpetuated through curricula designed for, and implemented in, institutions of education (Foucault, 1977). We are concerned with the ways in which standards for clear, concise speech and idealized communication leave people who have less conventional speech simultaneously pushed to conform, and inevitably failing to conform (Linton, 1998). An extensive speech language practice has unfolded which is aimed at "remediating" language communication abilities. We are troubled by the ways a remediation model of practice contributes to viewing and treating people who have less conventional speech – namely, people with developmental disabilities and acquired impairments – as inadequate.

In this paper, we bring attention to what we call "compulsory fluency," an idea we borrow from McRuer's (2006) compulsory ablebodiedness and Kafer's (2013) compulsory able-mindedness. As such, we define "compulsory fluency" as anchored in North American conceptions of personhood and entailing a standardized and idealized mode of articulation imposed upon people who have less conventional speech. Our purpose is to illuminate compliances with, and resistances to, "compulsory fluency" and contribute to understandings of communication expressions and enactments by people who have less conventional speech. We begin by tracing some North American principles for linguistic competence to outline widely -held ideals of receptive and expressive language use, namely, conventions for how language should be understood and expressed. We describe our Disability Studies and feminist anchored focus on less conventional forms of communication competence through which we challenge assumptions about what constitutes competent speech. We then present our conversation analysis approach to examining day-to-day verbal, vocal and non-verbal communications of a young woman who self identifies as "having autism" (pseudonym Addison) in interaction with her support-providing family members and friends. We illustrate a multitude of Addison's compliances with, and resistances to, compulsory fluency and we conclude by discussing competence inherent in less conventional speech. We argue our illumination as a call for listening with greater care and more open expectations in efforts to understand, and participate in, the expression of meanings embedded in less conventional speech.

Language: Theoretical Origins and Conceptual Limitations

Contemporary linguist Chomsky, considered "the most influential contributor to the cognitive concept of competence," solidified associations between language and competence through his claim that a person's competence for language stems from their individual biological predisposition (Barsky & Pullum, 1997). According to Chomsky, competence is inherently absolute rather than relative; in other words, competence is reflected in an individual's language which results through complex, creative processes unique to the individual. Thus, competence is abstract and does not rely on observable qualities and the ability to influence surroundings (Chomsky 1975:23). Taylor (1998) advances Chomsky's conceptualization of competence by claiming that variations between individuals' competencies are not unlike comparing one individual's eye colour as brown to another's as blue since, like eye colour, language competence is a "property of the individual." Taylor (1998) raised concern about ways in which linguists, such as Hymes (1971) have conflated the individual property of competence with the performance of competence as language "ability." Taylor (1998) noted that while Hymes described Chomsky's concept of linguistic competence as pertaining to a "knowledge that enables the speaker to produce and understand an infinite set of sentences," and characterized this "knowledge" as part of an individual's creative processing (Hymes 1971:5), Hymes also discussed Chomsky's concept of competence in terms of ability, suggesting that the individual must use language competence in such a way as to be understood by others. Taylor rejects Hymes on this latter point by arguing that ability to be understood is not part of Chomsky's conceptualization of competence. Yet goals of "ability" to be understood by others are pervasively embedded in the field of linguistics which has been focused on working with individuals to translate knowledge of language structure into the social knowledge of when to use structure appropriately. In this paper, we hold to Chomsky's conceptualization of competence as an abstract, subjective, and creative property intrinsic to an individual (instead of as an observable ability) to broaden understandings of "appropriate" use of language structures. We strive to tap in to the subjective, creative processes of how people with developmental disability diagnoses can produce speech and language both independently and in community with others. We focus on how small, idiosyncratic demonstrations of verbal, vocal and nonverbal expressions evidence language competence without conforming to idealized forms of language and communication "abilities." We anchor our examination in Critical Disability Studies, focusing on the "generative and creative quality" of the language of people with developmental disability diagnoses (Goodley, 2013), and we treat these qualities as "resources for life's wisdoms" (Chandler, 2012). As such, we take up St. Pierre's (2015) argument that others ought to:

…stretch their ears and linger upon unfamiliar sounds, in denying them ostensibly clear, distinct, and terminal signals, the disabled speaker alerts us both to the ubiquitous process of mutually carving out meaning from within noise and to the indeterminate becoming through communication.

Our work is a contribution to challenging the ways in which North American ideals can inhibit valuing language and manners of communication that might be viewed as non-conforming. By examining less conventional speech in relationship contexts, we remain mindful that at the heart of all communication is a community of speakers who share a togetherness. Accordingly, we incorporate the feminist concept of relational autonomy which is predicated on the view that actions result from an individual's volition in combination with the influence of one's relational connections (Mackenzie & Stoljar, 2000; Westlund, 2009). Christman defined relational autonomy as "what it means to be a free, self-governing agent who is also socially constituted and who possibly defines her basic value commitments in terms of interpersonal relations and mutual dependencies" (2009, p. 164-5). Relational autonomy was developed as a way of theorizing autonomy for women whose lives are shaped by dependence/interdependence; we argue relational autonomy as vital to understanding the experiences of people with developmental disabilities whose lives tend to be pervaded by interactions that occur as part of relationships of care and support.

Utility and Shortcomings in Conceptualizations and Developments of Language: Developments rooted in understanding less conventional speech as a lack of competence

Bodies of research about people's perceptions of less conventional language, biological gene development, and the field of speech and language have been built on assumptions that idealized forms of language, and corresponding fluency in these forms, are the goals of all speakers. Very little attention has been given to Chomsky's ideas of language competence as inherent to all individuals. Instead, emphasis is on less conventional speakers' ability to be articulate and understood as evidenced in the following review of empirical studies.

In a review article about the ways in which people respond to people with disabilities, Gouvier & Coon (2002) discussed how people's manner of speech (register) changed from a normal register to what the researchers termed a "motherese" register—that is, how one may speak to an infant with shortened phrases and a slower, higher pitch—when speaking with persons with disabilities. In their earlier work, Gouvier, Coon and colleagues conducted a study to determine perceptions of the motherese register using two subsamples of college students, 1- students who identified as having a head injury and, 2- students who did not identify as having a head injury (Gouvier, Barbin, Plum, & Coon 1997). Participants listened either to pre-recorded audio clips of a rehabilitation therapist talking to a patient in a rehabilitation setting in a normal register and then in a motherese register, or to the normal and motherese registers first hand, addressed to themselves. Participants then rated the appropriateness of the motherese register. Participants who did not have a head injury rated the motherese as appropriate for the patient spoken to in the audio clip yet as inappropriate when directly addressed to themselves. On the other hand, participants with a head injury rated the motherese register in stronger terms and as inappropriate when addressed either to a patient in an audio clip or to themselves directly. Gouvier and Coon (2002) contended that motherese register is demeaning in that it "conveys a lower status to the listener." Participants without head injuries rejected receiving this register yet were inclined to view it as an appropriate register for peers with head injuries being addressed on the audio clip.

Demeaning ideas about less conventional speakers are perpetuated in studies of language deficits including studies linking language deficits to biological factors. For example, researchers studied the FOXP2 and the WNT2 genes presumed to cause language disorder and delay (eg. Fisher & Scharff, 2009; Lin et al., 2012). According to Fisher and Scharff (2009), with the right environment, highly "proficient" language—that is, language expressed through fluent speech—is achieved without much conscious effort, however, impairments in mastering expressive articulation and receptive understanding of language arise with a mutation of the FOXP2 gene. Gene mutation studies such as those conducted by Fisher and Scharff, are aimed at understanding competence in terms of the role of a single gene and findings from such studies influence the speech and language field by casting people with developmental disabilities in terms of language competence deficiencies (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2005).

Deficiency framed approaches to remediation are taken up in varying technical and technological forms aimed at improving less conventional language and fluency in terms of ability to be understood by others. Howard (2007) conducted a study aimed at improving practices for remediating articulation and prosody (the conventional/expected rhythm of language). Multiple tools including rater's perceptions, an electropalatography technique, and acoustic analyses, were used to garner data about the articulation and prosody of six older children with "inarticulate impaired speech" (Howard). The tools used were diagnostic and precise. For example, the electropalatography technique used a computer attached to individual electrodes to monitor tongue movements and measure articulation. Howard suggested that intelligible speech (i.e. speech that is to be understood by others) is the end goal and thus it is important to study what 'real talk' by the children looks like. Howard claimed that strings of speech articulation and prosody are different than single utterances and argued that if children want to "talk and interact normally," interventions should target normal prosody and "real talk" so that what is learned can be generalized. Through his quest for articulate, "real talk" speech, Howard adheres to virtually all assumptions on which compulsory fluency is built.

Other tools under the umbrella of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC), rather than focusing on remediating existing speech, offer alternative avenues for people with less conventional speech to "speak". For example, a Norwegian firm developed Rolltalk, a complex computer system with varying functions that allow for those whose speech is less conventional to express themselves (Moser and Law, 2003). The purpose of such AAC tools is to facilitate communication and increase less conventional speakers' communicative "competence" in order that they may be better understood by their more articulate communication partners (Millar, Light, & Schlosser, 2006). Millar et al. (2006) conducted a systematic review of 23 studies published between 1975 and 2003 to determine the effect of AAC on speech production of 67 people with diagnosed speech impairments between the ages of two and sixty years. Their analysis was guided by parent and professional resistance to using AAC due to concern that reliance on AAC will override opportunities and development in physical speech. Millar et al. (2006) found that AAC does not have an adverse effect on speech production and that speech gains can occur with AAC even among adults past the critical age of speech development. Through this systematic review, Millar and colleagues underline adherence to assumptions of compulsory fluency through evidence that despite having an alternative avenue for communication through technology, speech production and the ability to speak fluently prevail as parents' and professionals' primary goal for less conventional speakers.

A number of researchers have looked for evidence of adherence to assumptions of compulsory fluency in forms of rehabilitation service providers' perceptions of people with disabilities. Balandin and Hines (2011) conducted a study of prospective service providers' perceptions of people with disabilities by having 14 speech language therapy students listen to guest lectures delivered by adults with life-long disabilities and communication impairments. One guest lecturer had an intellectual disability, one had a brain injury and two others had cerebral palsy and used speech generating devices. Guest lectures were in conjunction with a learning module about communication and lifelong disability and following their lectures, students participated in a focus group to discuss their perceptions. From their analysis of the focus group data, Balandin and Hines generated themes that included a) students having achieved a new understanding of perspectives of people with disabilities, b) seeing past a label, c) changed attitudes towards recognizing the many abilities of people with disabilities, d) ways in which students' use of language can be negative and "disabling", and e) a sense of having confronted their own misinformed attitudes (Balandin & Hines, 2011). These findings show that while students enter speech therapy with a focus on the ability deficiencies of the people with whom they are going to work, student ideas about what constitutes deficiencies can change upon hearing and seeing demonstrations of competence from people with disabilities in forms other than speech fluency.

Through this review of literature, we note researcher focus on perspectives of service providers and family members of less conventional speakers. The ways in which less conventional speakers express themselves were the topic of the studies, yet perspectives of less conventional speakers were not among the data collected and analyzed. Instead, the views of more articulate conversation partners were central. While Gouvier and colleagues (1997) offered an important corrective by presenting views of students with brain injuries about the inappropriateness of motherese, these researchers also presented evidence that students without brain injuries take a deficiency-focused view of those with less conventional speech. And genetics research into communication contributes to negative perceptions of less conventional speakers whose competence was treated in terms of functioning genes. At the same time, Howard (2007) argued for rigorous and highly technical efforts to improve children's intelligibility so children can participate in "real talk" and be understood by others. Moreover, despite availability of alternative avenues of communication, parents and professionals represented in the Millar et al. (2006) systematic review treated "real talk" ability as essential. This literature is about targeting the communication of less conventional speakers for remediation rather than about understanding less conventional speakers' communication per se. We see glimmers of focus shifting toward less conventional speakers' communication within its own right in findings from Balandin and Hines (2011) of speech and language students perceiving people with disabilities more positively following having spent time with people with disabilities. Yet Balandin and Hines did not encompass examination of how expressions by less conventional speakers impacted perceptions of speech and language students. Stated simply, knowledge about the communication processes of less conventional speakers is lacking and we aim to illuminate these communication processes through in-depth listening and analysis. By focusing on processes, we can promote better understandings of less conventional forms of competence inherent to all individuals in accordance with Chomsky's conceptualization of language competence.

Method

Findings

Discussion

Addison carved out her own style of speech and language which at times, seemed to nearly completely resist compulsory fluency, while at other times seemed to closely comply with compulsory fluency. At other times, Addison's style simultaneously reflected compliances with, and resistances to compulsory fluency. In the face of an almost constant push for adherence to conventions of compulsory fluency, our findings illuminate ways in which meanings extend well beyond words, and the flow of words, and into layered expectations and continuous give and take between speakers. We advance this illumination as a call for broadening understandings of concepts such as competence and fluency and promoting practices that entail listening with greater care and more open expectations in order to more fully capture meanings embedded in less conventional speech. Perhaps we are arguing for a greater emphasis on interdependence of communication that requires listening in ways that are at once relaxed, in terms of what is accepted as good communication, and also more attuned to when people need to hold back, close things off, or be abrupt. Such moments might reflect strategies used by less conventional speakers, whose words flow relatively less quickly and coherently, in efforts to increase their own comfort amidst steady flows of conversation.

The ways Addison used a few small words, dealt with frustration of not being understood, and connected with Nicole and other members of her family and friend network, exhibit a multifaceted approach of compliances with, and resistances to, compulsory fluency. Addison's approach reminds us of human potential to support individuals with disabilities to bring themselves to the world using their own style in interaction with supportive others/contexts. This is evident in Nicole's story of Addison's language having exploded as a result of Addison not needing to conform and repeatedly attempt to speak in a particular way. And Nicole's participation by providing context for, cajoling, and responding to signals from, Addison provides striking illustration of how communication partners can facilitate, without overtaking or speaking for, less conventional speakers. We submit Nicole's role as exemplifying what Dolmage (2014) has in mind when he calls for positioning less conventional speakers as "makers of meaning" rather than as mere surfaces for reflecting meanings created by others (p. 95).

We encourage practitioners and researchers to invest in being attuned while holding relatively relaxed expectations for speech; at the same time, we argue and demonstrate this as no easy undertaking. Despite our own trained and attentive interviewers working as a team, not everything went smoothly such as during times when Addison was frustrated when the interviewers did not understand her. Yet Addison also expressed frustrations with familiar others including her father. We see such instances as evidence of the place of frustrations, and working through frustrations, as parts of the negotiated nature of communication.

Given the time intensive demands of extending attentiveness and openness, we are not suggesting practitioners and researchers need to establish enduring relationships with less conventional speakers as we are mindful of avoiding creating expectations that practitioners and researchers are not equipped to honor. We argue for increased efforts to learn from interactions between less conventional speakers and others with whom they are intimate. We recognize practice environments are unlikely to permit practitioners to fully attend to, and understand, less conventional speakers at all times, and we are not casting continuous understanding as a requisite for effective practice. Instead, our recommendation is in the direction of higher level shifts in attitudes toward critiquing narrow definitions of competence and fluency and correspondingly, framing less conventional speaker's language as competence. Relatedly, while we intend no diminishment of the field of speech and language rehabilitation, we conclude that remediation of speech and language deficits should not be the only goal of therapists, assistants, and/or family members. We argue the need to disseminate and reinforce Chomsky's understanding of all people as inherently possessing language competence and the corresponding importance of discerning and supporting distinct styles of communication rather than expecting all speakers to adhere to principles and practices of compulsory fluency. Key to our argument is resistance to what Brueggemann (2005) calls "heavy-handed", at times singular, reliance on speaker "voice"; instead we invoke viewing competence as manifest through negotiations in relationships with others.