Download PDF
Semin Speech Lang 2007; 28(2): 096-110
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-970568
Copyright © 2007 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Pragmatics and Adult Language Disorders: Past Achievements and Future Directions

Louise Cummings1
  • 1Reader in Linguistics, School of Arts and Humanities, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, England, United Kingdom
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
10 April 2007 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

In this article, the current state of our knowledge of pragmatic disorders in adults with language impairment is assessed. A brief historical background of clinical pragmatics is presented, and the place of adult language pathology within the development of this field is discussed. A comprehensive review is undertaken of pragmatic deficits in adults with language impairments of diverse etiologies. Specifically, pragmatic deficits are examined in adults with left-hemisphere damage, often resulting in aphasia, and in adults with right-hemisphere damage, traumatic brain injury, schizophrenia, and neurodegenerative disorders (principally, Alzheimer's disease). Although many pragmatic phenomena have been examined in these clinical populations, studies have also tended to neglect important areas of pragmatic functioning in adults with these disorders. Several such areas are identified within a wider discussion of how researchers and clinicians can best pursue future investigations of pragmatics in adults with language impairment.

KEYWORDS

Alzheimer's disease - left- and right-hemisphere damage - pragmatics - schizophrenia - traumatic brain injury

REFERENCES

  • 1 Rapin I, Allen D. Developmental language disorders: nosologic considerations. In: Kirk U Neuropsychology of Language, Reading, and Spelling. New York; Academic Press 1983: 155-184
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Bishop D, Rosenbloom L. Classification of childhood language disorders. In: Yule W, Rutter M Language Development and Disorders. London; MacKeith Press 1987: 16-41
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Rapin I. Developmental language disorders: a clinical update.  J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1996;  37 643-655
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Goodglass H, Kaplan E, Barresi B. Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination. 3rd ed. Baltimore, MD; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Kertesz A. Western Aphasia Battery-Revised. San Antonio, TX; Harcourt Assessment 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Whitworth A, Perkins L, Lesser R. Conversation Analysis Profile for People with Aphasia. London; Whurr Publishers 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Whitworth A, Perkins L, Lesser R. Conversation Analysis Profile for People with Cognitive Impairment. London; Whurr Publishers 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Coelho C, Flewellyn L. Longitudinal assessment of coherence in an adult with fluent aphasia.  Aphasiology. 2003;  17 173-182
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Cutica I, Bucciarelli M, Bara B. Neuropragmatics: extralinguistic pragmatic ability is better preserved in left-hemisphere-damaged patients than in right-hemisphere-damaged patients.  Brain Lang. 2006;  98 12-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Borod J, Rorie K, Pick L et al.. Verbal pragmatics following unilateral stroke: emotional content and valence.  Neuropsychology. 2000;  14 112-124
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Chapman S, Ulatowska H, Franklin L, Shobe A, Thompson J, McIntire D. Proverb interpretation in fluent aphasia and Alzheimer's disease: implications beyond abstract thinking.  Aphasiology. 1997;  11 337-350
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kasher A, Batori G, Soroker N, Graves D, Zaidel E. Effects of right- and left-hemisphere damage on understanding conversational implicatures.  Brain Lang. 1999;  68 566-590
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Perkins L, Crisp J, Walshaw D. Exploring conversation analysis as an assessment tool for aphasia.  Aphasiology. 1999;  13 259-281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Beeke S. ‘I suppose' as a resource for the construction of turns at talk in agrammatic aphasia.  Clin Linguist Phon. 2003;  17 291-298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Beeke S, Wilkinson R, Maxim J. Exploring aphasic grammar. 1: A single case analysis of conversation.  Clin Linguist Phon. 2003;  17 81-107
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Oelschlaeger M, Damico J. Partnership in conversation: a study of word search strategies.  J Commun Disord. 2000;  33 205-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Perkins L. Applying conversation analysis to aphasia: clinical implications and analytic issues.  Eur J Disord Commun. 1995;  30 372-383
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Myers P. Profiles of communication deficits in patients with right cerebral hemisphere damage: implications for diagnosis and treatment. In: Clinical Aphasiology Conference. Minneapolis, MN; BRK Publishers 1979: 38-46
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Papagno C, Curti R, Rizzo S, Crippa F, Colombo M. Is the right hemisphere involved in idiom comprehension? A neuropsychological study.  Neuropsychology. 2006;  20 598-606
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Brundage S. Comparison of proverb interpretations provided by right-hemisphere-damaged adults and adults with probable dementia of the Alzheimer type.  Clin Aphasiol. 1996;  24 215-231
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Cheang H, Pell M. A study of humor and communicative intention following right hemisphere stroke.  Clin Linguist Phon. 2006;  20 447-462
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 McDonald S. Neuropsychological studies of sarcasm.  Metaphor and Symbol. 2000;  15 85-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Lehman Blake M. Clinical relevance of discourse characteristics after right hemisphere brain damage.  Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2006;  15 255-267
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Marini A, Carlomagno S, Caltagirone C, Nocentini U. The role played by the right hemisphere in the organization of complex textual structures.  Brain Lang. 2005;  93 46-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Tompkins C, Boada R, McGarry K, Jones J, Rahn A, Ranier S. Connected speech characteristics of right-hemisphere-damaged adults: a re-examination.  Clin Aphasiol. 1992;  21 113-122
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Hird K, Kirsner K. The effect of right cerebral hemisphere damage on collaborative planning in conversation: an analysis of intentional structure.  Clin Linguist Phon. 2003;  17 309-315
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Rehak A, Kaplan J, Gardner H. Sensitivity to conversational deviance in right-hemisphere-damaged patients.  Brain Lang. 1992;  42 203-217
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Brownell H, Pincus D, Blum A, Rehak A, Winner E. The effects of right-hemisphere brain damage on patients' use of terms of personal reference.  Brain Lang. 1997;  57 60-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Blonder L, Burns A, Bowers D, Moore R, Heilman K. Right hemisphere facial expressivity during natural conversation.  Brain Cogn. 1993;  21 44-56
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Tompkins C, Lehman M, Baumgaertner A. Suppression and inference revision in right brain-damaged and non-brain-damaged adults.  Aphasiology. 1999;  13 725-742
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Myers P, Brookshire R. The effects of visual and inferential complexity on the picture descriptions of non-brain-damaged and right-hemisphere-damaged adults.  Clin Aphasiol. 1994;  22 25-34
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Purdy M, Belanger S, Liles B. Right-hemisphere-damaged subjects' ability to use context in inferencing.  Clin Aphasiol. 1992;  21 135-143
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Myers P. Inference failure: the underlying impairment in right-hemisphere communication disorders. In: Clinical Aphasiology Conference. Austin, TX; Pro-Ed 1991: 167-180
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Griffin R, Friedman O, Ween J, Winner E, Happe F, Brownell H. Theory of mind and the right cerebral hemisphere: refining the scope of impairment.  Laterality. 2006;  11 195-225
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Mitchell R, Crow T. Right hemisphere language functions and schizophrenia: the forgotten hemisphere.  Brain. 2005;  128 963-978
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Tényi T, Herold R, Szili I, Trixler M. Schizophrenics show a failure in the decoding of violations of conversational implicatures.  Psychopathology. 2002;  35 25-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Corcoran K, Frith C. Conversational conduct and the symptoms of schizophrenia.  Cognit Neuropsychiatry. 1996;  1 305-318
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Meilijson S, Kasher A, Elizur A. Language performance in chronic schizophrenia: a pragmatic approach.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2004;  47 695-713
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Prutting C, Kirchner D. A clinical appraisal of the pragmatic aspects of language.  J Speech Hear Disord. 1987;  52 105-119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Docherty N, Cohen A, Nienow T, Dinzeo T, Dangelmaier R. Stability of formal thought disorder and referential communication disturbances in schizophrenia.  J Abnorm Psychol. 2003;  112 469-475
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Bazin N, Perruchet P, Hardy-Bayle M, Feline A. Context-dependent information processing in patients with schizophrenia.  Schizophr Res. 2000;  45 93-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Sitnikova T, Salisbury D, Kuperberg G, Holcomb P. Electrophysiological insights into language processing in schizophrenia.  Psychophysiology. 2002;  39 851-860
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Linscott R. Thought disorder, pragmatic language impairment, and generalized cognitive decline in schizophrenia.  Schizophr Res. 2005;  75 225-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Hays S, Niven B, Godfrey H, Linscott R. Clinical assessment of pragmatic language impairment: a generalizability study of older people with Alzheimer's disease.  Aphasiology. 2004;  18 693-714
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Linscott R. The profile of functional impairment in communication (PFIC): a measure of communication impairment for clinical use.  Brain Inj. 1996;  10 397-412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Brüne M, Bodenstein L. Proverb comprehension reconsidered-‘theory of mind' and the pragmatic use of language in schizophrenia.  Schizophr Res. 2005;  75 233-239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Bibby H, McDonald S. Theory of mind after traumatic brain injury.  Neuropsychologia. 2005;  43 99-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Ferstl E, Guthke T, von Cramon D. Text comprehension after brain injury: left prefrontal lesions affect inference processes.  Neuropsychology. 2002;  16 292-308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 McDonald S. Communication disorders following closed head injury: new approaches to assessment and rehabilitation.  Brain Inj. 1992;  6 293-298
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Coelho C, Youse K, Le K. Conversational discourse in closed-head-injured and non-brain-injured adults.  Aphasiology. 2002;  16 659-672
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Togher L, Hand L. Use of politeness markers with different communication partners: an investigation of five subjects with traumatic brain injury.  Aphasiology. 1998;  12 755-770
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Chapman S, Ulatowska H, King K, Johnson J, McIntire D. Discourse in early Alzheimer's disease versus normal advanced aging.  Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1995;  4 124-129
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Cherney L, Canter G. Informational content in the discourse of patients with probable Alzheimer's disease and patients with right brain damage.  Clin Aphasiol. 1992;  21 123-134
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Carlomagno S, Santoro A, Menditti A, Pandolfi M, Marini A. Referential communication in Alzheimer's type dementia.  Cortex. 2005;  41 520-534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 McNamara P, Durso R. Pragmatic communication skills in patients with Parkinson's disease.  Brain Lang. 2003;  84 414-423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Monetta L, Pell M. Effects of verbal working memory deficits on metaphor comprehension in patients with Parkinson's disease.  Brain Lang. 2007;  , In press
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists .Clinical Guidelines. Bicester, Oxfordshire, UK; Speechmark Publishing 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 58 Cummings L. Pragmatics: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Edinburgh; Edinburgh University Press 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 59 Sperber D, Wilson D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition; Oxford; Blackwell 1995
  • 60 Bara B. Cognitive Pragmatics. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 61 Hebert L, Scherr P, Bienias J, Bennett D, Evans D. Alzheimer disease in the US population: prevalence estimates using the 2000 census.  Arch Neurol. 2003;  60 1119-1122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Dr. Louise Cummings

Reader in Linguistics, School of Arts and Humanities, Nottingham Trent University, Clifton Campus, Clifton Lane, Nottingham

NG11 8NS, England, United Kingdom

Email: louise.cummings@ntu.ac.uk

      >