prutting checklist article

8/18/2019 Prutting Checklist Article

1/15

Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders Volum e 52

105-119, May 1987

A C L I N I C A L A P P R A I S A L O F T H E P R A G M A T I C A S P E C T S O F

L A N G U A G E

CAROL A. PttUTTING

University of California Santa Barbara

DIANE M KIttCHNEtl

Private practice San Francisco C A

A descriptive taxonomy, the pragmatic protocol, was developed for this study. The protocol consists of 30 pragmatic parameters

of language. The purpose of the study was to test the utility of the tool to evaluate a range of pragmatic aspects of language in a

sample of conversational speech fiom subjects in six groups. Among the disordered subjects, four distinct profiles emerged that

separated the diagnostic groups. Individual differences in the way pragmatic deficits were distributed within a diagnostic category

were also identified. The authors stress that the assessment of pragmatics should encompass a range of parameters that includes

aspects of linguistic structure as well as those aspects of communication that have to do with principles governing language use.

We offer our data as an early look at the way in which pragmatic deficits stratify across disordered populations.

In a recent book dealing exclusively with the pragmat-

ies of language, Levi nson (1983) devot ed 53 pages to

defining the topic. In his seminal work the author writes,

Her e we come to the heart of the definitional problem:

The term pragmatics covers both context-dependent as-

pects of language structure and principles of language

usage and unders tanding that have nothing or little to do

with linguistic structure (p. 9). Pragmatics are conc ern ed

with the relationship between linguistic knowledge and

the principles governing language use. Pragmatics nmst,

therefore , account for two divergent aspects of communi-

cative competence: those aligned with structure and

those that operate apart from the structural properties of

utterances. The term pragmatics has clear meaning and as

Levinson says,

In one sense there is no problem of definition at all: jus t

as, traditionally, syntax is taken to be the study of the

combinatorial properties of words and their parts, and

semantics to be the study of meaning, so pragmatics is the

study of language Usage. Such a definition is just as good

(and bad) as the parallel definitions of the sister terms, but

it will hardly suffice to indicate what the practitioners of

pragmatics actually do; to find that out, as in any disci-

pline, one must go and take a look. (p. 6)

Levinson believes that the most promising definitions

are those which equate pragmatics with 'meaning minus

semantics' or with a theory of language understanding

that takes context into account, in order to complement

the contribut ion that semantics makes to mea ning (p.

32 .

To understand how the field of speech and language

patho logy has dealt with the pragm atic aspects of lan-

guage, both the theoretical paradigms for viewing prag-

maties and the way the pragmatic aspects of communica-

tion have been organized for clinical purposes will be

reviewed.

Paradigm or Conceptualizing Pragmatic spects

of Language

There is a eonsensus within our discipline on one issue

with regard to the pragma tic aspects o f language. T hat is

these aspects should be assessed in language-disordered

populations. What has yet to be agreed upon is a para-

digm from which to view pragmaties. Some have envi-

sioned a pragmaties-as-separate model where language

use is described as a separate compo nent from syntax and

semantics (Bloom & Lahey, 1978; Chomsky, 1957, 1965).

Although Bloom and Lahey acknowledged the interac-

ti0r~ among syntax, semantics, and pragmat~cs, Chomsky

emphasized a syntactic component that is more autono-

mous from aspects of meaning and use. A second position

has been prop osed b y Bates (1976, 1979). She pro poses a

pragmaties-as-perspective model in relationship to other

components of the system. From this framework, the

pragmatic aspects of languag e actuall y serve as a source o

functional constraints on various outcomes at other levels

of the system. Finally, while denying neither of the

above, a third position emerges that is the pragmaties-as-

cause-effect point of view. I n the case of this stud y the

concern is for the commun icati ve effects of various lin

guistic and cognitive deficits on interaction. The central

notion was discussed by Charles Peirce more than a

century ago (Peirce, 1878). He believed that our concep

tion of something was our understanding of its effects

This is our viewpoint, and it is central to the position o

this paper.

In the meantime, there have been a few attempts to

organize the pragmatic aspects of language for clinical

application (Curtiss, Kempler, & Yamada, 1981; MeTear

1985; Penn, 1983; Prinz & Weiner, in press; Prutting &

Kirehner, 1983; 1Roth & Spekm an, 1984). Curtis s et al

(1981) suggested a conversational analysis that includes

16 categories representing discourse functions. Prutting

© 1987, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 105 0022-4677/87/5202-0105501.00/


2/15

106

Journa l of Speech and Hearing Disorders 5

105- 119 May 1987

des igned a pr o tocol in 1982 tha t w as publ i shed in 1983

( P r u t t ing & K i r chner , 1983) . The pr o tocol p r oposed the

use of a speech ac t theor y as a means of o r ganiz ing

pr agmat ic pa r amete r s and of f e r ed the f o l low ing br eak-

dow n: u t t e r ance ac t s, p r opos i t iona l ac t s , i l locu t ionar y and

per locu t ionar y ac t s .

Penn ( 1983) dev e lop ed a pr of i l e o f comm unica t ive

appr opr ia tenes s tha t t akes the f o l low ing pr agmat ic pa -

r amete r s in to account : nonver ba l communica t ion , soc io-

l inguis t i c s ens i t iv i ty , f luency , cohes ion , cont r o l o f s eman-

t ic conten t , and r espons iveness to the in te r locu tor . She

e x a m i n e d 4 0 p a r a m e t e r s g r o u p e d u n d e r t h e s e f iv e b r o a d

ca tegor ies f or c l in ica l pur poses . R oth and Spekm an ( 1984)

a d v o c a t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g b r e a k d o w n f o r a n a l y z i n g p r a g -

mat ic ab i l i t i e s : communica t ive in ten t ions , p r esuppos i -

t ions , and the soc ia l o r ganiza t ion of d i scour se . Mc Tear

( 1985) s epar a ted the pr agma t ic a spec t s o f l anguage in to

an in te r ac t iona l component and a t r ansac t iona l compo-

nent . The in te r ac t iona l co mpo nen t accounts for tu r n-

tak ing ac t s and exchange s t r uc tur e , w her eas the t r ansac -

t i o n a l c o m p o n e n t i s u s e d t o d e n o t e t h e p r o p o s i t i o n a l

conten t o f d i scour se such as r e levance , cohes ion , an d

coher en ce . A l l o f the abo ve appr oache s eva lua te the

par amete r s w i th in a conver sa t iona l s e t t ing and/or c l in i -

c ian- cons t r uc ted ta sks . P r inz and W einer ( in pr es s ) have

d e v e l o p e d a p r a g m a t i c s c r e e n i n g t e s t t h at e m p l o y s s t an -

dar d ized ta sks to e l i c i t spec i f i c p r agmat ic ab i l i t i e s . The

f o l low ing pa r amete r s a r e a s ses sed us ing th i s too l : speech

ac t s , p r esuppos i t ions , conver sa t iona l in te r ac t ion , and

nonver ba l s igna l s .

The pr oble m w i th a l l o f these appr oaches has to do w i th

the boundar ies tha t a r e dr aw n be tw een in ten t iona l i ty and

the neces sa r y pr esuppos i t ions , p r opos i t iona l know ledge ,

and social rules of discourse n eed ed to car ry out the inten-

t ions . In fact , we or iginal ly class if ied the pragm atic param-

eters according to a spe ech act mo del (Aust in, 1962; Sear le ,

1969) . In other words , each parameter was class if ied as

belonging to the ut terance act , proposi t ional act , or i l -

locu t ionar y /pe r locu t ionar y ac t . H ow ever , w e have s ince

aband oned the d i sc r e te c lass i fi ca tion of pa r amete r s und er

one o f these th r ee speech ac t ca tegor ies and have r ecog-

n ized the l ack of boundar ies tha t d i s t inc t ly s epar a te pr opo-

s i t ional know ledg e f rom, say, i l locutionary funct ion.

W h e n d e s c r i b i n g t h e c o m p o n e n t s o f t h e s p e e c h a c t

f ramework, Sear le (1969) wr i tes ,

I am no t saying of course, that th ese are separate things

that speakers do, as it happens, simultaneously as one

migh t smoke, read, and scratch one's head , but rather that

in perfo rmi ng illocutionary acts, one characteristically

performs proposition al acts and utte rance acts. (p. 24)

H e s e e s t h e c o m p o n e n t s w i t h i n t h e s p e e c h a c t t h e o r y as

follows U tte r ance ac t s s tand to pr opos i t iona l and i l -

locu t ionar y ac t s in the s ame w ay in w hich making an ' X '

on a ba l lo t paper s tands f or vo t ing ( p . 9 .4). W e co ncur

w i th Sear le in the f ina l conc lus ion o f h i s book , Speech

Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language:

For speaking a language--as has been the main theme o f

this boo k--con sists of perform ing speech acts according to

the rules, and th ere is no separating those spee ch acts from

the com mitme nts which form the essential parts of them.

(p. 198

B o t h s e m a n t i c t h e or y , a s m e n t i o n e d e a r l i er i n L e v i n s o n ' s

(1983) work, and sp eec h act the ory (Aust in, 1962; Sear le ,

1969) can be used as pa r ad igms f r om w hich to he lp us

u n d e r s t a n d p r a g m a t ic s b e c a u s e i n t e n t i o n a l i t y a n d m e a n -

ing a r e at the hea r t o f l anguag e use . For an eva lua t ive

c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e p r o p o s e d c o n c e p t u a l f r a m e w o rk s f o r

pragmatics , see Par ret (1983) .

I n t h e a b s e n c e o f a n a g r e e d - u p o n p a r a d i g m , t h e r e i s a

n e e d t o d e t e r m i n e w h a t t h e p r a g m a t i c a s p e c t s o f l a n -

guage a r e and how these aspec t s should be or ganized f or

c l in ica l and r esea r ch pur poses . W e appear to be in a

per iod of f ac t - ga the r ing tha t cons i s t s p r imar i ly o f empi r i -

ca l w or k under taken to a r t i cu la te a pa r ad igm. O bvious ly ,

i t w i l l be poss ib le to w or k w i th mo r e d i r ec t ion in th is a r ea

of l anguage w hen theor i s t s and r esea r ch er s r each a con-

sensus on a pr ad igm tha t he lps us to conceptua l ize the

c o m m u n i c a t i v e s y s t em . T h e d e b a t e i s b y n o m e a n s o v e r.

D esp i te the c ur r en t s ta tus of th i s a r ea of in te r es t , the

need f or a p r agm at ic pe r spe c t ive f or c l in ica l pur poses has

b e e n w i d e l y a s s e r t e d f o r so m e t i m e n o w . I n o n e o f t h e

f i rs t a r t ic le s w r i t t en by Rees ( 1978) in the a r ea of w ag -

matics , she s ta ted,

The possibilities, then for effective application of the

pragmatic approach to studying and remediating clinical

populations se em almos t limitless. Without a dou bt the

future will bring a wealth of studies and reports on this

subject that will advance clinical know ledge a nd skills for

training the use o f language in context. (p. 263)

Some year s l a te r , mos t o f us s t i ll be l i e ve in the po ten-

t ia l o f a p r agmat ic ap pr oach to the s tu dy of l anguage-

d i sor der ed popula t ions . H ow ever , to da te the r e i s no

d o c u m e n t a t i o n o f h o w l a n g u a g e - d i s o r d e r e d p o p u l a t io n s

f a r e w he n as ses sed on a r ange of p r agmat ic ab i l i t i e s. A s a

r esu lt , w e have l i t t l e und er s tan ding of the w ay in w hich

pr agmat ic de f ic i t s s t r a t i f y ac r os s d i sor der ed popula t ions .

The pur p ose of th i s pape r i s to t e s t the u t i l i ty o f a

desc r ip t ive t axonomy, the pr agmat ic p r o tocol , to eva lua te

a r ange of p r agma t ic pa r ame te r s in a s am ple o f conver sa -

t iona l speech f r om s ix d iagnos t ic g r oups .

METHO

ubjects

The subjec t s f o r th i s s tudy w er e 157 ch i ld r en and

adul t s compr i s ing s ix d i f f e r en t d iagnos t ic g r oups . These

gr oups w er e as follows 42 ch i ld r en w i th l anguage d i sor -

de r s , 42 ch i ld r en w i th a r t i cu la t ion d i sor der s , 42 ch i ld r en

deve loping language nor mal ly , 11 adul t s f o l low ing a l e f t

hemispher e ce r ebr ovascu la r acc ident ( CV A ) , 10 adul t s

f o l low ing a r igh t hemispher e CV A , and 10 adul t s w i th

nor mal l anguage . Subjec t s e lec t ion c r i t e r ia w i l l be pr e -

sen ted f or each gr oup separ a te ly .

The subjec t c r i t e r ia f or ch i ld r en w i th l anguage and

a r ti c u la t i on d i s o r d e r s w e r e b a s e d o n t h o s e e s t a b l i s h e d b y


3/15

PRUTTING KIRCHNER: Pragmatic spects of Language 107

the Ca l i f or n ia S ta te D ep ar tm ent o f Educ a t ion T i t l e 5 ,

Sec t ion 3030 . I n addi t ion , the ch i ld r en w i th l anguage and

a r t i c u l a t i o n d i s o r d e r s d e m o n s t r a t e d p e r f o r m a n c e I Q s o f

8 5 o r b e t t e r o n s t a n d a r d i z e d p s y c h o m e t r i c e v a l u a t i o n s

s u c h a s th e W e c h s l e r I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a le f or C h i l d r e n - -

Revised ( W echs le r , 1972) , the S tanf or d- Bine t ( Ter man

Mer r i l l , 1973) , and the Le i te r I n te r na t iona l Pe r f or mance

Sca le ( A rthur, 1952). Th ese ch i ld r en w er e f r ee of menta l

r e ta r da t ion , emot iona l d i s tu r bance , and c l in ica l ly iden t i -

f i ab l e n e u r o l o g i c i m p a i r m e n t s . T h e d i a g n o si s o f s p e e c h

or l anguage d i sor der could no t be a t t r ibu ted to cu l tu r a l

d i f f e r ences or hea r ing los s . Subjec t s w er e Engl i sh speak-

e r s f r om monol ingua l homes , and each ch i ld pas sed a

hear ing sc r een ing no longer than 6 months pr ior to the

t ime of the s tudy .

To be cons ide r ed language d i sor der ed , ch i ld r en in the

pr esen t s tudy pe r f or med a t l eas t 1 . 5 s tandar d devia t ions

be low the m ean or a t the 7 th pe r cen t i l e on s tandar d mea-

sur es of l anguage comp r ehens ion and pr oduc t ion . A t l eas t

tw o s tandar d ized te s t s w er e used to de te r mine a l anguage

disor der in one or mor e of the f o l low ing a r eas : mor phology ,

snytax, and sem antics . Tests were se lected f rom those most

appr opr ia te f or the ch i ld ' s age or deve lop menta l l eve l . The

s tandar d ized te s t s o f l anguage com pr ehens io n adminis -

te r ed to the ch i ld r en w i th l anguage d i sor ders inc luded bu t

w er e no t l im i ted to the f o l low ing: the r ecep t ive por t ion of

the No~hwestern Syntax Screening Test (Lee, 1969) , the

Recept iv e sub tes t s o f the Cl in ica l Eva lua t ion of Language

Fun ction (Semel Wiig, 1980), the Auditory Recep tion and

Audito ry Associat ion subtes ts of the I l l inois Test of

Psye holi ngu istic Abilitie s (Kirk, McC arthy , Kirk, 1968),

and the Peabody P ic tur e V ocabula r y Tes t - - R ( D unn

D unn, 1981) . Expr es s ive l anguage measur es inc luded bu t

w er e no t l im i ted to the f o l low ing: the ex pr es s ive port ion of

the N or thw es te r n Syntax Scr een ing Tes t ; Expr es s ive

subtes t s f r om the Cl in ica l Eva lua t ion of Languag e Func-

t ion; the G r amm at ie Closur e sub tes t o f the I l lino i s Tes t o f

Psycholinguis t ie Abil i t ies ; and a spontaneous language

sample ana lyzed f or l ength , complex i ty , and d ive r s i ty of

syntact ic s tructures .

O f the 42 ch i ld r en w i th l an guage d i sor der s ( mean age

= 8 :2 yea r s , r ange = 7 :1- 10:0 yea r s ) , 36 w er e enr o l led in

c l a s s ro o m s f o r t h e c o m m u n i c a t i v e l y h a n d i c a p p e d w i t h i n

the i r r e spec t ive school d i s t r i c t s . The r emain ing 6 ch i l -

d r e n w e r e a t t e n d i n g r e g u l a r c l a s s r o o m p r o g r a m s a n d

w er e r ece iv ing i t ine r an t l anguage se r v ices .

The chi ldren with ar t iculat ion disorders were class if ied

as such i f they d i sp layed r educed in te l lig ib i li ty o r an inab i l-

i ty to use the speech mech anism in a w ay tha t s ign i f ican t ly

in te r f e r ed w i th communica t ion and a t t r ac ted a t t en t ion . I n

this case, diagnosis o f ar t iculat ion disorder was mad e wh en

pr oduc t ion of mul t ip le speech sounds on a s tandar d ized

sca le of a r t icu la t ion adequac y w as b e low tha t expec ted f or

the ch i ld ' s chr onologica l age or deve lopmenta l l eve l . The

s tandar d ized te s t s adminis te r ed inc luded bu t w er e no t

l imi ted to the f o l low ing: The G oldman- Fr i s toe Tes t o f

Ar t iculat ion (Goldm an Fr is toe, 1972), The Fisher -

Loge man n Tes t o f A r t icu la t ion (F i she r Logema nn, 1971),

and ana lys i s o f a connec ted speech sample us ing the N a tu-

ral Process Analys is (Shr iberg Kwiatkowski , 1980). All of

the 42 ch i ld r en w i th phonologic d i sor ders w er e enr o l led in

speech in te iven t ion pr ogr ams a t the t ime of the s tudy . The

me an age for this group was 8:5 years and th e range was

7:3--9:9 ye ars of age.

A ccor d ing to s chool r ecor ds and pa r en ta l r epor t , ch i l -

d r e n i n t h e n o r m a l l y d e v e l o p i n g g r o u p ( m e a n a g e = 8 :1

year s , range = 7 :0 to 9 :2 yea r s ) had no h i s tor y o f speec h or

language de f ic i t s, w er e judge d to be o f nor mal in te l l ec -

tua l po ten t ia l , had nor mal hea r ing , and w er e p laced in

r egula r c la s s r oom se t t ings a t the t im e of the s tudy . Chi l -

d r e n i n t h e n o r m a l g r o u p w e r e E n g l i s h s p e a k e r s f r o m

mono l ingua l hom es as w e l l . Sex w as even ly d i s t r ibu ted

acr oss a l l th r ee gr oups of ch i ld r en w i th 21 f em ales and 21

males in each .

T h e r e m a i n i n g 3 1 s u b j e c t s c o m p r i s e d t h r e e d i a g n o st i c

ca tegor ies : 11 adul ts f o l low ing le f t hemis phe r e CV A , 10

adul t s f o l low ing r igh t hemispher e CV A , and 10 nor mal

adul t s. T he subjec t s e lec t ion c r i t e r ia for the 21 br a in-

in jur ed adul t s w er e as f o llow s : d iagnos i s by a neur o log is t

of l e f t o r righ t hem isph er e CV A ( obta ined f r om med ica l

r ecor ds ), neur o log ic s tab i l i ty (a min imu m of 3 months

p o s t o ns e t ), a n d t h e a b s e n c e o f c o n c o m i t a n t d i a g n o s e s

such as dement ia o r psychia t r i c d i s tu r bance . A l l adul t

s u b j e c t s w e r e n a t i v e E n g l i s h s p e a k e r s ( d e t e r m i n e d b y

in te r v iew s w i th f ami ly member s ) , and a l l sub jec t s had

nor mal hea r ing ( as ind ica ted in the pa t ien t medica l

r ecor d) . The subjec t s w i th l e f t and r igh t hemispher e

d a m a g e w e r e r e c e i v i n g t r e a t m e n t a t t h e t i m e o f t h e s t u d y

O f th e 1 1 l e ft h e m i s p h e r e - d a m a g e d a d u l ts ( m e a n a g e =

61 yea r s , r ange = 51- 70 yea r s ) , 6 had been d iagnosed as

having f luen t aphas ia , and 5 had been d iagnosed as

having nonf luen t aphas ia . For the f luen t sub jec t s ( Sub-

jec t s 1 - 6) the mean scor e on the W es te r n A phas ia Ba t te r y

(Ker tez, 1982) , aphasia quotient , was 74.9 with a range o

49 .4- 96 .2 . O n the Communica t ive A bi l i t i e s in D a i ly L iv-

ing (Holland, 1980) the mean score was 81.2 with a range

o f 5 2 . 9- 9 7. 7 . T h e r e w e r e 3 m e n a n d 3 w o m e n a m o n g t h e

f luent subjects .

For the nonf luent subjects (Subjects 7-11) in the lef t

hemisp her e - dam aged gr oup the mean score on the W es te r n

Aphasia Battery, aphasia quotient , was 66.0 with a range o

40..3-90.3. On the C om mun icat iv e Abil i t ies in Daily Living,

this group' s average score was 113.6 with a range o

72 .0- 133 .0 . The r e w er e 4 m en and 1 w om an am ong the l e f

hemispher e - damaged nonf luen t sub jec t s .

I n the gr oup of 10 r igh t hemispher e - damaged adul t s

(mean age = 64, range = 48-74) the mean score on the

Western Aphasia Battery was 98.5 with a range of 92.6-100.

The m ean scor e for the gr oup on the Com munica t iv e

Abilities in D aily L ivi ng was 123.5 w ith a ran ge o f 72--136.

Subjec t s w er e evenl y d i s t r ibu ted on the bas i s o f s ex w i th 5

men and 5 w o men in th is d iagnos t ic ca tegor y .

The la s t g r oup con s i s ted of 10 adul t s w i th n or mal

language ( me an age = 62, r ange = 57- 69) d i s t r ibu ted

even ly on the bas i s o f sex (5 w om en, 5 men) . A ccor d ing to

each subjec t ' s h i s to r y , the r e w as no ev id enc e of neur o-

log ic d i sor der ; psychia t r i c d i sor der ; speech , l anguage ,

and hea r ing pr oblems ; o r b i l ingua l d i f f e r ences . The

adul t s in al l th r ee gr ou ps had co mpl e ted a min imu m of 13

year s o f s chool , and a l l w er e cons ide r ed l i t e r ate .


4/15

108 Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 5 105- 119 May 1987

The Pragmatic Protocol

The pr agmat ic p r o tocol , deve loped by P r u t t ing ( 1982) ,

w a s d e s i g n e d t o p r o v i d e a n o v e r a l l c o m m u n i c a t i v e i n d e x

f or s chool - age ch i ld r en , adolescen ts , and adul t s . The

pr o tocol cons i s t s o f 30 pr agm at ic a spec t s o f language .

T h e s e p a r a m e t e r s w e r e e x t r a p o l at e d f r om th e d e v e l o p -

menta l ch i ld l anguage l i t e r a tur e as w e l l a s the adul t

l i t e r a tur e . I t w as pa r t i cu la r ly im por tan t f o r us to des ign a

too l tha t w ould r epr e sen t a r ange of d ive r se aspec t s

d i scussed in the l i t e r a tur e . W e have adher ed to

Lev inso n ' s ( 1983) t r ea t i s e tha t the r ange of p r agmat ic

aspec t s ex i s t s on a cont inuum and inc ludes bo th contex t -

dep en den t a spec t s o f l anguage s t r uc tur e ( e. g ., cohes ion)

as w e l l a s a spec t s tha t r e ly on pr inc ip les o f l anguage

u s a g e t h a t a r e r e l a t i v e l y i n d e p e n d e n t o f l a n g u a g e s t r u c-

tur e ( e . g . , phys ica l p r ox imi ty , eye gaze ) . W e have pur -

pose ly mixed leve l s o f ana lys i s w i th in the pr o tocol ( f or m

and f unc t ion) in or de r to expl ica te the pr agmat ic e f f ec t s o f

de f ici t s ac r os s va r ious l eve l s o f pe r f or man ce .

A s ment ioned the pr o tocol w as des igned to r epr esen t a

r ange o f pa r amete r s un der obse r va tion . I n addi t ion to inc lu-

s iveness or b r oadness of s cope the f o l low ing pr oper t i e s

were taken into considerat ion in construct ing the protocol:

homogene i ty- - a l l pa r amete r s r epr esen t a log ica l r e la t ion-

sh ip to communica t ive competence and to each o the r ,

mutua l ly exc lus iveness - - a l l i t ems r e f e r to one un ique d i -

mens ion of commu nica t ive compe tence and can be c lass i -

f ied into only one category, and usefulness- - -each parame-

ter serves a funct ion in relat ion to the p urpo se o f the s tudy.

Fox (1969) , as repor ted by Brandt (1972) , suggested the

des i r ab i li ty o f these f our pr oper t i e s in the de ve lop men t of

taxonomies . Each aspec t w as inc luded u nder on e of the

fol lowing categor ies : verbal , paral ingnis t ic , nonverbal .

The pr o tocol used in th i s s tudy a long w i th the de f in i -

t i on s o f e a c h p a r a m e t e r a n d e x a m p l e s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n

the A ppen dix . I t is impor tan t tha t judg men ts o f appr opr i -

a te o r inappr opr ia te be made r e la t ive to the sub jec t ,

pa r tne r , and o the r a spec t s o f the con tex t tha t a r e know n.

For ins tance , a 5 - yea r - o ld ch i ld i s ab le to be cohe s ive bu t

p e r h a p s i n f e w e r w a y s o r u s i n g a m o r e r e st r i ct e d n u m b e r

of syn tac t ic f or ms than an adul t . W h en us ing th i s p r o tocol ,

j u d g m e n t s m u s t b e m a d e t a k i n g b o t h c h r o n o l o g y a n d

contex t in to account . The too l is des ig ned to be used on ly

w i th ch i ld r en 5 yea r s o f age or o lde r . The d eve l opm enta l

l i t e r a tur e sugges t s tha t by age 5 ch i ld r en show some f or m

( poss ib ly no t f u l ly deve lope d) o f a l l 30 pa r ame te r s eva l -

ua ted by the pr agmat ic p r o tocol .

The pr agmat ic p r o tocol should be comple ted a f te r ob-

se r v ing ind iv idua l s engaged in spontaneous , uns t r uc tur ed

conver sa t ion w i th a communica t ive pa r tne r . I t i s r ecom-

me nde d tha t c l in ic ians obse r ve 15 r a in of conver sa t ion

on- l ine or f rom a vid eota ped sam ple. Af ter the cl inician has

obse r ve d the in te r ac tion , the pr o tocol may be com ple ted . A t

th i s t ime each pr agmat ic a spec t o f l anguage on the pr o tocol

is jud ged as appropr ia te , inappropr iate , or not observed.

The f o l low ing gu ide l ines a r e used :

Appropriate: Parameters are marked appropriate if they

are judg ed to facilitate the com munic ative interaction or

are neutral.

Inappropriate: Parameters are marked inappropriate if

they are judged to detract from the communicative ex-

change and penalize the individual.

No opportunity to observe: If the evaluator does not have

sufficient information to judg e the beha vior as appropriate

or inappropriate, the clinician marks this column. Aspects

marked in this column are reassessed during additional

samples of conversational interaction until the evaluator is

able to judge them as either appropriate or inappropriate.

Rat ionale for Categorical Judgments

P r a g m a t i c t h e o r y h a s l o n g b e e n c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e

as s ignm ent of appr op r ia tenes s condi t ions f or eve r y se t o

c o n te x t s, i n m u c h t h e s a m e m a n n e r t h a t s e m a n t i c t h e o r y

has concent r a ted on t r u th condi t ions to w e l l f o r med

f o r m u la e . T h i s v i e w p o i n t h a s b e e n s u p p o r t e d b y p h i l o s-

oph ers (Aust in, 1962; Gr ice, 1975; Sear le , 1969) as well as

l inguis ts (Allwood, And ersson , Dahl , 1977; Lyon s ,

1977; Van Dijk, 1976) . Both o f our f i r s t two catego r ies

i m p l y t h a t o n e h a s s o m e n o t i o n o f n o r m a l p r a c t i c e a n d

can , the r e f or e , make accur a te judgments about conf or m-

ing to , and the v io la t ion of , these pr ac t ices g iven a ve r y

car e f u l cons ide r a t ion of the contex t in w hich the comm u-

nica t ive in te r ac t ion takes p lace . The th i r d ca tegor y , no

o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b s e rv e , w a s a d d e d b e c a u s e a f e w o f t h e

pragmatic aspects (e .g. , s tyl is t ic var iat ions) occur inf re-

quent ly . I t should be no ted , h ow ev er , tha t the major i ty of

the pr agmat ic a spec t s on the pr o tocol a r e cont inuous

t h r o u g h o u t d i s c o u r s e a n d c a n e a s i l y b e j u d g e d w i t h i n a

15- min segm ent of conver sa t ion .

T h e r e a r e s e v e ra l p o i n ts t o k e e p i n m i n d w h i l e j u d g i n g

the pr agmat ic a spec t s a s appr opr ia te o r inappr opr ia te .

O n e m u s t u n d e r s t a n d t h e s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c b a c k g r o u n d o f

the sub jec t , a s i s the case w i th a ny ana lys i s o f language , in

or der to a s s ign the cur r en t judgm ent . W e a r e no t a t t empt -

ing to t r ea t people as cu l tu r a l ly homogeneous . The l i t e r -

a t u r e f ro m w h i c h t h e s e p a r a m e t e r s w e r e e x t r a c t e d d o c u -

m e n t s t h e i r d e v e l o p m e n t i n E n g l i s h , a n d t h e d e f i n i ti o n s

p r o v i d e d a r e d e s i g n e d t o b e u s e d w i t h E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g

c h i l d r e n f r o m m o n o l i n g u a l h o m e s . S e c o n d , w e r e c o m -

m e n d t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e c o m m u n i c a t i v e

par tne r s be pos i t ive or neu t r a l . The as sumpt ion in th i s

type of r e la t ionsh ip i s tha t bo th pa r tne r s expec t to engage

in cooper a t ive d i scour se ( G r ice , 1975) . I t i s impor tan t to

note tha t one may oper a te in an ou t landish or exagge r a ted

mann er , be d i s in te r es ted , be i r on ic , and so f or th and

t h e r e b y e x p l o i t c o m m u n i c a t i v e c o n v e n t i o n s b u t , n e v e r -

t h e l es s , b e j u d g e d a p p r o p r i a t e g i v e n t h e g o a ls o f t h e

r e la t ionsh ip and s i tua t ion a t hand . A s Levinson ( 1983)

m e n t i o n s , o n e c a n b e g r o s sl y i n a p p r o p r i a t e a n d y e t b e

supr emely appr opr ia te . Las t ly , speaker s and l i s t ene r s

may conf or m to the pr e va i l in g mor es of a pa r ti cu la r

a t t i tude or subcul tur e in a nu mb er o f w ays . I t is impor tan t

to r ea l i ze tha t bu i l t in to the de f in i t ions o f appr o pr ia te an d

inappr o pr ia te i s t r eme ndo us v a r iab i l i ty in t e r ms of the

m a n n e r i n w h i c h o n e a d h e r e s t o o r v io l a t e s t h e s e c o n v e n -

t ions . W hat w e a r e a sk ing i s , does a pa r t i cu la r pa r amete r

f a ll too f a r f r om the nor m al cur v e to be appr op r ia te to the

contex t and in some w ay in te r f e r e w i th the r e la t ionsh ip?


5/15

PRUTTING & KIRCHNER: Pragmatic Aspects of Language 109

We opted for a two-poin t yes /no judg men t ra the r than

us ing a s ca led procedure . The ra t iona le was tha t in

observ ing the en t i re 15- ra in s egment , i f t he re was one

ins tance in which the subjec t was judged inappropr ia t e

and i t appeared to pena l i ze the in te rac t ion , we would

mark the aspec t inappropr ia t e even though a l l o the r

a t t empts were judg ed appropr ia t e . We a re making a

judg men t ov er the e p i sode for each paramete r . I t i s a long

these l ines tha t we have m oved to judging the e f fec ts of

ce r t a in pa ramete rs on communica t ive in te rac t ions . For

ins tance , in one of our tra in ing t apes a c l i en t came in to

the room and p roce eded to l i e down on the couch. In th i s

context , th i s ac t was ve ry inappropr ia t e and caused grea t

a l a rm to the pa r tne r even though they had a fami l i a r

re l a t ionship . There fore , even though i t occur red only

once , the e f fec t was so dramat ic tha t phys ica l proximi ty

and body pos ture were marked inappropr ia t e . On the

other hand, th e pro tocol works in the oppos i t e way. One

would not make a judg men t of inappropr ia t e for one

param ete r i f t he aspec t i s u t il i zed incor rec t ly but does not

seem to pena l i ze the in te rac t ion . An aphas ic pa t i en t , for

example , was c l in ica l ly dys f luent because of word- f ind-

ing problems . However , h i s compensa tory s t ra t eg ies

were so good tha t he used in te r j ec t ions to hold h i s p lace

in the conversa t ion and k eep the l i s t ener' s in t e rest . Con-

sequent ly , he was not judg ed inap propr ia t e on aspec t s of

turn taking. In this case, there was cl inical evidence (on

s tandardized measures ) o f a de f i c it tha t d id not make a

not i ceable d i f fe rence in the c l i en t ' s ab i l i ty to make

smooth t rans i tions a t turn boun dar ies in the conversa t ion .

I f a lso , for example , a subjec t m is ses an op por tuni ty to

revi se a s t a t ement even though one was ca l l ed for , t h i s

one ins t ance wou ld not neces sa r i ly be judged inappropr i -

a t e i f i t d id not pena l i ze the in te rac t ion . Al though w e do

not t ake f reque ncy in to cons idera tion , we judge the

param ete r wi th in the conversa t iona l ep i sode observed . In

other words , our judg men t he re i s a long a soc ie ta l ra ting

for c l in ica l purpo ses . A param ete r i s marked inappropr i -

a t e not because i t is d i f fe rent but be cause the d i f fe rence

makes a d i f fe rence in the in te rac t ion . We wi l l demon-

s t rat e tha t these judgmen ts can be made re l i ab ly .

P re tra in ing

The f i rs t author pretrained the cl inician-inves t igators

who col lected the d ata for this s tudy in the use of the

protocol . Pretraining procedures included famil iarizat ion,

discuss ion, and clarif ication of the defini t ions o f each of the

pragmatic categories to be evaluated. In addi t ion, each

invest igator was t rained to make judgm ents of appropriate ,

inappropriate , or no op portuni ty to observe. Pretraining was

accompl i shed us ing v ideotapes of ch i ldren wi th speech and

language disorders as wel l as adul ts wi th r ight and left

hemisph ere bra in in jury and dev e lopmenta l ly de layed

adul ts. I t was ne cessary to ut i l ize a variety of disordered

populat ions across age levels becau se different ques t ions

arose depending on the part icular l inguis t ic and cogni t ive

defici ts exhibi ted by th e cl ients . Approxim ately 8--10 hr of

t raining was req uired for this research project . For pretrain-

ing, point-by-point rel iabi l i ty was calcu lated for both appro

priate and inappropriate judgm ents us ing the fol lowing

formula:

a g r e e m e n t s

100.

agreements

di sagreements

Re l i ab i li ty was a lways above 90 for judgm ents of appro-

pr i a t e and inappropr ia t e thus mee t ing adequa te pre t ra in-

ing cri ter ion.

Obse rv a t iona l P roc e dure

To col le ct the data for this s tudy, ea ch o f the 157

subject s was observ ed whi l e engaged in 15 ra in of spon-

taneous conversa t ion wi th a fami l i a r pa r tne r . The chi l -

dren wi th a r t i cu la t ion and l anguage d i sorders were ob-

se rved on- l ine wi th e i the r the speech- language pa tholo-

g i s t or the i r t eacher ; the normal ch i ldren were observed

wi th the i r c l as s room teacher . For a l l t h ree groups of

chi ldren , obse rva t ions were ca r r i ed out in the s chool

set t ing. Al l of the adul ts w ere en gag ed in interact ions

wi th fami ly mem bers , f r i ends , or the speech- language

pathologis t . Observat ion sess ions with the adul t subjects

were v ideo taped . At the end of the observa t ion per iod ,

the pro tocol was com ple ted for each subjec t .

R e l iab i l i t y

In te robse rver re l i ab i l i ty da ta were obta ined for 25 o

the total subjects (40/157) with at leas t 6 subjects drawn

from each of the s ix diagnost ic grou ps . D uring the rel i -

abi l i ty sess ions the inves t igator and a cl inician-inves t iga-

tor obse rved the conversa t iona l in t e rac tion . The pro toco

was comple ted in dep end ent ly by each inves t iga tor at t he

end of each observa t iona l pe r iod . Poin t -by -poin t re li ab i l-

i ty was ca lcula ted for each of the 30 paramete rs s epara te ly

for the appropr ia t e and inappropr ia t e ca tegor ies . The

fol lowing formula was used:

a g r e e m e n t s

x 100.

agreements

di sagreements

Re l i ab i li ty for the groups of ch i ldren wi th a r t i cu la t ion

and l anguage d i sorders was ca lcula ted and ranged be-

tween 93 - -100 wi th a mean of 94 .4 for judgm ents o

appropr ia t e and 92.3 for judgm ents of inappropr ia t e .

For the l e f t and r ight hemisp here -d amag ed adul ts re l i -

abi l i ty agre eme nts rang ed from 90.9 to 100 . Average

rel iabi l i ty for judg me nts o f appro priate was 95.6 ; 93.1

agreem ent was seen for judgm ents of inappropr ia t e . Re-

l i ab i li ty for both normal groups (ch i ldren and adul ts ) was

100 for both judgm ents of appropr ia t e and inappropr i -

ate categories .

R E S U L T S

Two leve l s of desc r ip t ive ana lyses were pe r fo rmed on

the da ta addres s ing both qua l i t a t ive and quant i t a t ive


6/15

110 Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 5 105- 119 May 1987

TABLE 1. Mean (M), standard dev iation (SD), range o f app ropri-

ate pragm atic aspects o f language, and rank order o f most

frequent inappropriate pragmatic aspects per group expresssed

in percentages.

Rank order of

Group M

SD

Ra ng e inappropriate spects

Normal

children

(X = 42)

99 3 83-100

both cases . The ind iv idua l sub jec t da ta f or these tw o

gr oups a r e pr ese n ted in F igur es 1 and 2 . The nor mal

s u b j ec t s w e r e i n c l u d e d i n th e s t u d y t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r

o1 not the protocol is an index sensi t ive to dif ferences

b e t w e e n n o r m a l a n d d i s o r d e r e d c o m m u n i c a t o r s o n a

b r o a d s e t o f c o m m u n i c a t i v e p a r a m e t e r s . H o w e v e r , t h e

g r o u p s w e r e n o t i n c l u d e d f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f m a k i n g

di r ec t compar i sons to nor mal f unc t ion ing . Ther e f or e ,

ana lys i s f r om th i s po in t on w i l l be conf ined to the f our

r emain ing d iagnos t ic ca tegor ies .

Norm al adults 99 1 97-100

(N = 10)

Child ren with 96 8 60-100 Intelligibility (21%)

articulation Vocal quality (10%)

disorders Vocal intensity (10%)

(N = 42) Flu enc y (7%)

Facial expression (7%)

Pause tim e (7%)

Children with

language

disorders

(N = 42)

Adults with

left hemi-

sphere

damage

X = n )

88 10 60-100

82 9 63 93

Specificity-Accuracy (71%)

Cohesion (55%)

Repair/Revision (40%)

Quantity-Conciseness (38%)

Intelligibility (21%)

Specificity-Accuracy (100%)

Quantity-Conciseness (82%)

Pause tim e (64%)

Variety o f speec h acts (4.5%)

Fluency (45%)

Adults with 84 13 60-100 Eye gaze (60%)

right hemi - Prosody (50%)

sphere Conting ency (50%)

dam age Adjacency (50%)

(N = 10) Quantity -Concise ness (50%)

aspec t s o f the pr of i l e s for each subjec t g r oup . Th ese

ana lyses inc luded: ( a) ac r os s - gr oup compar i sons of the

m e a n p e r c e n t a g e o f a p p r o p r i a t e p r a g m a t i c p a r a m e t e r s

and ( b) w i th in- gr ou p m easur es tha t addr es se d the pr of i l e s

of def ici ts in each d iagno st ic categ ory. Specif ical ly, this

w as the r ank or de r o f the f ive pr agmat ic pa r am ete r s mo s t

f r equent ly mar ked inappr opr ia te a s w e l l a s ind iv idua l

subjec t da ta tha t r e f lec ted pr of i le s o f pe r f or m ance ac r oss

a l l 30 communica t ive pa r amete r s . ( For ch i ld r en w i th

a r t i cu la t ion d i sor der s , 6 pa r amete r s a r e l i s t ed because of

t ies in ranking. )

T h e m e a n p e r c e n t a g e o f a p p r o p r i a t e p r a g m a t ic p a r a m -

e te r s and the s tandar d devia t ions w er e computed sepa-

r a te ly f or each gr oup . These r esu l t s a r e pr esen ted by

gr oup in Table 1 .

Normal Groups

A s expec ted , the nor mal sub jec t s tha t s e r ve d as cont ro l s

f or bo th ch i ld an d adul t g r oups show ed f ew inappr opr ia te

pr agmat ic beha vior s ( l es s than 1% on the aver age) . Ther e

w as l i t t l e va r iab i l i ty w i th in e i the r o f the tw o no r mal

gr oups as ind ica ted by the smal l s t andar d devia t ions in

Disordered Groups

W ith r espec t to the d i sor der ed popula t ions , the r esu l t s

f or the sub jec t s w i th a r t i cu la t ion an d lang uage d i sor der s

a r e pr ese n ted f ir st . The se gr oup da ta a r e a lso summar ized

in Table 1 , w her e as ind iv idua l sub jec t p r of i le s a re pr e -

s e n t e d i n F i g u r e s 3 a n d 4 . T h e m e a n p e r c e n t a g e o f

appr opr ia te p r agmat ic pa r amete r s w as 96% and 88%,

r espec t ive ly . Ther e w as gr ea te r va r iab i l i ty in these sub-

jec t popula t ions compar ed to tha t f o r the nor mals a s

ind ica ted by the h igher s tandar d dev ia t ions . Chi ldr en

w i th a r t i cu la t ion d i sor der s w er e f ound to be de f ic ien t on

a c lus te r o f d imen s ions tha t p r imar i ly r e la te to i s sues of

speech pr oduc t ion a f f ec t ing the c la r i ty of the m essage

expr es sed : in te l l ig ib i l i ty , f luency , vo ice qua l i ty , voca l

i n t e n s i t y , p a u s e t i m e , a n d o n e n o n v e r b a l p a r a m e t e r - -

f ac ia l expr es s ion . ( See r ank- or der da ta in Table 1 . ) This

w as no t an unexpec ted f ind ing cons ide r ing the d iagnos i s

of a r t i cu la tion d i sor der . H ow ever , the ex ten t to w hich

such e r r ors a r e judg ed to a ff ec t com mun ica t iv e comp e-

tence i s va r iab le w i th in the popula t ion . Even though a l l

ch i ld r en in the s tudy w er e be ing t r ea ted f or a r t i cu la t ion

disor der s , a muc h smal le r p r op or t ion of those ( 9/42)

exhib i ted d i sor der s s ever e enough to in te r f e r e w i th a

p e r c e i v e d l e v e l o f c o m m u n i c a t i v e c o m p e t e n c e .

T h e m e a n p e r c e n t a g e o f a p p r o p r i a t e p r a g m a t i c b e h a v -

iors f or the ch i ld r en w i th l angu age d i sor de r s w as some-

w ha t low er than f or the ch i ld r en w i th a r t i cu la t ion d i sor -

de r s . Rank- or der da ta ( Table 1) show the c lus te r o f p r ag-

mat ic pa r amete r s tha t w as iden t i f i ed f or th i s g r oup of

subjec t s . The pa r amete r s tha t appear ed to in te r f e r e w i th

c o m m u n i c a t i v e c o m p e t e n c e w e r e b y a n d l a r g e t h e p r o d -

ue t o f l inguis t i c de f ici t s r e la ted to the s emant ic an d

syntac t ic a spec t s o f expr es s i ve l anguage . T hese ch i ld r en

exhib i ted a c lus te r o f p r agma t ic de f ic it s r e la ted to the

spec i f ic ity and accur ac y of the m essage , the c ohes iv eness

of expr es s ion , the ab i l i ty to r ev i se and c la r i fy messages ,

in te l l ig ib i l i ty , and the quan t i ty and co nc iseness of mes -

sages .

The gr oup and r ank- or der da ta f or the tw o adul t d i sor -

de r ed gr oups a r e a l so pr esen ted in Table 1 ; ind iv idua l

subjec t p r of i l e s a r e pr esen ted in F igur es 5 and 6 . The

adul t sub jec t s w i th a l e f t hem isph er e CV A show a mea n

o f 8 2 % p r a g m a t i c p a r a m e t e r s j u d g e d a p p r o p r i at e . L i k e

the ch i ld r en w i th l angu age d i sor der s , th i s g r oup of sub-

jec t s p r odu ced a pr of i l e o f de f ici t s tha t w er e r e la ted to

l inguis t i c cons tr a in t s inc lud in g spec i f i c i ty and accu r acy

of expr es s ion , pause t im e in tu r n t ak ing , quant i ty and


7/15

PRUTTING & KIRCHNER:Pragmatic Aspects of Language

VERBAL ASPECTS

Speech act pair analysis

Variety of speech acts

Topic selection

Topic introduction

Topic maintenance

Topic change

Turntaking initiation

Turntaking response

Turntaking repair revision

Turntaking pause time

Turntaking interruption overlap

Turntaking feedback to speaker

Turntaking adjacency

Turntaking contingency

Turntaking quantity conciseness

Specificity accuracy

Cohesion

Varying communicative style

PARALINGUlSTIC SPECTS

Intelligibility

Vocal intensity

Vocal quality

Prosody

Fluency

NONVERBAL ASPECTS

Physical proximity

Physical contacts

Body posture

Foot leg and hand arm movements

Gestures

Facial expression

Eye gaze

~ oJ 04 eJ e4 e4 o~ eJ ~ ~ o~ e9 ¢o co ¢o co o9 o9 co co e~ ~ ~ ~

FIGURE 1. Pragmatic parameters marked inappropriate for the 42 childr en in the normal group.

VERB L ASPECTS



Topic selection

Topic introduction

Topic maintenance

Topic change


Turntaking response


Tumtaking pause time


Turntaking feedback to speaker





Cohesion


P R LINGUISTIC SPECTS

Intelligibility

Vocal intensity

Vocal quality

Prosody

Fluency

NONVERB L SPECTS

Physical proximity

Physical contacts

Body posture


Gestures

Facial expression

Eye gaze

FIGURE 2. Pragm atic parameters marked inappropriate for the

10 adults in the normal group.

conc i seness of the message , f luency, and the va r i e ty of

speech ac t s produced.

In qui te dramatic contras t , the subjects with les ions in

the r ight hem isphe re pres ented a d i f fe rent prof i le a lto-

ge ther . The m ean perc entage o f appropr ia te pragmat ic

paramete rs was 84 , which i s s imi la r to tha t of the group

wi th l e f t hem ispher e l e s ions . The d i f fe rence l ie s in the

c lus te r of pa ramete rs ident i f i ed as mos t f requent ly judged

inappropr ia te ( see Table 1) . They inc luded eye gaze ,

prosody, ad jacency, cont ingency, and quant i ty and con-

c i seness . Al though quant i ty and conc i seness and cont in-

gency a re a f fec ted by l ingui s t ic abi li ty , the problem s o

prosody and eye gaze make a major cont r ibut ion to the

perce ived proble m o f a f fec t, which has been wel l docu-

me nte d for pat ients in this diagnost ic catego ry (e.g.

Meyers, 1986; Ross & Masulam, 1979).

The result s of th i s s tudy show di f fe rences in the w ay in

which pragmatic defici ts s t rat i fy across four diagnost ic

groups of subject s wi th speech and l anguage d i sorders .

The s ignif i cance of these resul t s and the benef i t s o

applying a proce dure tha t eva lua tes a range of pragmat ic

paramete rs in d i sordered popula t ions a re presented in

the next sect ion.

D I S C U S S I O N

The purpose of th i s s tudy was to eva lua te the u t i l i ty o

a desc r ip t ive t axonomy tha t can be used to ident i fy the

range o f pragm atic defici ts in individuals from four cl in-

i ca l popula t ions . In the present inves t iga t ion chi ldren

with art iculat ion disorders , chi ldren with language disor-

ders , adul t s wi th l e f t hem isphe re l e s ions , and adul t s wi th

r ight hemisphere l e s ions se rved as subjec t s . The resul t s

of the s tudy were prese nted in t e rms of the pa t t e rn

tendenc ies tha t charac te r i zed the responses of the sub-

jeers in each diagnost ic category. The resul ts wil l be

discuss ed in terms of the value o f the tool for c linical

appl icat ion.


8/15

112 Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 5 105-119 May 1987

VERBAL ASPECTS


Variety e speech acts

Topic selection

Topic introduction

Topic maintenance

Topic change


Turntaking response

Turntaking repair/revision

Tumtaking pause time

Turntaking interruption/overlap

Turntaking feedback o speaker



Turntaking quantity/conciseness

Specificity/accuracy

Cohesion


PARALINGUISTIC ASPECTS

Intellybility

Vocal intensity

Vocal quality

Prosody

Fluency

NONVERBAL ASPECTS

Physical proximity

Physical contacts

Body posture

Fgot/leg and hand/arm movements

Gestures

Facial expression

Eye gaze

II

II

I I I I I

• I

I

I

• I I

I

E

I

I I I

I

I

[ I I I I I I I

I

I

I

I

I

FIGURE 3. Pragmatic parameters marked inappropriate for the 42 childr en in th e articulation-

disordered group.

The f indings of th i s inves t iga t ion can be summar ized in

the fol low ing way. Firs t , the data indicate that the wa g-

matie protocol is a useful tool for deriving a profi le of

communicat ive defici ts across cl inical populat ions . Four

di s t inc t prof i l es em erged tha t s epara ted the four d iagnos -

t ic groups on the bas is of their pe rform ance on a range of

pragmat ic pa ramete rs . In the ab sence of de ta i l ed c l in ica l

profi les , we are making no claims about consis tent group

di f fe rences . How ever , we a re c l a iming the po tent i a l use -

fu lnes s of the tool for d i s tingui sh ing am ong pa t t e rns of

pragmatic defici ts .

Second, the da ta indica ted tha t the num ber of prag-

mat i c pa ramete rs judg ed inappropr ia t e , i n absolu te t e rms ,

were low across subjec t groups . The m ean pe rcentage of

inappropr ia t e pragmat ic pa ramete rs for the ch i ldren wi th

art iculat ion disorders was 4 of the total , for the chi ldren

with langua ge disorde rs was 12 , for adul ts wi th lef t

hem isph ere les ions was 18 , and for adul ts wi th r ight

hem isph ere les ions was 14 . Ho wev er, there was a fai r ly

large range of variabil iW, as indica ted by the s tandard

deviat ions , w i thin each o f the fou r clinical groups .

In al l l ikel ihood, this variabi l i ty reflects two aspects of

the s tudy. To begin wi th , the ch i ldren wi th l anguage and

ar t i cu la t ion d i sorders w ere o bserved con vers ing wi th

e i the r the i r t eacher or speech pa thologi s t . Even though

the cri ter ion of l is tener famil iariW was met , i t i s poss ible

tha t the conversa t iona l pa r tne r in the dyad observed

could inf luence the s t ruc ture and content of the in te rac -

t ion. For example, a more faci l i ta t ive partner could en-

courage in i t i a t ion and par t i c ipa t ion; whereas another

par tne r could as sume a dominant pos i t ion in the conver -

sat ion and al low fewer opportuni t ies for ini t ia t ion on the

par t of the d i sordered com munica tor . The re fore , in us ing

the tool i t i s important to consider the role each part ic i -

pant plays in s t ructuring the interact ion. The resul ts

obta ined should be eva lua ted re l a t ive to the cont r ibu-

t ions made by bot h spea ker and l is tener. In fact , the tool

cannot be used in any o ther way.

This variab i l i ty could also reflect the lack of hom oge-

nei ty of subjects due to the general d iagnost ic classi f icat ion

used to select part ic ipants for this s tudy. For example, i f

subjects with. language disorders had been separated into

subgroups according to comprehension-product ion rela-

t ionships (e .g. , high comprehension-low product ion, low

comprehension and product ion), the variabi l i ty may have

bee n reduced. Moreover, di fferent profiles of pragmatic

defici t may have emerged. Several inves t igators have hy-

poth esize d (e.g., Fey & Leona rd, 1983; Prutting & Kirchner,

1983) that the part icular combinat ion of l inguis t ic and cog-

ni t ive defici ts ident i f ied cl inically wil l yield subgroups of

pragmatic defici ts . By inspect ing the individual subject

data presented in the f igures , this hypothes is is val idated

to some extent . For example, the profi les for Subjects 14,

15, and 38 in the group of l anguage-d i sordered chi ldren

are qui te differen t (see Figure 4) . Thes e profi les suggest

that the term

pragmatic deficit

c a n n o t b e d e f i n e d b y t h e

same set of param eters for al l subjects with a s imilar

diagnost ic label .

For Subjec t i4 in the l anguage-di sordered group, the

major source of pe rce ived comm unica t ive d i f fi cu lty was

in the approp riate use of spee ch acts . This refers to the

var i e ty and n um ber of speech ac t s succes s fu l ly accom-

pl ished as wel l as the abi l i ty to take both the speaker and

l i s t ener ro le (e.g ., acknow ledgm ent of comments m ade b y


9/15

PRUTTING KIRCHNER:

Pragmatic spects of Language

113

VERBAL ASPECTS



Topic selection

Topic introduction

Topic maintenance

Topic change


Turntaking response

Turntaking repair/revision

Turntaking pause time

Turntaking interruption/overlap

Turntak ng feedback to speaker



Turntaking quantity/conciseness

Specificity/accuracy

Cohesion



Intelligibility

Vocal intensity

Vocal quality

Prosody

Fluency

NONVERBAL ASPECTS

Physical proximity

Physical contacts

Body posture

Foot/leg and hand/arm movements

Gestures

Facial expression

Eye gaze

l t

l

m

iii

|

I .L|

I i

i ' I

I1=

l

1

I=

If,

I

I I

II

Ii

i

II

I

I I

T

i i i i l

FIGURE 4. Pragmatic parameters marked inappropriate for the 42 ch ildre n in the language-

disordered group.

the pa r tne r or reques t ing informat ion or ac t ions ) . For

Subject 15, the profi le is qui te different . The issues that

were judged to in te r fe re wi th communica t ion dea l wi th

the ab i l i ty to s e l ec t and re t r i eve l ex iea l it ems appropr ia t e

to the context ; t he ab i l i ty to produ ce segments of uni f i ed,

relevant , and connected text ' , and the abi l i ty to provide

suf f i c i en t but not exces s ive or unneces sa ry informat ion

for the l is tener. And f inal ly, for Subject 38, yet another

profi le emerg ed. For this subject , areas of defici t wer e

focused on aspec ts of topic inc luding the ab i l i ty to main-

t a in and change topic a t appropr ia t e poin t s in the d i s -

course and the abi l i ty to repair or ask for c lari f icat ion

when neces sa ry .

Different profi les may also reflect di fferences among

subgroups for the disordered adul t subjects as wel l . For a

pat ient wi th a f luen t aphasia, speech is often plent i ful but

deficient in content and intel l igibi l i ty due to high propor-

tions o f paraph asia (literal and verba l) and deficits in lexieal

access . In contras t , the nonfluent pat ient produces speech

that is l imited to a few words , is characterized by agram-

matieal s tnmture, and often contains high proport ions of

apraxie errors with increased response la tency. In both

eases , successful comm unicat ion is depe nde nt on the avai l -

ability of lexieal items an d structural type s (prim arily lin-

guis t ic or speech produc t ion parameters). In both eases , the

burden of communica t ion may l i e wi th the l i s tener to

extrapolate meaning from content . The resul t is a perce ived

lack o f communica t ive competen ce but for ve ry d i f fe rent

reasons . The data from two of the aphasic subjects in this

study, Subjects 1 and 9, i l lustrate the differences in profiles

tha t may be obta ined dep ending on the s it e of in jury and

type of aphasia (see Fig ure 5). Subject 1, a f luent aphasic ,

showed deficits in repair and revision strategies, intelligi-

bi l ity, and vocal intens i ty as wel l as a c lu s ter of parameters

that cen tered on f i le abi l i ty t o generate cohesive, re levant

and expl ici t messages . F or Subject 9, a n0n fluent aphasi G

defici ts in the abi l i ty to generate concise, c lear messages

were also ident i f ied along with variety of speech acts , pause

t ime ( too long in this case) , and f luency. The point is , the

way in w hich the profi le of defici ts is dis t r ibuted within a

diagnost ic popu lat ion wil l be variable . A general diagnost ic

label a lone does no t a l low the cl inician to predic t the exac

way in wh ich defici ts interact to prod uce a loss of commu

nicat ive abil i ty. In addi t ion to the groups d iscussed in this

paper, head-injured adul ts have been s tudied us ing the

protocol . The resul ts are discussed elsewhere (Ment is

1985; M ilton, Prutting, 6: Binder, 1984).

I t i s impor tant to keep in mind severa l a spec t s o f the

protocol and i ts use, Firs t , the protocol is considered a

genera l communica t ive index . Thi s i s not a d iagnos t i c

procedure . The t rea tmen t s t ra t eg ies adop ted for a pa r ti c

u la r c l i en t wi l l be based on de ta i l ed as ses sment o f the

pragmat ic pa ramete rs tha t have been judged inappropr i -

ate . Th e cl inical value of this pro ced ure is as a descript ive

taxonomy; The tool provides the c l in ici an wi th a prof il e o

performance defici ts across 30 nonverbal , paral inguis t ic

and verba l pa ramete rs tha t a f fec t comm unica t ive com pe

tence . Once ce r t a in pa ramete rs have been ident i f i ed as

be ing def i c i en t , t hey can be aggrega ted in to c l in ica

c lus te rs , which a re both func t iona l ly and behaviora l ly

groupe d. T he ident i f icat ion of intact abi li t ies is a lso

impor tant f rom a c l in ica l s t andpoin t . T hese aspec t s can

provide impo r tant informat ion tha t can be used in des ign

ing t reatment s t rategies that bui ld on exis t ing abi l i t ies . In


10/15

114 Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 5 105--119 Ma y 1987

VERBAL ASPECTS



Topic selection

Topic ntroduction

Topic maintenance

Topic change

Tumtaking initiation

Turntaking response

Tumtaking repair revision

Turntaking pause ime

Tumtaking nterruption overlap

Turntaking eedback o speaker



Tumtaking quantity conciseness


Cohesion

Varying communicativestyle


Intelligibility

Vocal ntensity

Vocal quality

Prosody

Fluency

NONVERBAL ASPECTS

Physical proximity

Physical contacts

Body posture


Gestures

Facial expression

Eye gaze

•

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I

I I I I I I • I I

I I I I I I I I

I I I I

I I I I I I

II i

I I I I

II

II • I I I I I I

II

II

II

FIGURE 5. Pragmatic param eters marke d inap propriate for the

11 adults in the left hem isph ere brain-dam aged group,

any case , i t is the ind iv idu a l conf igur a t ion of comm uni -

c a t i v e p e r f o r m a n c e t h a t d e t e r m i n e s t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h

addi t iona l d iagnos t ic p r oced ur es m ay be use f u l .

Second , a s p r ev ious ly ind ica ted , the da ta sugges ted

t h a t t h e a v e r a g e n u m b e r o f i n a p p r o p r i a te p r a g m a t i c pa -

r amete r s f or sub jec ts in a l l f our d iagnos t ic ca tegor ies w as

r e la t ive ly low (no le s s than 82 appr opr ia te on the

aver age f or any gr oup) . H ow ever , ana lys i s on the bas i s o f

f r e q u e n c y a l o n e i s m i s l e a d i n g b e c a u s e a p a r a m e t e r w a s

j u d g e d a p p r o p r i a t e o r n o t d e p e n d i n g o n w h e t h e r i t a p -

pear ed to in te r f e r e w i th the sub jec t ' s ab i l i ty to communi -

ca te succes s f u l ly . M or eover , no pa r t i cu la r cu tof f s cor e has

been pr ovided to sugges t those pa t ien t s f a l l ing above a

p r e d e t e r m i n e d l e v e l h a v e n o p r a g m a t i c d e fi c it a n d t h o s e

f a l l ing be lo w a r e impa i r ed . The pr o tocol i s used in such a

w ay tha t a behavior occur r ing on ly once in the obse r va-

t i o n al p e r i o d b u t ju d g e d p e n a l i z i n g w o u l d b e m a r k e d

inappr opr ia te . The r a t iona le i s tha t i f on ly one pa r a mete r

i s jud ged inappr o pr ia te an d used in such a w ay tha t i t

i n t e rf e r e s w i t h c o m m u n i c a t i o n , t h a t p a r a m e t e r s h o u l d b e

as ses sed f ur the r to de te r mine w he the r th i s ind iv idua l

f r equen t ly d i sp lay ed th i s type of behavior . The c l in ic ian

w ould mak e f ur the r obse r va t ion s in o the r s i tua t ions ( e .g . ,

c la s s r oom, home, o r w or k envi r onment ) to de te r mine

w he ther th i s w as s im ply an i so la ted inc ident o r a pa t te r n

of in te r ac t ion tha t occur s in many contex t s . O n the o the r

e n d o f t h e c o n t i n u u m , t h e r e m a y b e c l in i c al e v i d e n c e ( o n

s tandar d ized measu r es ) o f a de f ic i t tha t does no t m ake a

not iceab le d i f f e r ence in one ' s ab i l i ty to communica te

e f f ec t ive ly . I f the d i f f e r ence does no t make a d i ff e r ence in

t h e o v e r a l l c o m m u n i c a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n a n d i n t h e p e r -

c e i v e d l e v e l o f c o m p e t e n c e , i t i s n o t c o n s i d e r e d i n a p p r o -

pr ia te . I t is qu i te l ike ly tha t some pa r amete r s u sed inap-

VERBAL ASPECTS



Topic selection

Topic ntroduction

Topic maintenance

Topic change


Turntaking response


Turntaking pause ime


Turntaking eedback o speaker





Cohesion

Varying communicativestyle


Intelligibility

Vocal ntensity

Vocal quality

Prosody

Fluency

NONVERBAL ASPECTS

Physical proximity

Physical contacts

Body posture

Foo~e g and hand arm movements

Gestures

Facial expression

Eye gaze

II

II

I

II

I[

I

,

II

I

II

II

I I I I

I I I I I I I I

i

I f

I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I

FIGURE 6. Pragmatic param eters m arked inappro priate for th,

10 adults in the right hemisphere brain-damaged group.

pr opr ia te ly a r e mor e pena l iz ing , f r om a conver sa t iona l

s tandpoin t , than o the r s . Fur the r mor e , ce r ta in combina-

t ions of de f ici t s may be m or e pen a l iz ing than o the r

c o m b i n a t i o n s . I n o t h e r w o r d s , f r e q u e n c y a l o n e c a n n o t b e

cons id e r ed an index of s ever i ty w he n u s ing th i s too l .

And f inal ly, the pragmatic protocol is separated f rom

other p r agmat ic ana lyses in one addi t iona l w ay . H ypo theses

about the pr agmat ic de fic it s d i sp layed by the ind iv idual a r e

gener a ted f r om la r ge r s egments o f pe r f or mance and then

evalua ted in relat ion to def ici ts in their comp one nt abi l i t ies .

Tha t i s , in p r agmat ic a s ses sment one mus t cons ide r the

e f fec t s o f def ici t s in o the r a spec t s o f deve lo pme nt on the

per ce ived leve l o f comm unica t ive competen ce . H e r e the

cl inician is interes ted in the relat ionship be twe en def ici ts in

specif ic abi l i t ies , say naming or a t tent ion, and the subse-

que nt integ rat ion of these abi l i t ies into conversat ional lan-

guage . As an example , cons ide r the pr oble m o f anomia or

w or d- r e t r i eva l de f ic i t in aphas ia and ch i ldhood language

disorder . O ne of the pa r am ete r s mos t f r equent ly judged

inapp ropr iate for both groups in this s tud y was specif ic i ty

and accur acy. The pr oble m i s one of making c lea r r e f e r ence

as oppo sed to the o veruse of nonspe cif ie terms (e .g. , pro-

nouns , ind ef ini te anapho ra, e tc .) or c ircumlo cutory remarks

Clea r ly , th is i s a conversa t iona l pa r amete r tha t i s depend ent

both on lex ica l d ive r s i ty and lex ica l acces s and w ould be

considered l inguis t ic in nature . Yet , the conversat ional

cons eque nce of word-retr ieval def ici t is lack of specif ic i ty

and accuracy in express ion al lowing, in some cases , output

that is suf f ic ient in amount but def icient in content and

clari ty. Th e p at ient ' s us e of language at the leve l of dis-

course is an of ten negle cted source o f information for the

c l in ical speech - language pa tho logis t. T he s tudy o f l anguage

in d i scour se i s a pow er f u l a s ses sment too l tha t has been


11/15

PRUTTING & KIRCHNER: P r a g m a t i c A s p e c t s o f L a ng u a g e 115

over looked , pa r t i cu la r ly in the d eve lo pme nt of s tandard ized

tes t ins~uments . To under s tand how or w he the r c l in ica l

de f ic i ts a f fec t communica t ive compete nce , ana lysi s o f l a rge r

segments o f pe r f or mance i s necessa r y .

The pr esen t inves t iga tion w as des ign ed to t e st the c l ini -

cal ut i l i ty of a descr ipt iv e taxon omy that evaluates a 15-min

sample of communica t ion us ing 30 d imens ions of p r agmat ic

f unc t ion ing . This s eems to be of cons ide r ab le c l in ica l ben-

ef it . Th at is , the proto col appe ars to be sui table as an index

of the extent to whic h cl inical def ici ts affect com mun icat iv e

compe tence . The r esu lt s o f th i s ana lysi s gu ide the c l in ic ian

to clus ters of param eters that require fur ther assessment .

The resul ts a lso al low the cl inician to identify intact abi l i -

t i e s tha t can be used in t r ea tment .

The impor tance of cont inued s tudy in the a r ea of p r ag-

mat ics i s under scor ed by f ind ings f r om a s tudy by Muel le r

(1983) . U sing the protocol as a measu re of pragm atic func-

t ion ing , she s tud ied the commun ica t ion pa t te r ns of deve l -

opme nta l ly de lay ed adul ts . M ue l le r f ound tha t over a l l soc i-

etal l ikabil i ty rat ings cor related +.80 with pragmatic abi l i -

t ies , +.40 with semantic abi l i t ies , +.20 with phonologic

abil i t ies , and .00 with syntact ic abi l i t ies . These resul ts

suggest that the pragm atic aspects of languag e are int i -

ma te ly l inked to judgm ents o f a pe r ce ived leve l o f soc ia l

com pete nce . Our ef fect iveness as c l inicians is judg ed, in

par t , by the impac t our r emedia t ion e f f or t s have on an

ind iv idua l ' s ab i l i ty to f unc t ion as a p r oduc t ive member of

soc ie ty . I n cases w her e on ly l im i ted advancement in the

s t ruc tura l a spec t s o f l anguage can be pr ed ic ted , r emedia t ion

of the pr agm at ic a spec t s o f commu nica t ion m ay cont r ibu te

mo st to a level o f social acceptabi l i ty.

F u t u r e r e s e a r c h s h o u l d a d d r e s s t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f

w e l l de f ined c l in ica l g r oups matched on d iagnos t ic p r o-

f i le s to ex t rac t pa t te r ns or c lus te r s o f d imen s ions on w hich

the sub jec t s pe r f or m w el l o r poor ly . This k in d of r e sea r ch

w o u l d a l l o w u s t o u n d e r s t a n d b e t t e r t h e n a t u r e a n d

impa c t o f a p r agm at ic de f ic i t in a popula t ion of d i sor der ed

subjec t s based on pa t te r n ana lys i s f r om r e la t ive ly homo-

g e n e o u s g r o u p s . W e b e l i e v e t h a t w i t h a n i n d e p t h d e -

sc r ip t ive account o f l inguis t i c and cogni t ive pe r f or m ance

i t w ould be poss ib le to pr ed ic t the a r eas tha t w i l l emer ge

as s t r engths and w eaknesses a t the pr agmat ic l eve l . A s

discussed ea r l i e r , s ever a l r e sea r cher s p r oposed tha t va r i -

o u s s u b g r o u p s w o u l d e m e r g e a c r o s s d i s o r d e r e d p o p u l a -

t ions (e .g. , Fey & Leonard, 1983; Prut t ing & Kirchner ,

1983) . Even though our gr oups w er e no t d iagnos t ica l ly

h o m o g e n e o u s , d i s t i n c t p a t t e r n s e m e r g e d t h a t s e p a r a t e d

one c l in ica l popula t ion f r om anothe r .

T h e d e s c r i p t i v e t a x o n o m y i s a n a t t e m p t t o e m b e l l i s h

tha t impor tan t s ec t ion in our c l in ica l a s ses sment r epor t

en t i t l ed Cl in ica l I mpr es s ion s . This r e f e r s to the pe r -

ce ive d e f f ec t s o f va r ious de f ic it s on over a l l com mun ica -

t i v e c o m p e t e n c e . W e h a v e t a k e n t h e n o t i on o f c l in i c al

i m p r e s s i o n a n d g i v e n i t t h e p r o m i n e n t p o s i t i o n i t d e -

se r ves . W e have inc lud ed i t f r om the s ta r t w i th in the

f o r m a l a s s e s s m e n t n e c e s s i t a t i n g o b s e r v a t i o n , d o c u m e n t a -

t ion , and in te r pr e ta t io n ac r os s a r ange of ab il i t i e s us ing

the f or m her e in d esc r ibe d as the pr agm at ic p ro tocol .

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T

The data for this study w ere co llected as part of four separate

master's theses directed by the first author at the University o

California, Santa Barbara. Therefo're, we gratefully acknowledge

the contributions of Patricia Hassan (1982), Pat McHale-Buen

(1982), Glenn Binder (1984), and Joyce Gauva in (1985).

R E F E R E N C E S

ALLWOOD, J., ANDERSSON, L.-G ., & DAH L, O. (197 7). Logic in

linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

ARTHUR, G. (1952). The Arthur Adaptation of the Leiter Inter-

national Scale.

Chicago: Stoelting.

AUSTIN, J. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge

Harvard U niversity Press.

BATES, E. (1976).Language in context. New York: Academic Press

BATES, E. (1979). The emergence of symbols. New York: Aca

demic Press.

BINDER, G. (1984). Aphasia: A societal and clinical appraisal o

pragmatic and linguistic behaviors. Unpublished master 's

thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara.

BLOOM, L., & LAHEY, M. (1978 ). Language development and

language disorders. New York: John W iley & Sons.

BLOOM, L., ROCISSANO, L., & HOO D, L. (1976 ). Ad ult-child

discourse: Developmental interaction between information

processing and linguistic knowled ge. Cognitive Psychology 8

521-522.

BRANDT, R. (197 2). Studying behavior in natural settings. New

York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

BRINTON, B., & FUJUKI, M. (1984). Th e de ve lo pm en t of top ic

manip ulation skills in discourse. Journal of Speech and Hear

ing Research 27 350-358.

BmNTON B., FujwI~, M ., LOEB, D., & WINKLER E. (1986)

Dev elop men t of conversationa l repair strategies in response to

requests for clarification. Journal of Speech and Hearing Re-

search 29 75-81.

CHOMSKYN. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.

CHOMSKY, N. (1965). Aspects of a theory of syntax. Cambridge

MI T Press.

CRAIG, H., & GALLAGHER,T. (1982). Gaze and proximity as turn

regulators within three-pa rty a:nd two-party child co nversa

tions. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 25 65-75.

CURTISS, S., KEMPLER, D., & YAMADA,J. (1981). UCLA working

papers in cognitive linguistics.

Los Angeles: UCLA Depart

men t of Linguistics.

DUNCAN, S., & FISKE, D. (1977). Face to face interaction:

Research meth ods and theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbau m Associates.

DUNN, L., & DUNN, L. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary

Test--R. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

ERVlN-TtuPP, S. (1977). Wait for me roller-skate. In E. O chs

(Ed.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 165-188). New York

Academic Press.

ERv ~-Tm PP, S. (1979). Child ren's ve rbal turntaking. In E.

Ochs (Ed.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 391-414). New

York: Academic Press,

FELDMAN, R. (Ed.). (1982).

The development of nonverbal be-

havior in children. New York: Springer.

FEY, M., & LEONARD, L. (1983). Prag matic skills o f childre n with

specific language impairment. In T. Gallagher & C. Prutting

(Eds.), Pragmatic assessment and intervention issues in lan-

guage

(pp. 65-82). San Diego: C ollege-H ill Press.

FISHER, H., & LOGEMANN,J. (1971). The Fisher-Logemann Test

of Articulation Competence. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Fox, D. (1969). The research process in education. New York

Holt, Rine hart & Winston.

GALLAGHER, T. (1977). Revis ion be hav iors in the spe ech o

normal children developing language. Journal of Speech and

Hearing Research 20 303-318.

GARVEY, C. (1975). Contingent queries. Unpublished master 's

thesis, Johns Hopkins University.


12/15

116 J o u r n a l o f S p e e c h a n d H e a r i n g D i s o r d e rs 5 2 1 0 5 - 1 1 9 M a y 1 9 8 7

GAUVAIN,

J. (1985).

The role of pragmatic behaviors in commu-

nicative competence: A stud y o f right hemisphe re brain-

damaged subjects. Unpublished master 's thesis, Universi ty of

California, Santa Barbara.

GOLDMAN, R., FRISTOE, M. (1972). Goldman-Fristoe Test of

Articulation. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

GRICE, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole J.

Morga n (Eds.),

Studies in syntax and semantics, speech acts

(pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.

HALLIDAY, M., HASSAN, R. (19 76).

Cohesion in English.

London: Longman.

HASSAN, P. (1982). A clinical appraisal o f pragmatic behaviors.

Un pub lishe d ma ster's thesis, Univ ersity of California, S anta

Barbara.

HOFFER, B., ST. CLAIR, N. (Eds.). (1981). Developmental kine-

sics: The emerging paradigm.

Baltimore: University Park Press.

HOLLAND,

A. (1980).

Communicative abilities in daily living.

Baltimore: University Park Press.

HOLLAND,A. (1983). Aphasia with and without adjectives: Re-

marks on the p roblems of classifying aphasic patients. In R.

Brookshire (Ed.), Clinical aphasiology: Conference proceed-

ings

(pp. 289-291). Minneapolis: BRK.

KEENAN,

E. (1977 ). Makin g it last: R epetition in c hildre n's

discourse . In S. Ervin -Tripp C. Mitchell-Kern an (Eds.),

Child discourse

(pp. 125-138). New York: Academic Press.

KEENAN, E., KLEIN, E. (1975). Coh eren cy in child ren's dis-

course. Jour nal of Psycholinguistic Research, 4, 365--380.

KEENAN, E., ~ SCHIEFFELIN, B. (1976). Topic as a discou rse

notion. In C. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 337-384). New

York: Academic Press.

KERTEZ,

M. (1982).

Western Aphasia Battery.

New York: Grune

Stratton.

KIRK, S., MCCARTHY,J., KINK, W. (196 8). Illinois Test of

Psycholinguistic Abilities. Los Angeles: Western Psychologi-

cal Services.

LAHEY, M., LAUNER,P. (1986). Unraveled yarns: Narratives in

school-age children.

Paper prese nted at the California Speech-

Lang uage-H earing Association, Monterey, CA.

LEE, L. (1969).

The Northwestern Syntax Screening Test.

Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.

LEVINSON, S. (198 3).

Pragmatics.

Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press.

LYONS, J. (197 7). Semantics (Vols. 1 2). Cam bridge : Cam-

bridge University Press.

MCHALE-BUEN, P. (198 2). A societal appraisal o f pragmatic

behaviors in norm al children wit h articulation disorders.

Un pub lishe d master 's thesis, Unive rsity of California, Santa

Barbara.

MCTEAR, M. (]985). Pragm atic disorders : A case stu dy o f con-

versational disability. British Journal of Disorders of Com mu-

nication, 20,

129-142.

MENTIS, M. (1985).

Cohesion in the discourse o f normal an d

head-injured adults.

Unpublished master 's thesis, Universi ty

of California, Santa Barbara.

MEYERS,P. (1986). Right hemisp here impairment. In J. Costello

A. Holland (Eds.), Speech and language disorders (pp.

935-966). San Diego : College-Hill Press.

MILTON, S., PRUTTING, C., BINDER, G. (1984). App raisal of

communicative competence in head injured adults. In R.

Brookshire (Ed.), Clinical Aphasiology Conference proceed-

ings (pp. 114-123). Minneapolis: BRK Publishers.

MITCHELL-KERNAN, C., KERNAN, K. (197 7). Pragm atics o f

directive choice amon g children. In S. Ervin-Tripp C.

Mitchell-Kernan (Eds.),

Child discourse

(pp. 189-208). New

York: Academic Press.

MUELLER, S. (1983). An investigation in social competence

using clinical and societal profiles. Unpublished master 's

thesis. U niversity of California, Sa nta Barbara.

PARRET, H. (1983).

Semiotics and pragmatics.

Amsterdam: John

Benjamins Publishing.

PEIRCE, C. (1878). Ho w to make ideas clear.

Popular Science, 12

286--302.

PENN,

C. (1983).

Syntactic and pragmatic aspects of aphasic

language. Unpublished doctoral dissertat ion, Universi ty o

Witwatersrand, Jo hannesbu rg, South Africa.

PRINZ, P., WEINER, F. in press). Pragmatics Screening Test.

San Antonio, TX: Psycholog ical Corporation.

PRUTTING, C. (1982 ). Observational protocol for pragmatic

behaviors

[Clinic manual]. Developed for the University o

California Speech and Hearing Clinic, Santa Barbara.

PRUTTING, C., KIRCHNER,D. (1983). Applied pragmatics. In T.

Gallag her C. Prutting (Eds.), Pragmatic assessment and

intervention issues in language

(pp. 29--64). San Diego: Col-

lege-Hill Press.

REES, N. (1978). Pragmatics of l~nguage. In. R. Schiefelbusch

(Ed.),

Bases of language intervention

(pp. 191-268). Balti-

more: Universi ty Park Press.

Ross , E., MASULAM, M. (1979). Do min ant languag e functions

of the right hemisph ere ?

Archi ves of Neurology, 36,

144-148.

ROTH, F., SPEKMAN, N. (1984). Assess ing the pragm atic

abil it ies of children: Part I . Organizational framework and

assessment parameters. Journal o f Speech and Hearing Disor-

ders, 49, 2-11.

SACHS, J., DEVIN, J. (1976). You ng child ren's u se of age

appropriate sp eech styles in social interaction in role playing.

Journal of Child Language, 3, 81-98.

SACKS, H., SCHEGLOFF, E., JEFFERSON, G. (1978). A sim ples t

systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation.

Language, 50,

696--735.

SCHEttER, K., EKMAN,P. (Eds.). (1982). Handbook o f methods

in nonverbal behavior research.

Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press.

SEARLE, J. (1969 ).

Speech acts: An essay in the philosoph

prutting checklist article

Documents