Conversational responsiveness in specific language impairment: Evidence of disproportionate pragmatic difficulties in a subset of children

Abstract

Eighteen children with specific language impairment (SLI), from 6 to 8 years of age, were compared with 9 control children matched on age and nonverbal ability (CA controls) and with 9 younger control children of comparable language level (LA controls). Half of the SLI group were rated on a teacher checklist as having pragmatic difficulties: these were referred to as the pragmatic language impairment (PLI) group; the remainder were the typical (SLI-T) group. Children's responses to adult soliciting utterances were compared. All children usually responded to conversational solicitations, but children in the PLI group were more likely than control children to give no response, and they also made very little use of nonverbal responses, such as nodding. Nonverbal responding was closely related to the quality of children's responses. Children who failed to use nonverbal responses also had a relatively high level of pragmatically inappropriate responses that were not readily accounted for in terms of limited grammar or vocabulary. This study lends support to the notion that there is a subset of the language-impaired population who have broader communicative impairments, extending beyond basic difficulties in mastering language form, reflecting difficulty in responding to and expressing communicative intents. The analytic methods developed for this project have promise for the study of pragmatic difficulties in other clinical groups.

Classroom Sound Field Amplification Systems for Language Development During Early School Years In Contexts Of Socio-Economic Exclusion: The Neglected Role Of Classroom Contextual Dimensions

“…Responsiveness and pragmatic adequacy were selected to observe the occurrences of communicative breakdowns such as lack of response, confusión or misunderstanding (Lund, 1993). Pragmatically inadequate responses were defined after Adams et al (2006) and Bishop et al (2000) as conversationally inadequate due to either some linguistic limitation or a comprehension failure. The 4-5 children in each class were observed at the same time.…”

“…The focus of the study was on the dimensions that regulate the classroom discourse, such as responsiveness and participation (Lund, 1993) and pragmatic adequacy of children's responses (Adams et al, 2006;Bishop et al, 2000) as well as commonly studied in the speech and language literature dimensions of receptive language, expressive language and receptive vocabulary (Dunn, Lloyd, Dunn, Whetton & Burley, 1997;Wiig, Secord & Semel, 2004). These dimensions have a potential to differentiate children who experience language difficulties from their typically developing peers (Lund, 1993;Scott, 1995).…”

Insights into the Genetic Foundations of Human Communication

“…Similar to language deficits found in autism, but without restricted and repetitive behaviors (Bishop et al 2000). Also known as pragmatic language impairment.…”

Translational research on early language development: Current challenges and future directions

“…In contrast, their receptive vocabulary skills and mean length of utterance in morphemes appear to be consistent with that observed in language-matched peers, suggesting a delayed rather than deviant pattern of lexical and general syntactic development (Rice, 2004). However, other research has shown that a subset of children with specific language impairment exhibit a relatively high level of pragmatically inappropriate responses to conversational solicitations that cannot be explained by limited grammar or vocabulary (Bishop, Chan, Adams, Hartley, & Weir, 2000), indicating that specific language impairment is a heterogeneous group.…”