How Might Pragmatic Language Skills Affect the Written Expression of Students with Language Learning Disabilities?

LWW/TLD TLD200065 January 27, 2011 15:40 Char Count= 0

Top Lang Disorders Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 40–53 Copyright c 2011 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins How Might Pragmatic Language Skills Affect the Written Expression of Students with Language Learning Disabilities?

Gary A. Troia, PhD

This article describes ways in which pragmatic language abilities may play a role in the writing performance of children and adolescents with language learning disabilities. First, a brief overview is presented of how pragmatic language difficulties might negatively influence writing performance. Next, research on the writing performance of students with language and learning problems is reviewed. Key components based on these reviews are incorporated into a sociocognitive model of writing in which pragmatic language abilities are highlighted and illustrated as they apply to writing poetry. Finally, some suggestions are offered for scholars and practitioners to encourage attention to pragmatic issues in the writing of children and adolescents. Key words: children and adolescents, language impairment, learning disabilities, pragmatics, writing

RITTEN EXPRESSION can be a de- Research over the past three decades has Wmanding form of communication for provided substantial insight into the writ- children and youth with speech/language im- ing problems experienced by children and pairments and learning disabilities. These two adolescents with disabilities, both in terms categories represent nearly 68% of all indi- of the nature of their difficulties as well viduals between the ages of 6 and 21 years as the underlying causes (see Silliman & served under the Individuals with Disabili- Berninger, 2011). There have been many ef- ties Education Act (U.S. Department of Educa- forts to identify the cognitive and linguistic tion, 2003). For a variety of reasons, writing underpinnings of literacy problems in these is an area of difficulty for many children with populations, or more broadly, children and disabilities, and problems with pragmatic as- adolescents with language learning disabil- pects of written language, which are the focus ities (LLD), but these have largely focused of this article, deserve attention but often are on the domains of memory, executive con- overlooked. trol, phonology, morphosyntax, and semantics (e.g., Bishop, North, & Donlan, 1996; Bourke & Adams, 2010; Catts, Fey, Zhang, & Tomblin, 1999, 2001; Dockrell, Lindsay, Connelly, & Mackie, 2007; Roth, Speece, & Author Afﬁliation: Department of Counseling, Cooper, 2002; Stothard, Snowling, Bishop, Educational Psychology and Special Education, Chipchase, & Kaplan, 1998). Many individ- Michigan State University, East Lansing uals with LLD also experience difficulties Corresponding Author: Gary A. Troia, PhD, Depart- in the realm of pragmatics (e.g., Bishop ment of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Spe- cial Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, & Adams, 1991, 1992; Bishop & Norbury, MI 48824 ([email protected].) 2002; Leonard, 1998), possibly due, in part, DOI: 10.1097/TLD.0b013e31820a0b71 to deficits in right hemisphere processing 40

Pragmatic, Written Expression, and Students with LLD 41

(Shields, 1991). Thus, it should prove fruit- teraction and adjustment are not well under- ful to explore how pragmatics, the use of lan- stood. It is not known to what extent deficient guage in social contexts to fulfill communica- social skills related to pragmatic language dif- tive purposes and regulate social interactions ficulties, as well as the pragmatic difficulties (Bates, 1976; Prutting, 1982), and difficulties themselves, influence written expression. in this domain, may be manifest in written expression as well. PRAGMATICS, WRITTEN LANGUAGE, Pragmatic difficulties can be expected to AND STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES have a negative impact on students’ social and emotional well-being (Schalock, 1996). Written expression, in most circumstances, For instance, individuals with LLD tend to par- may be viewed as a form of communication ticipate in fewer peer interactions and are for social purposes aimed at achieving social- less preferred communication partners (e.g., interaction goals. Although currently it is un- Cartledge, Frew, & Zaharias, 1985; Fujiki, Brin- clear how the social adjustment problems of ton, Robinson, & Watson, 1997; Gertner, Rice, children with LLD interact with writing de- & Hadley, 1994; Hadley & Rice, 1991; Juvo- mands in the classroom, pragmatic difficulties nen & Bear, 1992; Pearl et al., 1998; Rice, can be expected to limit the development of Sell, & Hadley, 1991; Weiner & Schneider, written expression for these children through 2002). Consequently, they have difficulty es- their disruption on participation in social lit- tablishing and maintaining friendships. More- eracy practices as well as their direct impact over, these individuals exhibit a greater in- on the use of language forms and functions. cidence of problem behaviors, most often Aspects of at least three fundamental compo- internalizing behaviors (e.g., Cohen, 1986; nents of pragmatics may be involved: presup- Fujiki, Brinton, Morgan, & Hart, 1999; Fu- position abilities, discourse regulation, and jiki, Brinton, & Todd, 1996; Redmond & nonliteral (figurative) language usage. Rice, 1998). Children and adolescents with Pragmatic difficulties likely have a pro- LLD also perceive themselves as socially less nounced impact on writing performance adept than their peers (e.g., Jerome, Fujiki, when perspective taking is at a premium, Brinton, & James, 2002). Overall, these stu- such as when tailoring a written text for a dents display fewer sociable behaviors, such specific audience. Perspective-taking relies on as sharing, cooperation, and offering com- at least one particular aspect of pragmatic fort, which are strongly related to positive functioning—presupposition—which is di- peer relationships (e.g., Bender & Wall, 1994; rectly related to social cognition and theory Brinton & Fujiki, 2004; Hart, Robinson, Mc- of mind, both of which involve making infer- Neilly, Nelson, & Olsen, 1995; Kavale & For- ences regarding the actions, beliefs, and inten- ness, 1996; Ladd & Price, 1987; Pearl et tions of others and to adapt based on those in- al., 1998; Vaughn, Hogan, Kouzekanani, & ferences (Carruthers & Smith, 1996; McTear Shapiro, 1990). These attributes are thought & Conti-Ramsden, 1991). In other words, to be the result of difficulties perceiving and how much a student presupposes about a interpreting social cues, which are frequently reader’s prior knowledge in written text is linguistically coded (Pearl, Donahue, & Bryan, predicated on his or her inferences about 1986; Weiner, 1980, 2004). However, the what the reader believes, knows, and wants. severity of language difficulty does not nec- Children with LLD tend either to presuppose essarily predict social competence, and when too much shared knowledge between them- the linguistic demands of social contexts are selves and their readers, rendering communi- minimized, children with LLD may continue cation ineffective because the reader is left to exhibit less sociable behaviors (Brinton & to ponder what has been unstated, or to Fujiki, 2004). Thus, the causal mechanisms be- presuppose too little shared knowledge, ren- tween specific pragmatic skills and social in- dering a text cumbersome and laden with

42 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2011

unnecessary information. Likewise, children tion. Consequently, and because the reader’s with LLD may be unskilled at employing the response to written text is often not available Gricean conversational maxims of truthful- during the production of that text, students ness, relevance, informativeness, and direct- with LLD are likely to produce short pieces of ness (Grice, 1975), as required by written writing bereft of detail and lacking polished task demands, audience needs, and personal organization that fail to adequately attend to rhetorical goals (e.g., Bliss, 1992; Noel, 1980; genre conventions and reader needs. Spekman, 1981). For instance, a student with A final aspect of pragmatics with which LLD might erroneously present personal opin- children with LLD may struggle is figurative ions as facts to support an argument in an language. Figurative language comprehension opinion essay or fail to use polite forms when and use is important for communication suc- making a request in writing. A student with cess because nearly two thirds of spoken En- LLD also may have difficulty correctly using glish is figurative in nature (Arnold & Hornett, deictic terms that mark noun relationships 1990). In addition, approximately a third of (e.g., I versus you, a vs. the), spatial relation- teachers’ utterances contain multiple mean- ships (e.g., here vs. there, this vs. that), and ing words (the foundation of figurative ex- temporal relationships (e.g., before vs. after, pressions) or idiomatic expressions and about now vs. then) because of poor presupposition 7% of reading materials used in elementary (e.g., Bishop, 1997). schools contains idioms (Lazar, Warr-Leeper, Children and adolescents with LLD fre- Beel-Nicholson, & Johnson, 1989). Figurative quently exhibit problems with discourse reg- language understanding and usage is critical ulation, a different but related aspect of prag- both to academic success via comprehen- matics that is a key contributor to good writ- sion of instructional and conversational lan- ing. Effective discourse regulation is possible guage as well as social success (e.g., under- when the writer possesses a strong understanding and using humor to engage with standing of the structure of the form of dis- peers). Students with LLD demonstrate prob- course used for communication in a given so- lems interpreting and using figurative expres- cial context for specific social purposes. This sions (idioms, proverbs, metaphors, and sim- includes knowledge of genre structure (Gee, iles) and slang (Gerber & Bryen, 1981; Nip- 1999; Roth, 1986; Roth & Spekman, 1984; pold, 2007; Rice, 1993; Rice, Sell, & Hadley, Roth, Spekman, & Fye, 1995), as well as a firm 1991), as well as using figurative language in grasp of the topic (e.g., McCutchen, 1986; writing to achieve personification, allusion, Westby, 2002). Research has demonstrated and symbolism (e.g., Nippold, 2007). In a re- that students with LLD are relatively less com- lated vein, students with LLD likely will ex- petent with discourse regulation, particularly perience trouble using humor intentionally (a) topic maintenance and organization (e.g., and successfully in their writing because it Botting, 2002; Norbury & Bishop, 2003), (b) often relies on competence with multiple successful use of strategies to avoid misun- meaning words and figurative language. Fig- derstanding such as paraphrasing to simplify urative language helps authors craft texts that information, repeating an important idea for creatively illustrate complex relationships be- emphasis, and elaborating on a novel word tween ideas, people, and things in novel or or idea (e.g., Adams & Bishop, 1989; Brinton authentic ways. Use of figurative expressions & Fujiki, 1982), (c) grammatical cohesion via in writing permits students to fully participate appropriate use of anaphoric and cataphoric in their social worlds via credible means and reference, substitution, ellipsis, and clausal is essential to some genres, such as poetry. conjoining and embedding characteristic of Children and adolescents with LLD who can- the genre (e.g., Lapadat, 1991); and lexical not incorporate nonliteral language into their cohesion created through use of synonyms, writing will not be able to display the full antonyms, hyponyms, repetition, and colloca- range of communicative functions of writing.

Pragmatic, Written Expression, and Students with LLD 43

Likewise, when students with LLD are ex- culties, they may be perceived as different and pected to fulfill multiple communicative func- may miss out on the social fabric of literacy tions with a single composition (e.g., informa- in a classroom (Brinton & Fujiki, 2004). Also, tive, heuristic, and imaginative functions for a their social deficits can influence their moti- report on novel approaches to curbing green- vation for learning to read and write. house emissions), they may fall short because Later I review the written language prob- research has demonstrated that these students lems of children with LLD. The reader is re- use the full array of language functions less fre- minded that in virtually every study cited, re- quently than their nondisabled peers (e.g., La- searchers have not evaluated the participants’ padat, 1991; Spekman, 1984). pragmatic language skills or social skills in In the following sections, an attempt is conjunction with their writing performance; made to identify how certain characteristics therefore, one cannot draw any conclusions of these students’ writing might be tied to about the degree to which writing problems pragmatic difficulties. Then, research related are related to deficits in these areas. to the writing difficulties of students with LLD Compared to the texts of their nondisabled is presented. This research has excluded an peers, papers written by writers with LLD explicit focus on the contributions of oral lan- are shorter, incomplete, poorly organized, re- guage problems in general and pragmatic dif- plete with errors in the basic conventions ficulties in particular to the writing perfor- of written English, and weaker in overall mance of students with LLD. A subsequent quality (Bishop & Clarkson, 2003; Carlisle, section presents a sociocognitive model of 1996; Dockrell et al., 2007; Englert & Raphael, writing in which the role of pragmatics is 1988; Gillam & Johnston, 1992; Graham, highlighted that may guide research and inter- 1990; Lewis & Freebairn, 1992; MacArthur & vention efforts. Graham, 1987; Mackie & Dockrell, 2004; No- dine, Barenbaum, & Newcomer, 1985; Scott CONNECTIONS BETWEEN PRAGMATIC & Windsor, 2000; Thomas, Englert, & Gregg, LANGUAGE PROBLEMS AND 1987; Treiman, 1991; Windsor, Scott, & Street, WRITING PROBLEMS 2000). These problems may be attributed, in part, to difficulties in executing and regulat- The myriad problems with pragmatic lan- ing the processes underlying proficient writ- guage use encountered by children and youth ing, including planning, content generation, with LLD have far-reaching social and aca- revising, and text transcription (e.g., Graham, demic consequences. For instance, the par- Harris, & Troia, 1998). Each of these pro- ents of children with language impairments cesses is considered later in greater detail . engage in literacy-related language interac- One must be mindful that research also sug- tions (e.g., shared storybook reading, recit- gests oral language abilities, in particular vo- ing rhymes, storytelling) less frequently than cabulary knowledge and grammatical compe- parents of children with other kinds of dis- tence, are correlates of writing performance abilities (Marvin & Wright, 1997), possibly (Dockrell et al., 2007). because of their children’s limited linguistic competence. These limited opportunities not Planning only affect the children’s exposure to literacy Planning behavior, especially the amount practices, but also to social practices such as of time spent planning, is a critical part turn-taking. The social problems of children of the composing process and is linked to with LLD may limit their ability to participate the quality of written papers (Bereiter & in literacy-related peer interactions as well, Scardamalia, 1987; Hayes & Flower, 1980). and thus reduce their development of reading Planning involves three subprocesses: (1) and writing skills. Likewise, when children re- formulating, prioritizing, and modifying both ceive special services for their learning diffi- abstract and highly delineated goals and

44 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2011

subgoals to address task and genre demands et al., 1998; McCutchen, 1988, 1996); (2) they and perceived audience needs; (2) generating are frequently asked to complete writing as- ideas; and (3) selecting and organizing valu- signments that do not necessitate overt plan- able ideas for accomplishing established goals ning of content because the tasks entail a (Hayes & Flower, 1980). Many expert writ- familiar genre and common format; and (3) ers engage in planning while they are produc- they do not adequately account for the needs ing text rather than beforehand, pausing up of the reader and establish corresponding to 70% of the total time they spend writing, rhetorical and personal goals to address those especially during the initial phases of com- needs. posing (Hayes & Flower, 1980; Gould, 1980). When poor writers do allocate time for However, planning in advance of writing may planning, they typically list potential content help circumvent potential attention and mem- in a first draft format, one that hinders the ory disruptions when composing tasks re- elaboration and exploration of ideas. More quire the satisfaction of both content and adept writers, however, plan extensively and structural demands (Hayes & Flower, 1980; recursively to organize, develop, and reflect Kellogg, 1986). Conversely, advance planning on their thoughts at a more abstracted level of may restrict exploration of new ideas and or- representation within a framework that meets ganizational schemes that arise while draft- specific task and audience demands and per- ing and may be counterproductive unless the sonal goals (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987). writer already knows what ideas should be When explicitly taught, a number of plan- included in the text (Elbow, 1981; Torrance, ning strategies are effective in improving the Thomas, & Robinson, 1991). Regardless of schematic structure, length, and quality of pa- when it might be best to plan, students with pers written by students with LLD, includ- LLD do very little planning spontaneously or ing (a) brainstorming words and ideas (e.g., even when prompted (MacArthur & Graham, Troia, Graham, & Harris, 1999); (b) generat- 1987). ing and organizing content with text struc- Why do struggling writers frequently by- ture prompts prior to writing (e.g., De La Paz pass planning? Research evidence suggests & Graham, 1997; Sawyer, Graham, & Harris, that students with LLD tend to rely on 1992; Wong, Butler, Ficzere, & Kuperis, 1996, a knowledge-telling tactic for many writ- 1997); (c) setting planning goals to address au- ing tasks, generating content in an associa- dience needs and task demands (e.g., De La tive, linear fashion (Bereiter & Scardamalia, Paz, 1999; Page-Voth & Graham, 1999); and 1987; Gould, 1980; Hayes & Flower, 1980; (d) discussing a topic with others before writ- McCutchen, 1988, 1995). They start to write ing about it to identify alternative perspec- immediately after being given a writing assign- tives and others’ informational needs (e.g., ment and pause perhaps only briefly (typi- Wong et al., 1996, 1997). cally less than a minute) to formulate their first sentence so that it is related to the Content generation topic and conforms to the requirements of Students with LLD frequently generate less the genre, but they do not appear to con- content for their papers than other stu- sider broader rhetorical or personal goals for dents of the same age while simultane- their compositions and the constraints im- ously including more superfluous or nonfunc- posed by the topic and text structure (Bere- tional material in their texts (Graham, 1990; iter & Scardamalia, 1987; Graham, 1990; Mc- MacArthur & Graham, 1987; Thomas et al., Cutchen, 1988). They may use this retrieve- 1987). They may do so because (a) they and-write process because of at least three are less capable of sustaining their memory different reasons: (1) they are overwhelmed search for topic-relevant material (Englert & by the demands of text transcription (Gra- Raphael, 1988); (b) their topic knowledge is ham, 1990; Graham & Harris, 1997; Graham incomplete or fragmented (Bos & Anders,

Pragmatic, Written Expression, and Students with LLD 45

1990; Graham & Harris, 1997); (c) they are is made aware of the mind of the reader, he or less knowledgeable about text structures for she may be able to sustain an interesting, rele- particular genre patterns such as narration vant, and cohesive conversational turn on the and persuasion and thus have difficulty reg- topic (with the written text) and avoid unnec- ulating discourse in these genres (Englert & essary confusion. Raphael, 1988; Graham, 1990; Roth, 1986; Roth & Spekman, 1984; Roth et al., 1995; Revising Thomas et al., 1987); or (d) they fail to pre- Revising is difficult, especially for strug- suppose the right amount of shared refer- gling writers, for at least five reasons. (1) ential information between themselves and Students often make inaccurate presuppo- their reader. For example, Graham and Har- sitions regarding shared understandings be- ris (1989) found that fifth- and sixth-grade stu- tween themselves and their audience, which dents with LLD excluded several important leads to generally egocentric texts that re- text structure elements from their written sto- quire the reader to infer far too much from ries and persuasive essays. Often, the omit- too few details (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; ted elements included the setting of a story Sperling, 1996). For example, Bartlett (1982) and the premise of an essay, suggesting that reported that elementary students are bet- these students were insensitive to the reader’s ter able to detect problems and correct er- perspective. Likewise, Nodine et al. (1985) re- rors when reading a paper written by some- ported that upper elementary school-aged stu- one else than when reading their own work. dents with LLD were less proficient than their Young authors and those less competent in normally achieving peers in writing narratives writing thus seem to have difficulty taking that included a basic plot; nearly half of the the reader’s perspective, which obscures the students with LLD provided simple descrip- need to revise. (2) When students do re- tions of picture prompts. vise, they tend to focus on localized and Simply asking students with LLD to write superficial issues rather than discourse-level more or providing them with text frames to concerns (Graham, 1997; MacArthur & Gra- help them organize the retrieval of content ham, 1987; McCutchen, 1995). These mi- does increase the length, organization, and nor revisions have little impact on the qual- quality of their papers. Graham (1990), for ity of students’ texts (e.g., Bereiter & Scar- instance, found that students with LLD typ- damalia, 1987; MacArthur & Graham, 1987). ically spent 6–7 min writing argumentative In fact, less than 20% of the revisions made by essays, but when asked to write more they students with LLD are substantive (Graham, generated up to four times more content, 1997; MacArthur & Graham, 1987). (3) They half of which was new and useful. Teach- frequently miss inaccuracies and confusing ing students with learning difficulties to es- spots in their texts (i.e., dissonance location) tablish goals concerning the length of their and/or do not know how to make an adequate papers and to self-monitor their productiv- change when a problem is detected (i.e., dis- ity also can increase the amount and quality sonance resolution). In some cases this is be- of their writing (e.g., Harris, Graham, Reid, cause of poor reading skills, in others because McElroy, & Hamby, 1994). These findings sug- students fail to adequately monitor their writ- gest that poor writers have access to more in- ing output (Beal, 1987; Fitzgerald, 1987). (4) formation to include in their papers (Englert Many children and adolescents have difficulty & Raphael, 1988; Graham, 1990; Graham & managing revision along with the other cog- Harris, 1989), though the information may nitive, linguistic, physical, and motivational still be inadequate for meeting the expecta- operations involved with composing text. (5) tions of the reader unless the writer has a clear Poor writers in particular feel too wedded to awareness of the audience’s thoughts and feel- their written text because so much effort was ings regarding the topic. If a student with LLD invested in creating what exists because of

46 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2011

their difficulties with text transcription (see cause they lack a deep understanding of how below). If students do not possess accurate punctuation relates to communicative inten- and fluent text transcription skills, the time tions. and effort they need to produce a draft will be considerable and undermine their willing- ness to abandon text produced with “blood, MODEL OF WRITING AND THE ROLE sweat, and tears”and to spend more time and OF PRAGMATICS effort transcribing additional text. Figure 1 displays a sociocognitive model of writing in which cognitive-linguistic compo- Text transcription nents associated with writing processes are Struggling writers’ lower-level text produc- included, as are the social components of tion skills often are not fully developed and au- the writing task environment, and the inter- tomatic (e.g., Fulk & Stormont-Spurgin, 1995; actions between them. This model is based Graham & Weintraub, 1996). For example, largely on Hayes’ (1996) model, but also incor- the compositions written by students with porates elements from those proposed by Kel- LLD are fraught with more spelling, capital- logg (1994) and Horning (2002). To illustrate ization, and punctuation errors than those the connections between the model’s compo- written by their typically developing peers nents with a special emphasis on interactions (e.g., Carlisle, 1987; Fulk & Stormont-Spurgin, with pragmatic language competence, the po- 1995; Hauerwas & Walker, 2003). In addi- etic genre is used because poetry’s many lin- tion, the handwriting of students with LLD guistic and cognitive demands and the sheer is slow and uneven (Graham & Weintraub, variety of poetic forms make it a very challeng- 1996) and their papers are less legible than ing genre for students (Wilson, 2007). those written by normally achieving students Much of what follows is speculative. Re- (MacArthur & Graham, 1987). These disrup- searchers in writing need to begin to use re- tions in lower-level text production skills hob- liable and valid techniques to measure the ble students’ ability to engage in higher-order pragmatic and social skills of their study sam- composing behaviors (Graham, 1990; Gra- ples to link these characteristics to the writ- ham & Harris, 1997). When students with ing processes and products the children and writing difficulties have to devote substan- adolescents display to validate relationships tial cognitive resources to spelling and hand- between model components. Such efforts writing, often with limited success, atten- would yield a more informed perspective on tion to content, organization, and style be- the linguistic as well as academic profiles of comes minimized (Berninger, 1999; Berninger students with LLD and extend current efforts & Winn, 2006; McCutchen, 1996; Swanson to map specific language and learning char- & Berninger, 1996). It is little wonder then acteristics onto specific writing problem pro- that handwriting and spelling performance ac- files (e.g., Berninger, Garcia, & Abbott, 2009; count for two thirds of the variance in writ- Nagy, Berninger, & Abbott, 2006). A number ing fluency and one fourth of the variance of informal checklists are available that might in writing quality for children in the primary assist researchers and teachers in their efforts grades and about 40% of the variance in writ- to link oral language characteristics and so- ten output for students in the intermediate cial skills with written expression (e.g., Prag- grades (e.g., Graham, Berninger, Abbott, Ab- matic Language Skills Inventory by Gilliam bott, & Whitaker, 1997). Students with LLD & Miller, 2006; The Learning Clinic Prag- who struggle with pragmatics might experi- matic Skills Checklist by DuCharme, 2006), ence difficulty using correct punctuation not as is the widely used norm-referenced Test only because of underdeveloped knowledge of Pragmatic Language (Phelps-Terasaki & of punctuation rules and marks, but also be- Phelps-Gunn, 2007).

Pragmatic, Written Expression, and Students with LLD 47

Figure 1. Sociocognitive model of writing (based on Hayes, 1996; Horning, 2002; Kellogg, 1994).

Poetry writing and pragmatics with pragmatic difficulties would be antici- Poetry has been defined as literary language pated to exhibit tremendous difficulty with used to create a virtual experience for the metaphors and other such textural features of reader of the author’s real or imagined ex- poetry. Likewise, lexical and grammatical co- periences (Britton, Burgess, Martin, McLeod, hesion comes to the fore in poetry (they also & Rosen, 1975). Poetry can be both linguis- are important in other writing genres, though tic and artistic in nature—poets can write (or genre affects to what extent; Pellegrini, Galda, speak) a poem, but also can read, recite, or & Rubin, 1984). This relates to the necessity perform the poem with or without integra- for conservation and intentional use of vari- tion with other media or genres (Certo, Apol, ous poetic features to provide the reader with Wibbens, & Yoon, 2010; Chapman, 1999). Re- a coherent text that reads and sounds like po- gardless of the form of poetry, writers must etry. Because children and adolescents with attend to textural (word choice and imagery), LLD often struggle with this aspect of dis- register (mood and tone), and structural (line course regulation, they would be expected to and stanza length, overall shape, and meter) write poetry that is inadequate in terms of req- features of a poem with an eye toward conser- uisite textural and structural elements. vation of expression (Certo et al., 2010; Tan- Presuppositional abilities are prominent in nen, 1989). Thus, a precise knowledge of mul- the writing of poetry to communicate in a tiple meaning vocabulary, mental state verbs, meaningful register suitable for the topic, and figurative expressions is necessary to ex- the author’s perspective, and the audience’s press oneself poetically. Typically developing likely interpretation. The student with LLD students, especially beyond Grade 4, show ex- will likely be disadvantaged in this respect. plicit control over metaphoric language use Finally, the use of punctuation, line breaks, in their poetry (Steinbergh, 1999); students and spacing to communicate ideas with

48 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2011

conventional poetic structures will probably the poetry genre, the social demands of the pose a challenge for students with LLD who task environment will potentially exceed the display pragmatic weaknesses. cognitive processing resources and personal resources of the individual with LLD, whose deficits in social cognition (when pragmatic Model components and poetry difficulties exist) and linguistic knowledge Research has demonstrated that both the (the latter is situated in long-term memory and physical and social aspects of the task en- recruited by working memory while engaged vironment play a critical role to the devel- in other cognitive operations) create seri- opment of poetry writing. Students who are ous impediments to executing reflection, text immersed in varied forms of poetry assim- production, and text interpretation. Simulta- ilate elements of poems they have heard neously, the need for deliberate meta-level and read (Dowker, 1989; Dyson, 2003; Kam- processes in poetry writing—poetry goes be- berelis, 1998; Schnoor, 2004). Likewise, stu- yond simply writing what one knows, rather, dents borrow ideas from their peers and oth- it invokes using language content and form ers in their social worlds, as well as their ex- in novel ways to express ideas both profound periences and imagination, as topics for their and mundane—may present particular diffi- poetry (Apol & Harris, 1999; Dyson, 2003; culty for students with LLD. Kovalcik & Certo, 2007). Of course, this is where the linkages between the social aspects CONCLUDING REMARKS of task environment, particularly instructional history and context, collaborators, and audi- At least some children and adolescents with ence, and the physical aspects, particularly LLD will have problems with the pragmatic as- reference resources (e.g., poetry guides) and pects of language use, as well as knowledge materials (e.g., mentor texts) and writing me- deficiencies in phonology, morphology, and dia (e.g., blogs) become most evident. A risk- orthography that negatively affect their mem- free context in which collaborative writing— ory operations and text generation, review- not just conferring, but actual group and peer- ing, and reflection for writing. Problems with mediated poetry writing—is valued and com- negotiating the social aspects of the writing munication with authentic audiences (aside task environment, particularly addressing au- from the teacher or even immediate peers) dience and assignment demands and working is expected is key to a supportive task envi- in a collaborative framework for accomplish- ronment. Such an environment also will in- ing a writing task, are likely to occur in as- clude genre-based activities in which mentor sociation with their social inadequacies aris- texts and guides are frequently consulted over ing from pragmatic difficulties. In addition, an extended period of time and used as scaf- their poor knowledge of genre may hobble folds to support the development of the lin- their ability to generate text that conforms guistic and artistic modes of poetic expression to particular discourse demands at multiple in both oral and written forms (Russell, 1997; levels (e.g., punctuation, figurative language Troia, Lin, Monroe, & Cohen, 2009). Envi- use). It might be assumed that these additional ronments that lack these opportunities likely constraints on these children’s writing could will not support the development of adequate result in even more pronounced writing prob- pragmatic language knowledge and skills, but lems, though this hypothesis requires empiri- rather disadvantage students with and with- cal testing. It also is important to consider the out LLD (e.g., Cazden, 2001; McGill-Franzen pragmatic differences between mainstream & Allington, 1991). instructional contexts and the communica- As displayed in Figure 1, the task environ- tive patterns of students from culturally and ment elements interact with the individual linguistically diverse backgrounds (e.g., lim- writer’s characteristics in complex ways. In ited topic initiation), as these will compound

Pragmatic, Written Expression, and Students with LLD 49

the challenges faced by students with LLD in Practitioners should consider ways to ad- writing. dress the pragmatic language deficits of those It is entirely likely that a small propor- children and adolescents with LLD who pos- tion of students with LLD who do not possess such problems and target both oral and sess weaknesses in phonology or morphology written modes of communication. For in- (and consequently can read and spell success- stance, activities to identify the most appro- fully) will exhibit deficits in semantics and priate communicative functions of discourse pragmatics and thus display writing difficul- for specific audiences using a specific genre ties not because they have difficulty with text and what expectations these audiences might production, but because their higher-order hold can be incorporated into planning tools language problems interfere with successfully and revising checklists commonly used in planning and revising texts that adequately ad- writing instruction, as well as planning for dress the task environment. This is similar to oral presentations often demanded in class- those children who exhibit poor reading com- room contexts. Students with LLD will require prehension but good word recognition be- targeted intervention in using deictic terms cause of underlying weaknesses in semantics, correctly, especially when writing, because morphosyntax, and pragmatics (e.g., Nation, the marking of spatial, temporal, and personal Clarke, Marshall, & Durand, 2004). Future re- relationships is critical to unambiguous com- search efforts should explore the possibility positions. In addition, explicit instruction in that pragmatic language weaknesses charac- multiple-meaning vocabulary and nonliteral terize a subgroup of students with disorders uses of language to enhance communicative in written expression. effectiveness should prove beneficial.

REFERENCES

Adams, C., & Bishop, D. V.M. (1989). Conversational char- Berninger, V.W.,Garcia, N. P., & Abbott, R. D. (2009). Mul- acteristics of children with semantic-pragmatic lan- tiple processes that matter in writing instruction and guage disorder. I: Exchange structure, turn taking, re- assessment. In G. A. Troia (Ed.), Instruction and as- pairs and cohesion. British Journal of Disorders of sessment for struggling writers: Evidence-based prac- Communication, 24, 211–239. tices (pp. 15–50). New York: Guilford Press. Apol, L., & Harris, J. (1999). Joyful noises: Creating poems Berninger, V. W., & Winn, W. D. (2006). Implications of for voices and ears. Language Arts, 76, 314–323. advancements in brain research and technology for Arnold, K., & Hornett, D. (1990). Teaching idioms to chil- writing development, writing instruction, and educa- dren who are deaf. Teaching Exceptional Children, tional evolution. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. 22, 14–17. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. Bartlett, E. J. (1982). Learning to revise: Some component 96–114). New York: Guilford Press. processes. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know: Bishop, D. V. M. (1997). Uncommon understanding: The language process and structure of written dis- Development and disorders of language compre- course (pp. 345–364). New York: Academic Press. hension in children. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Bates, E. (1976). Language and context: The acquisition Press. of pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. Bishop, D. V. M., & Clarkson, B. (2003). Written language Beal, C. (1987). Repairing the message: Children’s mon- as a window into residual language deficits: A study itoring and revision skills. Child Development, 58, of children with persistent and residual speech and 401–408. language impairments. Cortex, 39, 215–237. Bender, W. N., & Wall, M. E. (1994). Social-emotional Bishop, D. V. M., & Norbury, C. F. (2002). Exploring the development of students with learning disabilities. borderlands of autistic disorder and specific language Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 323–341. impairment: A study using standardised diagnostic in- Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of struments. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, written expression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 43, 917–929. Berninger, V. W. (1999). Coordinating transcription and Bishop, D. V.M., North, T., & Donlan, C. (1996). Nonword text generation in working memory during compos- repetition as a behavioural marker for inherited lan- ing: Automatic and constructive processes. Learning guage impairment: Evidence from a twin study. Jour- Disability Quarterly, 22, 99–112. nal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 37, 391–403.

50 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2011

Bishop, D. V. M., & Adams, C. (1991). What do refer- Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The lan- ential communication tasks measure? A study of chil- guage of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: dren with specific language impairment. Applied Psy- Heinemann. cholinguistics, 12, 119–215. Certo, J. L., Apol, L., Wibbens, E., & Yoon, S. (2010). Bishop, D. V. M., & Adams, C. (1992). Comprehen- Teaching poetry writing, pre-K-12: A review of re- sion problems in children with specific language im- search and suggested directions for teacher practice pairment: Literal and inferential meaning. Journal of and development. In G. A. Troia, R. K. Shankland, & Speech & Hearing Research, 35, 119–129. A. Heintz (Eds.), Putting writing research into prac- Bliss, L. S. (1992). A comparison of tactful messages by tice: Applications for teacher professional develop- children with and without language impairment. Lan- ment (pp. 93–114). New York: Guilford Press. guage, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 23, Chapman, M. (1999). Situated, social, active: Rewriting 343–347. genre in the elementary classroom. Written Commu- Brinton, B., & Fujiki, M. (1982). A comparison of request- nication, 16, 469–490. response sequences in the discourse of normal and Cohen, J. (1986). Learning disabilities and psychological language-disordered children. Journal of Speech and development in childhood and adolescence. Annals Hearing Disorders, 47, 57–62. of Dyslexia, 36, 287–300. Bos, C. S., & Anders, P. L. (1990). Effects of interac- De La Paz, S. (1999). Self-regulated strategy instruction tive vocabulary instruction on vocabulary learning in regular education settings: Improving outcomes for and reading comprehension of junior-high learning students with and without learning disabilities. Learn- disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, ing Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 92–106. 31–42. De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1997). Strategy instruction Botting, N. (2002). Narrative as a tool for the assessment in planning: Effects on the writing performance and of linguistic and pragmatic impairments. Child Lan- behavior of students with learning difficulties. Excep- guage Teaching and Therapy, 18, 1–22. tional Children, 63, 167–181. Bourke, L., & Adams, A. (2010). Cognitive constraints Dockrell, J. E., Lindsay, G., Connelly, V., & Mackie, C. and the early learning goals in writing. Journal of Re- (2007). Constraints in the production of written text search in Reading, 33, 94–110. in children with specific language impairment. Excep- Brinton, B., & Fujiki, M. (2004). Social and affective fac- tional Children, 73, 147–164. tors in children with language impairment: Implica- Dowker, A. (1989). Rhyme and alliteration in poems tions for literacy learning. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, elicited from young children. Child Language, 16, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language 181–202. and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 130– DuCharme, R. W.(2006). The Learning Clinic pragmatic 153). New York: Guilford Press. skills survey. Brooklyn, CT: The Learning Clinic, Inc. Britton, J. N., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, Dyson, A. (2003). The brothers and sisters learn to write. H. (1975). The development of writing abilities. Lon- New York: Teachers College Press. don: Macmillan. Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power: Techniques for Carlisle, J. (1987). The use of morphological knowledge mastering the writing process. Oxford: Oxford Uni- in spelling derived forms by learning-disabled and nor- versity Press. mal students. Annals of Dyslexia, 37, 90–108. Englert, C. S., & Raphael, T. (1988). Constructing well- Carlisle, J. F. (1996). An exploratory study of morpho- formed prose: Process, structure and metacognitive logical errors in children’s written stories. Read- knowledge. Exceptional Children, 54, 513–520. ing and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8, Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Re- 61–72. view of Educational Research, 57, 481–506. Carruthers, P.& Smith P.(eds). 1996. Theories of Theories Fulk, B. M., & Stormont-Spurgin, M. (1995). Spelling inter- of Mind. Cambridge University Press. ventions for students with disabilities: A review. Jour- Cartledge, G. Frew, T., & Zaharias, J. (1985). Social skills nal of Special Education, 28, 488–513. for mainstreaming the LD child: A study of peer and Fujiki, M., Brinton, B., Morgan, M., & Hart, C. (1999). teacher perceptions. Learning Disability Quarterly, Withdrawn and sociable behavior of children with lan- 8, 132–140. guage impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J. B. Services in Schools, 30, 183–195. (1999). Language basis of reading and reading disabili- Fujiki, M., Brinton, B., Robinson, L., & Watson, V. (1997). ties: Evidence from a longitudinal investigation. Scien- The ability of children with specific language impair- tific Studies of Reading, 3, 331–361. ment to participate in a group decision task. Journal Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J. B. (2001). of Childhood Communication Development, 18,1– Estimating the risk of future reading difficulties in 10. kindergarten children: A research-based model and Fujiki, M., Brinton, B., & Todd, C. (1996). Social skills its clinical implementation. Language, Speech, and of children with specific language impairment. Lan- Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 38–50. guage, Speech, and Hearing in Schools, 25, 195–202.

Pragmatic, Written Expression, and Students with LLD 51

Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes Theory and method. New York: Routledge. in writing: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 97– Gerber, A., & Bryen, D. (1981). Language and learning 127). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. disabilities. Baltimore: University Park Press. Hadley, P.A., & Rice, M. L. (1991). Conversational respon- Gertner, B. L., Rice, M. L., & Hadley, P.A. (1994). Influence siveness in speech and language-impaired children. of communicative competence on peer preferences in Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 1308– a preschool classroom. Journal of Speech and Hear- 1317. ing Research, 37, 913–923. Harris, K. R., & Graham, S., Reid, R., McElroy, K., & Gillam, R., & Johnston, J. (1992). Spoken and written lan- Hamby, R. (1994). Self-monitoring of attention ver- guage relationships in language learning impaired and sus self-monitoring of performance: Replication and normally achieving school-age children. Journal of cross-task comparison studies. Learning Disability Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 35, 1303– Quarterly, 17, 121–139. 1315. Hauerwas, L. B., & Walker, J. (2003). Spelling of inflected Gilliam, J. E., & Miller, L. (2006). Pragmatic language verb morphology in children with spelling deficits. skills inventory. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 25– Graham, S. (1990). The role of production factors in learn- 35. ing disabled students’ compositions. Journal of Edu- Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new model of cognition and affect cational Psychology, 82, 781–791. in writing. In M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science Graham, S. (1997). Executive control in the revising of of writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. students with learning and writing difficulties. Jour- Hayes, J., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organiza- nal of Educational Psychology, 89, 223–234. tion of writing processes. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg Graham, S., Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing: An interdisci- & Whitaker, D. (1997). The role of mechanics in com- plinary approach (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence posing of elementary school students: A new method- Erlbaum. ological approach. Journal of Educational Psychol- Horning, A. S. (2002). Revision revisited. Cresskill, NJ: ogy, 89, 170–182. Hampton Press. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989). A components anal- Jerome, A. C., Fujiki, M., Brinton, B., & James, S.L. (2002). ysis of cognitive strategy training: Effects on learning Self-esteem in children with specific language impair- disabled students’ compositions and self-efficacy. Jour- ment, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Re- nal of Educational Psychology, 81, 353–361. search, 45, 700–714. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1997). It can be taught, but it Juvonen, J., & Bear, G. (1992). Social adjustment of chil- does not develop naturally: Myths and realities in writ- dren with and without learning disabilities in inte- ing instruction. School Psychology Review, 26, 414– grated classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychol- 424. ogy, 84, 332–340. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Troia, G. A. (1998). Writ- Kamberelis, G. (1998). Relations between children’s liter- ing and self-regulation: Cases from the self-regulated acy diets and genre development: You write what you strategy development model. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. read. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 7–53. Zimmerman (Eds.), Developing self-regulated learn- Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1996). Social skill deficits ers: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 20– and learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Journal of 41). New York: Guilford Press. Learning Disabilities, 29, 226–237. Graham, S., MacArthur, C. A., & Schwartz, S. S. (1995). Kellogg, R. T. (1986). Writing method and productivity of The effects of goal setting and procedural facilitation science and engineering faculty. Research in Higher on the revising behavior and writing performance of Education, 25, 147–163. students with writing and learning problems. Journal Kellogg, R. T. (1994). The psychology of writing. Oxford: of Educational Psychology, 87, 230–240. Oxford University Press. Graham, S., & Weintraub, N. (1996). A review of hand- Kovalcik, B., & Certo, J. L. (2007). The poetry cafe´ is open: writing research: Progress and prospects from 1980 Teaching literary devices of sound in poetry writing. to 1994. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 7–87. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 89–93. Graham, S., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Abbott, S., & Ladd, G. W., & Price, J. M. (1987). Predicting children’s Whitaker, D. (1997). The role of mechanics in com- social and school adjustment following the transition posing of elementary school students: A new method- from preschool to kindergarten. Child Development, ological approach. Journal of Educational Psychol- 58, 1168–1189. ogy, 89, 170–182. Lapadat, J. C. (1991). Pragmatic language skills of children Grice, H. P.(1975). Logic and conversation. In P.Cole & J. with language and/or learning disabilities: A quantita- Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech tive synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. 147–158. Gould, J. D. (1980). Experiments on composing letters: Lazar, R., Warr-Leeper, G., Beel-Nicholson, C., & Johnson, Some facts, some myths, and some observations. In L. S. (1989). Elementary school teachers’ use of multiple

52 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2011

meaning expressions. Language, Speech, and Hear- of children with communication impairments. Inter- ing Services in Schools, 20, 420–430. national Journal of Language and Communication Leonard, L. B. (1998). Children with specific language Disorders, 38, 287–313. impairment. Boston: MIT Press. Norbury, C. F., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2003). Narrative skills Lewis, B. A., & Freebairn, L. (1992). Residual effects of of children with communication impairments. Inter- preschool phonology disorders in grade school, ado- national Journal of Language and Communication lescence, and adulthood. Journal of Speech and Hear- Disorders, 38, 287–313. ing Research, 35, 819–831. Page-Voth, V., & Graham, S. (1999). Effects of goal setting MacArthur, C. A., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled and strategy use on the writing performance and self- students’ composing with three methods: Handwrit- efficacy of students with writing and learning prob- ing, dictation, and word processing. Journal of Spe- lems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 230– cial Education, 21, 22–42. 240. Mackie, C., & Dockrell, J. E. (2004). The writing skills of Pearl, R., Donahue, M., & Bryan, T. (1986). Social relation- children with SLI. Journal of Speech, Language, and ships of learning disabled children. In J. K. Torgesen & Hearing Research, 47, 1469–1483. B. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), Psychological and educational Marvin, C. A., & Wright, D. (1997). Literacy perspectives on learning disabilities (pp. 193–224). socialization in the homes of preschool children. New York: Academic Press. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, Pearl, R., Farmer, T. W., Van Acker, R., Rodkin, P., Bost, K. 28, 154–163. K., Coe, M., et al. (1998). The social integration of stu- McCutchen, D. (1986). Domain knowledge and linguis- dents with mild disabilities in general education class- tic knowledge in the development of writing ability. rooms: Peer group membership and peer-assessed so- Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 431–444. cial behavior. The Elementary School Journal, 99, McCutchen, D. (1988). “Functional automaticity” in chil- 167–185. dren’s writing. Written Communication, 5, 306–324. Pellegrini, A. D., Galda, L., & Rubin, D. L. (1984). Context McCutchen, D. (1995). Cognitive processes in children’s in text: The development of oral and written language writing: Developmental and individual differences. Is- in two genres. Child Development, 55, 1549–1555. sues in Education: Contributions from Educational Phelps-Terasaki, D., & Phelps-Gunn, T. (2007). Test of Psychology, 1, 123–160. pragmatic language (2nd ed.). East Moline, IL: Lin- McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: guiSystems. Working memory in composition. Educational Psy- Prutting, C. A. (1982). Pragmatics as social competence. chology Review, 8, 299–325. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47, 123– McGill-Franzen, A., & Allington, R. L. (1991). The grid- 134. lock of low reading achievement: Perspectives on pol- Rice, M. L. (1993). Don’t talk to him; he’s weird: A social icy and practice. Remedial and Special Education, consequences account of language and social interac- 12(3), 20–30. tion. In A. Kaiser & D. Gray (Eds.), Enhancing chil- McTear, M., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (1991). Pragmatic dis- dren’s communication: Research foundations for in- orders in children: Assessment and intervention. tervention. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing Co. London: Whurr. Rice, M., Sell, M., & Hadley, P. (1991). Social inter- Nagy, W., Berninger, V.W., & Abbott, R. D. (2006). Contri- actions of speech-and language-impaired children. butions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, outcomes of upper elementary and middle-school stu- 1299–1308. dents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 134– Roth, F. P., Spekman, N. J., & Fye, E. (1995). Oral refer- 147. ence cohesion in the oral narratives of learning dis- Nation, K., Clarke, P., Marshall, C. M., & Durand, M. abled and normally achieving students. Learning Dis- (2004). Hidden language impairments in children: Par- ability Quarterly, 1, 25–41. allels between poor reading comprehension and spe- Roth, F. P. (1986). Oral narrative abilities of learning- cific language impairment? Journal of Speech, Lan- disabled students. Topics in Language Disorders, guage, and Hearing Research, 47, 199–211. 7(1), 21–30. Nippold, M. A. (2007). Later language development: Roth, F. P., Speece, D. L., & Cooper, D. H. (2002). A lon- School-age children, adolescents, and young adults gitudinal analysis of the connection between oral lan- (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. guage and early reading. Journal of Educational Re- Nodine, B., Barenbaum, E., & Newcomer, P.(1985). Story search, 95, 259–272. composition by learning disabled, reading disabled, Roth, F. P., & Spekman, N. J. (1984). Assessing the prag- and normal children. Learning Disability Quarterly, matic abilities of children: Part I. Organizational frame- 8, 167–181. work and assessment parameters. Journal of Speech Noel, M. N. (1980). Referential communication abilities of and Hearing Disorders, 49, 2–11. learning disabled children. Learning Disability Quar- Russell, D. R. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and terly, 3, 70–75. society: An activity theory analysis. Written Commu- Norbury, C. F., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2003). Narrative skills nication, 14, 504–554.

Pragmatic, Written Expression, and Students with LLD 53

Sawyer, R., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1992). Direct Is it helpful to write a plan? British Journal of Educa- teaching, strategy instruction, and strategy instructional Psychology, 61, 46–54. tion with explicit self-regulation: Effects on learning Treiman, R. (1991). Children’s spelling errors on syllable- disabled students’ composition skills and self-efficacy. initial consonant clusters. Journal of Educational Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 340–352. Psychology, 83, 346–360. Schalock, R. L. (1996). Reconsidering the conceptual- Troia, G. A., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1999). Teaching ization and measurement of quality of life. In R. L. students with learning disabilities to mindfully plan Schalock (Ed.), Quality of life: Conceptualization when writing. Exceptional Children, 65, 235–252. and measurement (Vol. 1, pp. 123–139). Washington, Troia, G. A., Lin, S. C., Monroe, B. W., & Cohen, S. (2009). DC: American Association on Mental Retardation. The effects of writing workshop instruction on the Schnoor, D. J. (2004). “Sing it, um, say it, um, read it performance and motivation of good and poor writ- again!”: Poetry and preschool children’s meaning- ers. In G. A. Troia (Ed.), Instruction and assessment making responses. Unpublished doctoral disserta- for struggling writers: Evidence-based practices (pp. tion, University of Virginia, Charlottesville. 77–112). New York: Guilford Press. Scott, C. M., & Windsor, J. (2000). General language per- U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Twenty-fifth an- formance measures in spoken and written narrative nual report to Congress on the implementation and expository discourse of school-age children with of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. language learning disabilities. Journal of Speech, Lan- Washington, DC: Office of Special Education Pro- guage, and Hearing Research, 43, 324–339. grams. Shields, J. (1991). Semantic-pragmatic disorder: A right Vaughn, S., Hogan, A., Kouzekanani, & Shapiro, S. (1990). hemisphere syndrome? British Journal of Disorders Peer-acceptance, self-perception, and social skills of of Communication, 26, 383–392. learning disabled students prior to identification. Jour- Silliman, E. R., & Berninger, V. (2011). Cross-disciplinary nal of Educational Psychology, 82, 101–106. dialogue about the nature of oral and written language Weiner, J. (1980). A theoretical model of the acquisition of problems in the context of developmental, academic, peer relationships of learning disabled children. Jour- and phenotypic profiles. Topics in Language Disor- nal of Learning Disabilities, 13, 42–47. ders, 31(1), 24–39. Weiner, J. (2004). Do peer relationships foster behav- Spekman, N. J. (1984). Learning-disabled students and lan- ioral adjustment in children with learning disabilities? guage use: Discourse and narrative skills. Learning Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 21–30. Disabilities: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 3(9), 103– Weiner, J., & Schneider, B. (2002). A multisource explo- 115. ration of friendship patterns of children with and with- Spekman, N. J. (1981). Dyadic verbal communication out LD. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, abilities of learning disabled and normally achieving 127–141. fourth and fifth grade boys. Learning Disability Quar- Westby, C. E. (2002). Beyond decoding: Critical and terly, 4, 139–151. dynamic literacy for students with dyslexia, lan- Sperling, M. (1996). Revisiting the writing-speaking con- guage learning disabilities (LLD), or attention deficit- nection: Challenges for research on writing and writ- hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In K. G. Butler & E. ing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 66, R. Silliman (Eds.), Speaking, reading, and writing in 53–86. children with language learning disabilities: New Steinbergh, J. W.(1999). Mastering metaphor through po- paradigms in research and practice (pp. 73–108). etry. Language Arts, 76, 324–331. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Stothard, S. E., Snowling, M. J., Bishop, D. V. M., Wilson, A. (2007). Finding a voice? Do literary forms Chipchase, B. B., & Kaplan, C. A. (1998). Language- work creatively in teaching poetry writing? Cam- impaired preschoolers: A follow-up into adolescence. bridge Journal of Education, 37(3), 441–457. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, Windsor, J., Scott, C. M., & Street, C. K. (2000). Verb and 41, 407–418. noun morphology: The spoken and written language Swanson, H. L., & Berninger, V. W. (1996). Individual dif- of children with language learning disabilities. Jour- ferences in children’s working memory and writing nal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, skill. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 1322–1336. 358–385. Wong, B. Y. L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., & Kuperis, Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, S. (1996). Teaching low achievers and students with and imagery in conversational discourse.NewYork: learning disabilities to plan, write, and revise opin- Cambridge University Press. ion essays. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 197– Thomas, C. C., Englert, C. S., & Gregg, S. (1987). An anal- 212. ysis of errors and strategies in the expository writing Wong, B. Y. L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., & Kuperis, S. of learning disabled students. Remedial and Special (1997). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities Education, 8, 21–30. and low achievers to plan, write, and revise compare- Torrance, M., Thomas, G. V., & Robinson, E. J. (1991). and-contrast essays. Learning Disabilities Research & Strategies for answering examination essay questions: Practice, 12, 2–15.