Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:01:53.879Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2000

D. V. M. BISHOP
Affiliation:
Oxford University
JANET CHAN
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
CATHERINE ADAMS
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
JOANNE HARTLEY
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
FIONA WEIR
Affiliation:
University of Manchester

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.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2000 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)