Cognitive Pragmatics of Language Disorders in Adults

ABSTRACT

Cognitive pragmatics is the study of the mental structures and processes involved in the use of language in communicative contexts. Paradigms of cognitive psychology (off-line and on-line) have been applied to the study of the abilities to go beyond the literal (inference) and derive meaning in relation to context (e.g., metaphor and sarcasm). These pragmatic functions have been examined for the involvement of processes of meaning activation, embellishment, and revision. Clinical investigators have explored abilities and deficits in acquired aphasia, right hemisphere dysfunction, and closed head injury. This article reviews and provides some analysis of clinical studies that are consistent with the themes constituting cognitive pragmatics.

KEYWORDS

Pragmatics - psycholinguistics - aphasia - right hemisphere dysfunction - closed head injury

REFERENCES

• 1 Davis G A. Aphasiology: Disorders and Clinical Practice. 2nd ed. Boston, MA; Pearson Allyn and Bacon 2007
• 2 Bara B G, Bucciarelli M, Geminiani G C. Development and decay of extra-linguistic communication.  Brain Cogn. 2000;  43 21-27
• 3 Tirassa M. Communicative competence and the architecture of the mind/brain.  Brain Lang. 1999;  68 419-441
• 4 Kasher A. Cognitive pragmatics. 2000 Retrieved from: http://www.tau.ac.il/~kasher/pprag.htm Accessed July 10, 2006
• 5 Moscowitz G B. Social Cognition: Understanding Self and Others. New York; Guilford Press 2005
• 6 Ellis D G. From Language to Communication. Mahwah, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum 1999
• 7 Sperber D, Wilson D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press 1986
• 8 Yule G. Pragmatics. Oxford, UK; Oxford University Press 1996
• 9 Jay T B. The Psychology of Language. Upper Saddle River, NJ; Prentice-Hall 2003
• 10 Carroll D W. Psychology of Language. Belmont, CA; Wadsworth 2004
• 11 Gernsbacher M A. Handbook of Psycholinguistics. New York; Academic Press 1994
• 12 Zurif E B, Swinney D, Prather P, Soloman J, Bushell C. An on-line analysis of syntactic processing in Broca's and Wernicke's aphasia.  Brain Lang. 1993;  45 448-464
• 13 Seidenberg M S, Tanenhaus M K, Leiman J M, Bienkowski M. Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: some limitations of knowledge-based processing.  Cognit Psychol. 1982;  14 489-537
• 14 Swinney D. Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re) consideration of context effects.  J Verb Learn Verb Behav. 1979;  18 645-659
• 15 Tompkins C A, Baumgaertner A, Lehman-Blake M T, Fassbinder W. Mechanisms of discourse comprehension impairment after right hemisphere brain damage: suppression and enhancement in lexical ambiguity resolution.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000;  43 62-78
• 16 Grindrod C M, Baum S R. Sensitivity to local sentence context information in lexical ambiguity resolution: evidence from left- and right-hemisphere-damaged individuals.  Brain Lang. 2003;  85 503-523
• 17 Dosher B A, Corbett A T. Instrument inferences and verb schemata.  Mem Cognit. 1982;  10 531-539
• 18 Sharkey N E, Mitchell D C. Word recognition in a functional context: the use of scripts in reading.  J Mem Lang. 1985;  24 253-270
• 19 Beeman M. Semantic processing in the right hemisphere may contribute to drawing inferences from discourse.  Brain Lang. 1993;  44 80-120
• 20 Tompkins C A, Fassbinder W, Blake M L, Baumgaertner A, Jayaram N. Inference generation during text comprehension by adults with right hemisphere brain damage: activation failure versus multiple activation.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2004;  47 1380-1395
• 21 Kennedy M RT. Topic scenes in conversations with adults with right-hemisphere brain damage.  Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2000;  9 72-86
• 22 Brady M, Mackenzie C, Armstrong L. Topic use following right hemisphere brain damage during three semi-structured conversational discourse samples.  Aphasiology. 2003;  17 881-904
• 23 Wright H H, Newhoff M. Inference revision processing in adults with and without aphasia.  Brain Lang. 2004;  89 450-463
• 24 Grice H P. Logic and conversation. In Cole P, Morgan JL Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts. New York; Academic Press 1975: 41-58
• 25 Searle J R. Expression and Meaning. Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Press 1979
• 26 Ortony A, Schallert D L, Reynolds R E, Antos S J. Interpreting metaphors and idioms: some effects of context on comprehension.  J Verb Learn Verb Behav. 1978;  17 465-477
• 27 Glucksberg S, Gildea P, Bookin H B. On understanding nonliteral speech: can people ignore metaphors?.  J Verb Learn Verb Behav. 1982;  21 85-98
• 28 Gibbs Jr R W. A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated.  J Prag. 2002;  34 457-486
• 29 Brownell H H, Potter H H, Michelow D, Gardner H. Sensitivity to lexical denotation and connotation in brain-damaged patients: a double dissociation?.  Brain Lang. 1984;  22 253-265
• 30 Van Lancker D R, Kempler D. Comprehension of familiar phrases by left but not right-hemisphere damaged patients.  Brain Lang. 1987;  32 265-277
• 31 Tompkins C A. Knowledge and strategies for processing lexical metaphor after right or left hemisphere brain damage.  J Speech Hear Res. 1990;  33 307-316
• 32 Tompkins C A, Boada R, McGarry K. The access and processing of familiar idioms by brain-damaged and normally aging adults.  J Speech Hear Res. 1992;  35 626-637
• 33 Kaplan J A, Brownell H H, Jacobs J R, Gardner H. The effects of right hemisphere damage on the pragmatic interpretation of conversational remarks.  Brain Lang. 1990;  38 315-333
• 34 Tompkins C A, Bloise C GR, Timko M L, Baumgaertner A. Working memory and inference revision in brain-damaged and normally aging adults.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1994;  37 896-912
• 35 McDonald S, Pearce S. Clinical insights into pragmatic theory. Frontal lobe deficits and sarcasm.  Brain Lang. 1996;  53 81-104
• 36 Martin I, McDonald S. Evaluating the causes of impaired irony comprehension following traumatic brain injury.  Aphasiology. 2005;  19 712-730
• 37 Channon S, Pellijeff A, Rule A. Social cognition after head injury: sarcasm and theory of mind.  Brain Lang. 2005;  93 123-134
• 38 Siegel B. The World of the Autistic Child: Understanding and Treating Autistic Spectrum Disorders. New York; Oxford University Press 1996
• 39 Winner E, Brownell H, Happé F, Blim A, Pincus D. Distinguishing lies from jokes: theory of mind deficits and discourse interpretation in right hemisphere brain-damaged patients.  Brain Lang. 1998;  62 89-106
• 40 Brownell H H, Griffin R, Winner E, Friedman O, Happé F. Cerebral lateralization and theory of mind. In: Baron-Cohen S, Tager-Flusberg H, Cohen DJ Understanding Other Minds: Perspectives from Autism and Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience. Oxford, UK; Oxford University Press 2000: 311-338
• 41 Sabbagh M A. Communicative intentions and language: evidence from right-hemisphere damage and autism.  Brain Lang. 1999;  70 29-69
• 42 Martin I, McDonald S. Weak coherence, no theory of mind, or executive dysfunction: solving the puzzle of pragmatic language disorders.  Brain Lang. 2003;  85 451-466
• 43 Lehman-Blake M T, Duffy J R, Myers P S, Tompkins C A. Prevalence and patterns of right hemisphere cognitive/communicative deficits: retrospective data from an inpatient rehabilitation unit.  Aphasiology. 2002;  16 537-548
• 44 Bryan K L. The Right Hemisphere Language Battery. London; Whurr 1995
• 45 Pimental P A, Knight J A. The Mini Inventory of Right Brain Injury (MIRBI-2). Austin, TX; Pro-Ed 2000
• 46 Lehman-Blake M T, Lesniewicz K S. Contextual bias and predictive inferencing in adults with and without right hemisphere brain damage.  Aphasiology. 2005;  19 423-434