Public and private identity: the co-construction of aphasia through discourse

The notion of ‘deficit’ becomes of unique interest when the phenomenon being referred to is language/communication. For the individual who experiences disability in other areas, language is one of the resources available to mitigate or explain differences, but, as Goffman (1968) notes, for those individuals with communication difficulties this resource is not available. For communities, language is a means by which other disabilities are constructed, and communication disability too is variously constructed in different communities and different cultures (Bebout & Arthur 1992). In the field of speech pathology/communication disorders, the notion of communication ‘deficit’ or ‘disorder’ is becoming increasingly contentious, as clinicians and researchers begin to challenge some of the traditional ways of discussing communication difficulties encountered by individuals in a variety of contexts – for example, how do ‘deficits’ manifest themselves and who is responsible for the labelling? As Kovarsky and Walsh discuss in this volume, professional discourse constructs communication disorder through textbooks, research and clinical intervention. In this chapter, we will explore key contextual issues related to the notion of communication deficit in terms of the individual’s notion of their own abilities, conversational partners’ perceptions and societal/cultural constructs. These issues will be related to the construction of identity of the self (both inter- and intra-personal perspectives) and the re-negotiation of identity experienced by individuals such as those with aphasia (loss/impairment of language) after stroke