Conversational Implicature and Communication Impairment

The Handbook of Clinical Linguistics

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 32-48

  Ahlsén, Elisabeth ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Clinical linguistic influence on general linguistics; Cognitive cooperation and ethical consideration; Conversational implicature and clinical linguistics; Conversational implicature and effects of communication disorders; Conversational implicature in pragmatics; Cooperation cognitive and ethical consideration; Notion of conversational implicature 'Logic in Conversation'; Three types of disorders affecting conversational implicature use

Indexed keywords

EID: 84890724942     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9781444301007.ch2     Document Type: Chapter

References (17)

1. Ahlsén, E. (1993). Conversational principles and aphasic communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 57-70.
2. Allwood, J. (1976). Linguistic Communication as Action and Cooperation. Gothenburg Monographs in Linguistics, 2. Göteborg University, Department of Linguistics.
3. Beeman, M. (1993). Semantic processing in the right hemisphere may contribute to drawing inferences from discourse. Brain and Language, 44, 80-120.
4. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics. Volume 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
5. Happé, F. and Loth, E. (2002). 'Theory of mind' and tracking speakers' intentions. Mind and Language, 17, 24-36.
6. Letts, C. and Leinonen, E. (2001). Comprehension of inferential meaning in language-impaired and language normal children. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 36(3), 307-28.
7. Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Månsson, A.-C. (2003). The Relation Between Gestures and Semantic Processes: A Study of Normal Language Development and Specific Language Impairment in Children. Gothenburg Monographs in Linguistics, 23. Göteborg University, Department of Linguistics.
9. Martin, I. and McDonald, S. (2003). Weak coherence, no theory of mind, or executive dysfunction? Solving the puzzle of pragmatic language disorders. Brain and Language, 85, 452-66.
10. McDonald, S. (1993). Viewing the brain sideways? Frontal versus right hemisphere: Explanations of non-aphasic language disorders. Aphasiology, 7, 535-9.
11. McDonald, S. and Pearce, S. (1996). Clinical insights into pragmatic theory: Frontal lobe deficits and sarcasm. Brain and Language, 52, 81-104.
12. McDonald, S., Togher, L., and Code, C. (1999). The nature of traumatic brain injury: Basic features and neuropsychological consequences. In S. McDonald, L. Togher, and C. Code (eds.), Communication Disorders Following Traumatic Brain Injury (pp. 19-54). Hove, Sussex: Psychology Press.
13. McTear, M. F. and Conti-Ramsden, G. (1992). Pragmatic Disability in Children. London: Whurr.
14. Myers, P. S. (1999). Right Hemisphere Damage. London: Singular Publishing Group.
15. Perkins, M. R., Body, R., and Parker, M. (1995). Closed head injury: Assessment and remediation of topic bias and repetitiveness. In M. R. Perkins and S. J. Howard (eds.), Case Studies in Clinical Linguistics (pp. 293-320). London: Whurr.
16. Rehak, A., Kaplan, J. A., and Gardner, H. (1992). Sensitivity to conversational deviance in right-hemisphere-damaged patients. Brain and Language, 42, 203-17.
17. Saldert, C. (2006). Inference and Conversational Interaction. Gothenburg Monographs in Linguistics, 30. Göteborg University, Department of Linguistics.