Pragmatic Impairment

Cummings, Louise

doi:10.1002/9781119606987.ch10

Cited by 5 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This observation, in line with Steel and Togher (2019), confirmed the uniqueness of successful social communication which only requires the right amount of information to convey appropriate content (in a way that urges the communication partner to sustain an exchange of messages). Similarly, the two groups' significant differences in ICE and usage of cohesive ties were also consistent with previous reports that listeners relied on the rate (of how quickly) the information was provided and whether it was presented in an organized way (Cummings, 2021) to judge spoken discourse naturalness. One unexpected finding, however, was that the two groups did not differ in terms of the maxim of manner which was associated with local and global coherence.…”

Section: Tbi and Pragmatic Impairmentssupporting

confidence: 88%

“…There are three prominent pragmatic language skills that are frequently disrupted in adults with pragmatic impairments, such as those caused by a TBI, including the interpretation of implicature, the use of reference, and the management of information (Cummings, 2021). However, relative to impaired semantics and phonology, much less research have been conducted to investigate pragmatic impairments and this has resulted in fewer evidence-based rehabilitation programs/protocols or therapy approaches readily available for clinical application (Cummings, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measuring pragmatic competence of discourse output among Chinese-speaking individuals with traumatic brain injury

Lai¹,

Kong

Lau

2023

Brain Impairment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Discourse analysis is one of the clinical methods commonly used to assess the language ability of individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, the majority of published analytic frameworks are not geared for highlighting the pragmatic aspect of discourse deficits in acquired language disorders, except for those designed for quantifying conversational samples. This study aimed to examine how pragmatic competence is impaired and reflected in spoken monologues in Chinese speakers with TBI. Methods: Discourse samples of five tasks (personal narrative, storytelling, procedural, single- and sequential picture description) were elicited from ten TBI survivors and their controls. Each discourse sample was measured using 16 indices (e.g., number of informative words, percentage of local/global coherence errors, repeated words or phrases) that corresponded to the four Gricean maxims. Twenty-five naïve Chinese speakers were also recruited to perform perceptual rating of the quality of all 50 TBI audio files (five discourse samples per TBI participant), in terms of erroneous/inaccurate information, adequacy of amount of information given, as well as degree of organization and clarity. Results: The maxim of quantity best predicted TBI’s pragmatic impairments. Naïve listeners’ perception of pragmatics deficits correlated to measures on total and informative words, as well as number and length of terminable units. Clinically, personal narrative and storytelling tasks could better elicit violations in pragmatics. Conclusion: Applying Gricean maxims in monologic oral narratives could capture the hallmark underlying pragmatic problems in TBI. This may help provide an additional approach of clinically assessing social communications in and subsequent management of TBI.

show abstract

Section: Tbi and Pragmatic Impairmentssupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring pragmatic competence of discourse output among Chinese-speaking individuals with traumatic brain injury

Lai¹,

Kong

Lau

2023

Brain Impairment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our evidence showed consistency in referring to “pragmatic language impairment,” “semantic‐pragmatic syndrome,” “semantic‐pragmatic disorder” as synonyms and being used interchangeably among researchers with some disagreements (Adams, 2021; Agyemang, 2018; Cummings, 2021; Jackson, 2021; Newby et al, 2018; Whitehouse, 2021). When it comes to presenting PLI comprehensively, our evidence underlies the relevance of the framework by Perkins (2008) and the fruitful discussions and elaborations of PLI in clinical pragmatics and clinical linguistics by Cummings (2009, 2021). Perkins proposed a framework for understanding PLI as an emergent phenomenon that includes various elements: semiotic, cognitive, motor, and sensory.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

“…In our evidence, we have seen that PLI was diagnosed as a symptom of ASD but generally present in neurodevelopmental and non-neurodevelopmental disorders among all types of disorders. Our evidence showed consistency in referring to "pragmatic language impairment," "semantic-pragmatic syndrome," "semantic-pragmatic disorder" as synonyms and being used interchangeably among researchers with some disagreements (Adams, 2021;Agyemang, 2018;Cummings, 2021;Jackson, 2021;Newby et al, 2018;Whitehouse, 2021). When it comes to presenting PLI comprehensively, our evidence underlies the relevance of the framework by Perkins (2008) and the F I G U R E 4 Concept frequency for pragmatic language impairment in the web of science, Scopus, and lens databases fruitful discussions and elaborations of PLI in clinical pragmatics and clinical linguistics by Cummings (2009Cummings ( , 2021.…”

Section: Additional Analysis: Conceptualizing Plimentioning

confidence: 62%

Conceptualizing, defining, and assessing pragmatic language impairment in clinical settings: A scoping review

Alduais

Majorano

Andrés‐Roqueta

et al. 2022

Infant and Child Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been significant and extensive knowledge production in the last four decades regarding pragmatic language impairment (PLI) in children with neurodevelopmental disorders. The evidence contained in this literature, however, is contradictory. The present scoping review (ScR) seeks to disentangle competing explanations of conceptualizing, defining, and assessing PLI to develop more systematic knowledge suitable for improving early intervention and diagnosing PLI. Our research included retrieving articles, books, book chapters, encyclopaedia articles, and other published material on conceptualizing, defining, and assessing preschoolers' PLIs from online databases. A total of 133 studies have been identified, divided into two types: 63 studies conceptualizing and assessing PLI in preschoolers and 70 studies conceptualizing and defining PLI without regard to age. They were published between 1983 and 2022. The inclusion of studies in the first group was based upon factors such as the age of participants, clinical settings, and the use of PLI assessment instruments. The second group of studies was selected in accordance with Web of Science, Scopus, and Lens database indicators that indicated who were the most popular authors within the field. This review utilized the PRISMA‐ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines. Results indicate that PLI is being conceptualized inconsistently. Three lists of concepts are reported here, with the earliest concept being “semantic‐pragmatic syndrome” and the most prevalent being “PLI” without semantic features. Among the most common misconceptions of PLI is the use of impairment, disorder, deficit, dysfunction, disability, and many other concepts, both within the same publication and among different authors who have written numerous publications in this field. Researchers and clinicians are confused as to the nature of social (pragmatic) communication disorder compared to PLI, owing in part to its inclusion as a competing concept for PLI. As a final point, we argue that using different assessment methods for PLI is a promising approach to hope for consistency in conceptualizing, defining, and assessing PLI in children with neurodevelopmental disorders or others. The vast number of existing studies that seek to conceptualize, define, and assess PLI in preschool children with neurodevelopmental disorders and other conditions illustrates the broad interest in understanding more about the nature and occurrence of this impairment. Further, these studies also highlight some common patterns, discrepancies, and contradictions in relevant language that suggests researchers in all related fields should endeavour to be consistent in the way these concepts are defined and discussed to avoid miscommunication and confusion across and within the professions, as well as decrease the redundancy and overlap of related information. A consistent conception of language dev...

show abstract

“…As a result of linking this with the scientometric indicators, we can also identify the most searched and/or (co)occurring keywords researchers use when searching or conducting research in pragmatics. These included support [ 117 ], verbal communication [ 118 ], language disability [ 119 ], verbal behaviour [ 120 ] and language ability [ 121 ]. Most of these studies dealt with pragmatics from a conversational point of view through which pragmatic strategies as implicature are used to support communication and enhance foreign language communication (e.g., Hay’s offering sympathy to support humour) [ 117 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pragmatics: Mapping Evidence on Enhancing Children’s Use of Linguistic and Non-Linguistic Capacities for Interactive Communication

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New-born infants communicate from the first minute they come to life. This non-linguistic and non-verbal capacity to interact from the first day they come to life enables them to express their needs and evidence their typical development. This capacity to interact develops to include linguistic and non-linguistic use of verbal and non-verbal interaction, that is, pragmatics. Because pragmatics is heterogeneously structured of semiotic, cognitive, motor and sensory elements so it is vital to ensure successful human interaction. The other language elements (i.e., phonological, morphological, syntactic and semantic) are essential inputs for this human interaction outcome (i.e., pragmatics). Accordingly, this study sought to map evidence that pragmatics can enhance children’s use of linguistic and non-linguistic capacities for interactive communication. This was addressed by conducting bibliometric and scientometric analyses of 6554 documents from Scopus, 1167 from WOS and 11,230 from Lens between 1939 and 2022. We analysed the past, present and future developments of the field of pragmatics using bibliometric and scientometric indicators. The scientometric analysis was conducted using CiteSpace 5.8.R3 and VOSviewer 1.6.18 software, which enabled the tabulation, visualisation and measurement of the impact of central influencers in the field of pragmatics. In the light of our results, pragmatics continues to expand in order to understand human interaction in a deeper way and to enhance children’s typical interactions with the environment around them. The group should also include adults or elderly people whose pragmatic language skills have been impaired due to any acquired or developmental disorder, such as a brain injury.

show abstract

Pragmatic Impairment

Cited by 5 publications

References 28 publications

Measuring pragmatic competence of discourse output among Chinese-speaking individuals with traumatic brain injury

Measuring pragmatic competence of discourse output among Chinese-speaking individuals with traumatic brain injury

Conceptualizing, defining, and assessing pragmatic language impairment in clinical settings: A scoping review

Pragmatics: Mapping Evidence on Enhancing Children’s Use of Linguistic and Non-Linguistic Capacities for Interactive Communication

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About