It is of further interest to note that the child’s searches are not constructed solely with
elements that lack linguistic information (e.g. uh:: ; silence). Rather, the child displays
a range of competent linguistic behaviours: syntactic, semantic and phonological.
These designs, through the on-line linguistic analysis of the teacher, afford valuable
resources with which to work out the target element. For example, the semantic
category label (‘name’) defines the semantic field of the noun being searched for. A
contrasting semantic device is reported in aphasic interaction whereby a specific noun
(‘blouse’) is employed alongside gesture to indicate to the conversational partner a
wider semantic domain (i.e. all clothes) (Helasvuo et al., 2004). Similarly,
phonological self-cueing, does more work than simply assisting in the activity of
solitary searching. It has the pedagogical effect of getting the teacher to reinforce the
use of a taught word search strategy and cues her production of the noun. Finally,
pronominal substitution, which at first appears to be empty of semantic content, yields
valuable syntactic information to the adult that a noun is needed.
A different finding in the current classroom data is that the aforementioned verbal
resources are strong triggers for adult collaboration, even in the context of gaze
withdrawal. Despite the absence of a direct invitation (shift of gaze towards the
teacher), it is notable that both the wh-question and phonological self-cue triggered
the adult’s involvement to provide the lexical item.
As far as employment of hand gestures is concerned, according to the available data
the child’s usage differs from that by adults during searches. Whereas adults with
aphasia make use of iconic gestures that supply a semantic clue to the conversational
partner (Helasvuo et al., 2004), none were found here. Ciara’s gestures take the form
21