Cognitive pragmatics of language disorders in adults

Seminars in Speech and Language

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 111-121

  Davis, G Albyn ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Aphasia; Closed head injury; Pragmatics; Psycholinguistics; Right hemisphere dysfunction

Indexed keywords

ADULT; APHASIA; BRAIN INJURY; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COGNITION; COMMUNICATION SKILL; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; CONVERSATION; HEAD INJURY; HUMAN; LANGUAGE ABILITY; LANGUAGE DISABILITY; LINGUISTICS; MENTAL FUNCTION; PRAGMATICS; REVIEW; RIGHT HEMISPHERE; BRAIN; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY;

ADULT; APHASIA; BRAIN; COGNITION; COMMUNICATION; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HEAD INJURIES, CLOSED; HUMANS; LANGUAGE DISORDERS; LINGUISTICS;

EID: 34250685021     PISSN: 07340478     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-970569     Document Type: Review

References (46)

1. Davis GA. Aphasiology: Disorders and Clinical Practice. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn and Bacon; 2007
2. Bara BG, Bucciarelli M, Geminiani GC. 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 GB. Social Cognition: Understanding Self and Others. New York: Guilford Press; 2005
6. Ellis DG. 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 TB. The Psychology of Language. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 2003
10. Carroll DW. Psychology of Language. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; 2004
11. Gernsbacher MA. Handbook of Psycholinguistics. New York: Academic Press; 1994
12. Zurif EB, 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 MS, Tanenhaus MK, Leiman JM, 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 CA, Baumgaertner A, Lehman-Blake MT, 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 CM, Baum SR. 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 BA, Corbett AT. Instrument inferences and verb schemata. Mem Cognit 1982;10:531-539
18. Sharkey NE, Mitchell DC. 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 CA, Fassbinder W, Blake ML, 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 MRT. 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 HH, Newhoff M. Inference revision processing in adults with and without aphasia. Brain Lang 2004;89:450-463
24. Grice HP. Logic and conversation. In Cole P, Morgan JL, eds. Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press;1975:41-58
25. Searle JR. Expression and Meaning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1979
26. Ortony A, Schallert DL, Reynolds RE, Antos SJ. 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 HB. On understanding nonliteral. speech: can people ignore metaphors? J Verb Learn Verb Behav 1982;21: 85-98
28. Gibbs RW Jr. A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. J Prag 2002;34:457-486
29. Brownell HH, Potter HH, 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 DR, Kempler D. Comprehension of familiar phrases by left but not right-hemisphere damaged patients. Brain Lang 1987;32:265-277
31. Tompkins CA. Knowledge and strategies for processing lexical metaphor after right or left hemisphere brain damage. J Speech Hear Res 1990;33:307-316
32. Tompkins CA, 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 JA, Brownell HH, Jacobs JR, Gardner H. The effects of right hemisphere damage on the pragmatic interpretation of conversational remarks. Brain Lang 1990;38:315-333
34. Tompkins CA, Bloise CGR, Timko ML, 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 HH, Griffin R, Winner E, Friedman O, Happé F. Cerebral lateralization and theory of mind. In: Baron-Cohen S, Tager-Flusberg H, Cohen DJ, eds. Understanding Other Minds: Perspectives from Autism and Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2000:311-338
41. Sabbagh MA. 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 MT, Duffy JR, Myers PS, Tompkins CA. Prevalence and patterns of right hemisphere cognitive/communicative deficits: retrospective data from an inpatient rehabilitation unit. Aphasiology 2002;16:537-548
44. Bryan KL. The Right Hemisphere Language Battery. London: Whurr; 1995
45. Pimental PA, Knight JA. The Mini Inventory of Fight Brain Injury (MIRBI-2). Austin, TX ProEd; 2000
46. Lehman-Blake MT, Lesniewicz KS. Contextual bias and predictive inferencing in adults with and without right hemisphere brain damage. Aphasiology 2005;19:423-434