Intervención en niños con trastornos pragmáticos del lenguaje y la comunicación

Monfort, Marc

doi:10.33588/rn.38s1.2004064

Cited by 7 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This result would coincide with the findings of Whyte and Nelson ( 2015 ), who, although focusing on PCI, showed that children with ASD develop inferential capacity at a slower rhythm than their peers with typical development. Our hypothesis is that the limitations in the socio-cognitive component of language that are usually present in ASD (Monfort et al, 2004 ) could be the basis of this difference found between the ASD group and the two groups with typical development. As mentioned in the introduction, the pragmatic skills (involved in processing GCI) include a series of cognitive skills, including socio-cognitive comprehension skills, whose indicators (or precursors) generally begin to develop in early pre-verbal stages of children with typical development, but in a more limited and compromised way in children with ASD.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Some more complex skills can even be involved, such as calibrating the information a speaker needs and taking into account what s/he already knows. According to Monfort et al ( 2004 ), these skills, related to communication and social interaction, confer a socio-cognitive use to language and generally present limitations in people with ASD. However, Kissine ( 2016 ) considers that some of these abilities, which pertain to theory of mind (ToM), would not be necessary for pragmatic processing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, Kissine ( 2016 ) considers that some of these abilities, which pertain to theory of mind (ToM), would not be necessary for pragmatic processing. In any case, this socio-cognitive use of language (Monfort et al, 2004 ) has early indicators (or precursors) that date back to pre-verbal stages in the case of typical development, but are compromised in autistic development (Bopp and Mirenda, 2011 ; Eigsti et al, 2011 ; Boucher, 2012 ). The difference in the presence of these pre-verbal indicators in children with and without ASD could contribute, partly, to differences in later pragmatic competence (Monfort et al, 2004 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comprehension of Generalized Conversational Implicatures by Children With and Without Autism Spectrum Disorder

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluates the comprehension of generalized conversational implicatures (GCI) in children with and without autism spectrum disorder (ASD), using a GCI test constructed based on the Levinson model, which distinguishes between three types of implicatures: type Q (or scalar: “what is not referred to does not occur”); type I (“by default, it is not necessary to say what can be assumed”); and type M (“if someone is expressing something in a not very simple or marked way, it is because s/he is describing a situation that is not very typical, frequent, or prototypical”). In addition to the ASD group (n = 22), two comparison groups were utilized: a group matched on chronological age with the ASD group, but with a higher linguistic age (TCD group, n = 22), and a group matched on linguistic age with the ASD group, but with a lower chronological age (TLD group, n = 22). In all cases, linguistic age was assessed with the Peabody test. The performance of the three groups on the GCI test was compared (overall and on each type of implicature), and performance on the three types of implicature was compared within each group. The ASD group obtained worse performance than the other two groups, both overall and for each implicature type, without also obtaining differences in performance on the three implicature types. The TCD group obtained better performance than the TLD group on overall performance, but not on each implicature type, and both groups obtained lower performance on the type M heuristics than on the type I. Based on these results, the children with ASD in our study presented limitations in the comprehension of the three types of GCI, but it was not possible to obtain evidence for an inferential continuum of the three types of GCI. However, in the two typical development groups, this evidence was obtained, leading us to propose an inferential continuum model based on the different levels of dependence on the context of each of the three types of implicatures, with type M implicatures being more contextually dependent.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comprehension of Generalized Conversational Implicatures by Children With and Without Autism Spectrum Disorder

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…En la literatura más actualizada, diferentes investigadores, entre ellos Frías (2001), Monfort (2004), Acuña y Sentis ( 2004), Álvarez et al (2007Álvarez et al ( ) y Fernández et al (2013, se refieren, además de a los tres componentes antes explicados, al componente competencia o nivel pragmático del lenguaje.…”

Section: Desarrollounclassified

Caracterización del componente pragmático del lenguaje en educandos con retardo en el desarrollo psíquico

Herrera

Pérez

Paz

2019

RCUI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

El trabajo aborda las regularidades del desarrollo del lenguaje en educandos con retardo en el desarrollo psíquico, obtenidas en las investigaciones del proyecto “La atención educativa integral a niños, adolescentes y jóvenes con necesidades educativas especiales” y en la tesis de doctorado de la Ph.D. Milagros de la Caridad Sánchez Herrera, lo que permitió realizar precisiones a las caracterizaciones precedentes y aportar la caracterización del componente pragmático.Se ofrecen, además, recomendaciones para la exploración, así como acciones, ejercicios y recursos didácticos para el desarrollo del lenguaje. En el proceso investigativo se emplearon los siguientes métodos y técnicas:analítico-sintético, inductivo-deductivo, histórico-lógico, análisis documental, exploración logopédica, encuesta, observación y entrevista.

show abstract

“…En los estudios actuales se considera la pragmática como un aspecto más de la competencia lingüística; así que puede haber déficit lingüísticos que afecten especialmente a la estructura del lenguaje, a su uso funcional o a ambos [57,58], sin afectación de las otras habilidades intersubjetivas y de relación social o de la conducta, aunque también hay que tener en cuenta que los niños con TEL con déficit que afecta sólo a las dimensiones formales del lenguaje pueden presentar -como consecuencia de dicho déficit-dificultades en la competencia social y en el uso de estrategias comunicativas y una participación menor en las interacciones, en comparación con los niños con un desarrollo del lenguaje normal [25,[59][60][61][62]. Por lo tanto, dentro de los programas de intervención, es importante incorporar desde el principio pautas de uso del lenguaje en un contexto comunicativo incluso cuando el objetivo inmediato sea la mejora de los aspectos formales [61,[63][64][65].…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Subtipos de trastorno específico del desarrollo del lenguaje: perfiles clínicos en una muestra hispanohablante

Crespo-Eguílaz¹,

Narbona²

2006

RevNeurol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction. Specific language impairment (SLI) can be viewed as a continuum with different subtypes depending on the combination of deficits and strengths in each of the components of linguistic behavior. Aim. To analyze the phenomenological profiles in a correlative series of Spanish children in order to facilitate their endophenotypic differentiation and the choice of strategies of intervention. Patients and methods. 86 referred children, aged 4 to 9 years, with a mean non-verbal inteligence quotient of 93 (range 72-114) and accomplishing clinical criteria of SLI. Apart from clinical interview and neurological examination, a protocol of questionnaires and tests was used in all subjects in order to measure their formal (phonological, syntactic, lexical) and functional (semantic and pragmatic) linguistic abilities. A cluster analysis of variables was used in order to investigate SLI subtypes. Results. In the total sample, a 24% of whole series have a pure phonological expressive disorder. 55% of subjects have mixed receptive/expressive disorders; from these, the most pervasive subtype is due to verbal agnosia (11%), but more frequently observed subtypes affect syntax reception and expression combined to difficulties in phonological programming (36%) or in lexical retrieval (8%). Furthermore, 21% of the total sample present with difficulties in pragmatic use of language even if their formal linguistic abilities and non-verbal behavior are normal. Conclusions. Our empyrical approach confirms that the admitted SLI subtypes in international literature applies to Spanish-speaking children for endophenotyping and intervention-planning purposes.

show abstract

Intervención en niños con trastornos pragmáticos del lenguaje y la comunicación

Cited by 7 publications

References 7 publications

Comprehension of Generalized Conversational Implicatures by Children With and Without Autism Spectrum Disorder

Comprehension of Generalized Conversational Implicatures by Children With and Without Autism Spectrum Disorder

Caracterización del componente pragmático del lenguaje en educandos con retardo en el desarrollo psíquico

Subtipos de trastorno específico del desarrollo del lenguaje: perfiles clínicos en una muestra hispanohablante

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About