This is a repository copy of Individual differences in children’s pragmatic ability: a review of associations with formal language, social cognition and executive functions.
White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/129247/
Version: Accepted Version
Article: Matthews, D. orcid.org/0000-0003-3562-9549, Biney, H. and Abbot-Smith, K. (2018) Individual differences in children’s pragmatic ability: a review of associations with formal language, social cognition and executive functions. Language Learning and Development, 14 (3). pp. 186-223. ISSN 1547-5441 https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2018.1455584
© 2018 Taylor & Francis Group. This is an author produced version of a paper subsequently published in Language Learning and Development. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy.
Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item.
Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request.
[email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Language, Learning and Development
For Peer Review Only
Individual differences in children‘s pragmatic ability: a review of associations with formal language, social cognition and executive functions
Journal: Language Learning and Development
Manuscript ID HLLD-2017-0019.R2
Manuscript Type: Original Articles
Date Submitted by the Author: n/a
Complete List of Authors: Matthews, Danielle; University of Sheffield, Department of Psychology Biney, Hannah; University of Sheffield Abbot-Smith, Kirsten; University of Kent
Pragmatics, executive function, Social communication, formal language, Keywords: Theory of mind
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 1 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 1 1 2 3 4 5 Individual differences in children’s pragmatic ability: a review of associations with formal 6 7 8 language, social cognition and executive functions. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 For Peer Review Only 17 18 Danielle Matthews1, Hannah Biney1, and Kirsten Abbot Smith2 19 20
21 22 1 23 Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield 24 2 25 School of Psychology, University of Kent 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Danielle Matthews, 34 35 36 Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, 1 Vicar Lane, Sheffield S1 2LT, UK 37 38 Contact: [email protected] 39 40 41 42 Acknowledgements : We would like to thank Colin Bannard for helpful comments on the 43 44 manuscript and Claudia von Bastian and Emma Blakey for recommending reading on 45 46 executive functions. 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 2 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 2 1 2 3 Abstract 4 5 Children vary in their ability to use language in social contexts and this has important 6 7 consequences for wellbeing. We review studies that test whether individual differences in 8 9 pragmatic skill are associated with formal language ability, mentalising and executive 10 11 functions in both typical and atypical development. The strongest and most consistent 12 13 14 associations found were between pragmatic and formal language. Additional associations 15 16 with mentalisingFor were observed, Peer particularly Review with discourse contingencyOnly and irony 17 18 understanding. Fewer studies considered executive function and evidence is mixed. To make 19 20 progress, high quality studies of specific pragmatic skills are needed to test mechanistic 21 22 models of development. We propose 6 goals for future research: 1) developing an 23 24 empirically based taxonomy of pragmatic skills; 2) establishing which skills matter most for 25 26 27 everyday functioning; 3) testing specific hypotheses about information processing; 4) 28 29 augmenting measures of individual differences; 5) considering a broader set of psychological 30 31 associates; 6) employing statistical tools that model the nested structure of pragmatics and 32 33 cognition. 34 35 36 37
38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 3 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 3 1 2 3 Individual differences in children‘s pragmatic ability: a review of associations with 4 5 formal language, social cognition and executive functions. 6 7 People vary enormously in their pragmatic proficiency the extent to which they can 8 9 use language in context to engage with others. While the domain of pragmatics is not clearly 10 11 delineated or easily defined (Ariel, 2010), the family of pragmatic skills traditionally includes 12 13 14 the ability to initiate conversation, to respond with contingent, relevant and new information, 15 16 to produce and Forunderstand Peer utterances byReview drawing on context Only(including the perspectives of 17 18 interlocutors and what is in their common ground), to use an appropriate register (respecting 19 20 social status), to recount cohesive and coherent narratives and to understanding non literal 21 22 language including irony. While non verbal communication (e.g., making eye contact, 23 24 smiling and nodding during conversation) is often included in this family of skills, for the 25 26 27 current review we define pragmatics as the linguistic component of social communication. 28 29 Individual differences in pragmatic ability have profound consequences for all arenas 30 31 of social life. Within the typical population, pragmatic proficiency is positively correlated 32 33 with peer popularity and the ability to engage in collaborative based learning, and negatively 34 35 correlated with social emotional and behavioural difficulties, and mental health problems 36 37 (e.g., Gottman, Gonso & Rasmussen, 1975; Helland, Lundervold, Heimann & Posserud, 38 39 40 2014; Kemple, Speranza & Hazen, 1992; Murphy, Faulkner & Farley, 2014). For people with 41 42 Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Social (Pragmatic) Communication Disorder (SCD), and 43 44 Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) impairments in pragmatic skills have a long term 45 46 impact on relationship formation (e.g., Whitehouse, Watt, Line & Bishop, 2009) 47 48 employability (e.g., Lewis, Woodyatt & Murdoch, 2008; Eaves & Ho, 2008) and behavioural, 49 50 social and emotional problems (e.g., St Clair, Pickles, Durkin & Conti Ramsden, 2011) 51 52 53 respectively. Pragmatic language impairments are also strongly associated with other 54 55 developmental disorders including Attention Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD. 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 4 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 4 1 2 3 Camarata & Gibson, 1999), Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) and Conduct Disorder 4 5 (CD. Gilmour, Hill, Place & Skuse, 2004) as well as hearing loss (e.g., O’Reilly, Peterson, & 6 7 Wellman, 2014). There is thus a clear need to explain why individual differences in 8 9 pragmatic ability exist so that we can find the best means of supporting development and 10 11 function. 12 13 14 One way forward is to explore the social and cognitive skills that theoretically 15 16 underpin pragmaticFor skills. Peer This research Review should ultimately contributeOnly to a mechanistic model 17 18 of pragmatic development by identifying potential bottlenecks in function and growth. For 19 20 example, if performance on an inhibition task is shown to be associated with communicative 21 22 perspective taking, then we can build a model of communication whereby inhibiting one’s 23 24 own perspective is a key sub step. Of course, this approach has its limitations, most notably 25 26 27 because it relies on finding measures with the requisite variance for correlational work to be 28 29 carried out. It is possible that some steps in deploying a pragmatic skill are so readily 30 31 achieved by all speakers as to show no variance (and we would not be able to distinguish this 32 33 from a case where the step was not required at all). However, the assumption is that a 34 35 correlational approach will be informative often enough to offer insight into the architecture 36 37 of the developing language system. With a model of this system in hand, we will be better 38 39 40 able to predict developmental outcomes, identify children at risk, create supportive 41 42 interventions, and match these interventions to individuals who stand to benefit from them 43 44 the most. 45 46 Of all the cognitive domains that could be important for pragmatic functioning, three 47 48 have received the most attention: formal language proficiency (vocabulary and grammar), 49 50 mentalising (Theory of Mind) and executive functions (including inhibition and working 51 52 53 memory amongst others). The goal of this review paper was to establish what evidence there 54 55 is of broad brush associations between each of these domains and pragmatics and of more 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 5 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 5 1 2 3 specific links. Testing for the latter is a challenge because it requires 1) a good information 4 5 processing account of why a specific social or cognitive process would be implicated in a 6 7 specific pragmatic function, 2) good measures for each domain, and 3) control measures to 8 9 rule out the possibility that associations reflect more domain general ability. Even when these 10 11 considerable challenges are met, theoretically anticipated collinearity between variables can 12 13 14 make null findings hard to interpret. One further question to consider is therefore how often 15 16 informative studiesFor result Peerfrom taking anReview individual differences Only approach. 17 18 For a paper to be included in this review, it needed to report both a measure of at least 19 20 one of the three cognitive domains (formal language, mentalising, executive function) and the 21 22 relation to a measure of pragmatic skill (see Appendix A for key words, search strategy and 23 24 inclusion criteria). Complete findings of all papers identified in a systematic search are 25 26 27 reported in table 1, Appendix B, with effect sizes reported in terms of Cohen’s d, where we 28 29 consider d=0.2 a 'small' effect size, 0.5 a 'medium' effect size and 0.8 a 'large' effect size 30 31 (Cohen, 1992). While we wanted to include a broad range of literature, setting a wide scope 32 33 for the search process means there will inevitably be gaps and missed papers. Furthermore, 34 35 the review reports only published studies and does not address the possibility that the 36 37 literature is biased in favour of reporting positive results over negative ones (something that 38 39 40 is known to be a problem in the cognitive literature more broadly. E.g., De Bruin, Treccani & 41 42 Della Sala, 2015). We therefore provide a representative review of research on this broad 43 44 topic rather than an exhaustive summary. 45 46 Notwithstanding these caveats, having analysed over 50 papers, it would be fair to say 47 48 that there is evidence that formal language, mentalising and executive functions are all 49 50 broadly implicated in pragmatic function but evidence for specific associations with well 51 52 53 defined pragmatic skills is currently limited. There appear to be two main reasons for this. 54 55 First, the information processing rationale for an expected association between a given 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 6 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 6 1 2 3 pragmatic measure and a given social or cognitive measure is often underspecified. Second, 4 5 methodological problems often limit the conclusions that can be drawn due to sample size, 6 7 measurement quality, lack of variance, task specific demands or lack of control for likely 8 9 covariates. Nonetheless, in some cases, there is good evidence of specific links and we 10 11 highlight these in the main text of the review before sketching proposals for future research. 12 13 14 In what follows, we first introduce pragmatic measures commonly reported in the 15 16 reviewed studies.For We then Peer present the mainReview body of the review, Only which is organised 17 18 according to the three domains: formal language, mentalising and executive function. At the 19 20 start of the three sections, a summary of findings is given followed by more detailed results 21 22 organised by type of pragmatic measure (global assessments, naturalistic conversation, 23 24 referential communication, narrative, irony comprehension). A reader seeking the gist of the 25 26 27 argument could follow the summaries before heading to the discussion section. 28 29 Measures of pragmatic skills 30 31 Measures of pragmatic skills vary in terms of focus, coverage and quality (see Adams, 32 33 2002; O’Neill, 2014; Russell & Grizzle, 2008 for reviews). In order to aid interpretation of 34 35 the following correlational research, we briefly describe the measures most commonly 36 37 reported in the individual differences literature. 38 39 40 Global measures. The most frequently used global tests of pragmatics are the 41 42 subscales from the Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language, (CASL, Carrow 43 44 Woolfolk, 1999). For the pragmatic judgment subscale children respond to a scenario with 45 46 the appropriate thing to say or do (e.g., “Suppose the telephone rings. You pick it up. What 47 48 do you say?”). On the nonliteral language subscale, children explain the nonliteral meaning 49 50 of statements (e.g., “When 5 year old Jimmy started pulling his sister’s hair, Dad said, "Jim, 51 52 53 you’re not a puppy anymore." What did he mean?”). Other standardised tests (the ELI battery 54 55 (Saborit & Julian, 2005) and the Test of Pragmatic Language (TOPL; Phelps Terasaki & 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 7 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 7 1 2 3 Phelps Gunn, 1992) also involve generating pragmatically appropriate responses to presented 4 5 scenarios and are therefore meta cognitive in nature. 6 7 One commonly used global clinical assessment is the Autism Diagnostic Observation 8 9 Schedule (ADOS, Lord et al., 2000). This contains many measures of the pragmatic skills 10 11 considered in this review (such as the ability to initiate or respond appropriately in verbal 12 13 14 interaction) alongside measures of non verbal social interaction (e.g. appropriate eye gaze 15 16 and use of gestures)For and somePeer measures Review that do not specifically Only relate to communication at all 17 18 (e.g. imagination, understanding of romantic relationships). 19 20 Other measures of global pragmatic ability rely on parent/teacher reports, which have 21 22 the advantage of gauging a broad range of abilities outside of a test situation – i.e., they 23 24 measure pragmatic function in a range of real social contexts. Questionnaires in reviewed 25 26 27 studies include the Children’s Communication Checklist (in either its original version or in its 28 29 current version as the CCC2, Bishop, 2003), the Language Use Inventory (LUI, O’Neill, 30 31 2009) and the Mindful Conversational Difficulties Scale (MCDS; Peterson, Garnett Kelly & 32 33 Attwood, 2009). The CCC2 was designed to screen for potential communication disorders 34 35 and sub classify children from four years of age. It includes four subscales that can be 36 37 considered pragmatic (E – initiation; F – stereotyped language; G – use of context and H – 38 39 40 non verbal communication). Many researchers now use it to study individual differences 41 42 although studies differ in terms of which subscales are included because a pragmatic 43 44 composite is no longer available (Norbury, Nash, Baird & Bishop, 2004). The LUI is a 45 46 relatively new standardized parent report for assessing how younger children (18 months to 4 47 48 years) use language in everyday situations and also has the advantage of covering a broad 49 50 range of skills. It is intended to capture functions of language that develop in tandem with 51 52 53 children’s growing social cognitive understanding (O’Neill, 2007). The MDCS consists of 54 55 eight questions, five of which tap language use requiring some level of perspective taking 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 8 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 8 1 2 3 (e.g., ‘Does the child frequently switch or omit topics in a conversation so that others become 4 5 confused?’). However, it also includes two items that directly tap mentalising. 6 7 Conversation. Measures of conversational skill rely on a researcher engaging in 8 9 semi structured conversation with a child and then later analysing what is said with detailed 10 11 coding schemes. They have the advantage of being direct measures of a skill that requires 12 13 14 many pragmatic functions to come together in concert and have high ecological validity. 15 16 However, this veryFor advantage Peer can lead Reviewto challenges with quantitative Only assessment as no two 17 18 conversational turns are the same. Common measures include the production of 19 20 conversational turns that are related to what one’s interlocutor has just said and that provide 21 22 relevant or new information. Given the importance of assessing conversation for clinical 23 24 diagnosis (using DSM V), future development of measures is a priority (Norbury, 2014). 25 26 27 Referential communication. Tests of referential communication tend to forgo 28 29 ecological validity for precision of assessment. They generally tap a very specific skill, either 30 31 producing or comprehending expressions that refer to objects by taking into account what an 32 33 interlocutor can see or has previously experienced. They can be useful for isolating the use 34 35 of specific social and cognitive processes. 36 37 Narrative. Tests of narrative generally involve children retelling a story (e.g., the 38 39 40 standardized Renfrew Bus Story Test, Renfrew, 2010) or narrating a wordless picture book 41 42 (with studies differing according to whether the book can be seen at the time of narration) 43 44 although they sometimes also include a comprehension element (e.g., Multilingual 45 46 Assessment Instrument for Narratives: LITMUS MAIN, Gagarina et al., 2012). Like 47 48 conversation, producing narratives is culturally universal but cognitively challenging –its 49 50 complexity is what makes for an ecologically valid test of advanced, real world language use. 51 52 53 The properties of narrative that are coded vary widely from one study to another and picking 54 55 out specifically pragmatic aspects of narrative production is a known challenge (e.g., 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 9 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 9 1 2 3 Ketelaars, Jansonius, Cuperus, and Verhoeven, 2012). Commonly coded properties are 4 5 management of common ground (including referring to characters so they are accessible to 6 7 the listener), inclusion of (ir)relevant information, cohesion and coherence (although the 8 9 latter is not always considered pragmatic). Any correlations observed should thus be 10 11 interpreted with respect to a specific coding scheme. When doing so, it is worth considering 12 13 14 what succeeding on a given measure would require of the speaker. For example, many 15 16 aspects of narrativeFor production Peer may not Review necessitate perspective taking Only (e.g., Arnold, Bennetto 17 18 & Diehl, 2009). 19 20 Irony. Tests of irony generally require the comprehension of short stories in which 21 22 one character, the ironist, directs a sarcastic comment to another. Test questions vary but 23 24 generally tap understanding of: 1) whether the comment was meant literally (meaning), 2) 25 26 27 whether the ironist believed the literal content of his comment and whether the ironist 28 29 thought the other character would believe that he thought the literal content to be true (belief) 30 31 and 3) why the ironist would have said what they did (motivation). Again, these tests 32 33 generally require meta linguistic insight. 34 35 Associations between pragmatic measures and formal language ability 36 37 For want of better expressions, researchers often distinguish formal language skills 38 39 40 from pragmatic skills. This distinction is somewhat artificial for a few reasons. While it 41 42 makes sense to talk about linguistic forms (speech sounds and grammatical structures) and 43 44 their functions (semantic or pragmatic), measures of ‘formal language’ are at best tests of the 45 46 semantic functions of language forms: they test whether children understand the meanings of 47 48 words and sentences. To the extent that there is no clear division between semantics and 49 50 pragmatics, it is inevitably difficult to construct tests that tap separable domains. When 51 52 53 understanding words and sentences, we often engage in reasoning that would be considered 54 55 pragmatic (indeed for social cognitive theories of language development such processes are 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 10 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 10 1 2 3 fundamental, see Clark, 2005). Likewise, nominally pragmatic tests call on lexical and 4 5 grammatical knowledge. Nonetheless, the distinction has been found to be useful in the sense 6 7 that some children appear to have difficulties that are most noticeable when there is a need to 8 9 use language in a social context (as is the case for children with ASD: Adams, Green, 10 11 Gilchrist & Cox, 2002; Jones & Schwartz, 2009; Loukusa & Moilanen, 2009; Tager 12 13 14 Flusberg, Paul & Lord, 2005; Volden, 2002). Therefore, when seeking to explain individual 15 16 differences in pragmaticFor skills,Peer it makes Review sense to consider them Only potentially separable (at least 17 18 partially) from formal language and then to test the extent to which in practice they are 19 20 related. 21 22 With a few notable exceptions, most studies we review below find evidence of a 23 24 medium to large correlation between pragmatic and formal language measures. This is 25 26 27 consistently the case for studies with a global measure of pragmatic ability (direct or parent 28 29 reported), naturalistic conversation or irony comprehension. Studies that focus on perspective 30 31 taking in referential communication paradigms or on narrative production report more mixed 32 33 results. However, it is not always clear what associations would be predicted for these 34 35 measures. Overall, there is sufficient evidence of an association with formal language ability 36 37 that, later in the review, it will be necessary to look for controls for formal language when 38 39 40 exploring evidence for specific links between pragmatics, mentalising and executive 41 42 functioning. 43 44 Global measures of pragmatics. Due to their wide ranging nature, there are any 45 46 number of reasons why global pragmatic measures may be associated with formal language. 47 48 At best such measures allow us to establish whether these two domains are linked such that 49 50 more specific measures can unpack why. There is consistent evidence of a medium to large 51 52 53 association with formal language for typically developing children (Bernard & Deleau, 2007; 54 55 De Rosnay, Fink, Begeer, Slaughter, & Peterson, 2014), children with ASD (Volden, 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 11 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 11 1 2 3 Coolican, Garon, White & Bryson, 2009; Akbar, Loomis, & Paul, 2013; Whyte & Nelson, 4 5 2015), children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD, Andrés Roqueta, Adrian, 6 7 Clemente, & Katsos, 2013), deaf children (Rinaldi, Baruffaldi, Burdo, & Caselli, 2013) and a 8 9 group of children covering the full range of pragmatic abilities on the normed LUI measure 10 11 (Pesco & O'Neill, 2012). 12 13 14 Naturalistic conversation. Engaging in fluid conversation calls on formal language 15 16 skills that allowFor the rapid Peerprocessing of Review incoming speech and Only planning of speaker turns. Two 17 18 studies of children with ASD found large correlations between conversational ability and 19 20 formal language (Capps, Kehres & Sigman, 1998; Hale & Tager Flusberg, 2005), providing 21 22 consistent evidence of an association. 23 24 Referential communication. Studies focused on referential communication report 25 26 27 more mixed results. This might be because, for some studies, measuring individual 28 29 differences was not the focus of the study and/or sample sizes were small. Furthermore, 30 31 referential communication tasks are often designed to have limited formal language demands, 32 33 with simple instructions that are within the grasp of young participants. For example, if 34 35 requested to “pick up the big cup”, a 3 year old might not struggle to understand the 36 37 instruction (but may struggle to take into account their partner’s visual perspective when 38 39 40 selecting a cup). Thus, the language demands of the test may not be the most important 41 42 bottleneck in successful performance. Nonetheless, we might still predict an association 43 44 between the domains if we assume that more experience of linguistic interactions (and more 45 46 facility with learning from them) would result in both better vocabulary comprehension and 47 48 better ability to accommodate an interlocutor’s perspective (e.g., Matthews, Butcher, Lieven 49 50 & Tomasello, 2012). 51 52 53 Looking at typical development, Nilsen and Graham (2009, 2012) found mixed 54 55 evidence of an association between vocabulary and egocentric errors of different kinds 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 12 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 12 1 2 3 whereas Gillis and Nilsen (2014) found a medium sized correlation between formal language 4 5 and children’s ratings of the helpfulness of ambiguous messages. Research on atypical 6 7 populations also finds for children with ASD both mixed results (Fukumura, 2016), on the 8 9 one hand, as well as, on the other hand, evidence of an association (Dahlgren & Dahlgren 10 11 Sandberg, 2008; Nadig, Vivante & Ozonoff, 2009) and DLD (Davies, Andrés Roqueta, & 12 13 14 Norbury, 2016). 15 16 NarrativeFor. The production Peer of narrativeReview necessarily callsOnly on vocabulary, grammar and 17 18 knowledge of language structure at the supra sentential level. Separating these skills from 19 20 more pragmatic aspects of narrative production (e.g., managing information flow for a 21 22 listener) is a challenge and findings are mixed. Fernández (2013) observed a medium sized 23 24 correlation between receptive vocabulary and overall coherence of narratives but not other 25 26 27 measures. Blom and Boerma (2016) found medium sized correlations between formal 28 29 language measures and concurrent measures of narrative comprehension and production 30 31 (macrostructure) for children with DLD. For their typically developing group, however, very 32 33 few such associations were observed. De Marchena and Eigsti (2016) found no association 34 35 between receptive vocabulary and narrative adaptation to common ground in children with 36 37 ASD (although the authors note that participants were selected to be in the typical range for 38 39 40 vocabulary). Losh and Capps (2003) found no correlations between verbal IQ and narrative 41 42 measures including evaluation in very high functioning children with ASD. Norbury, 43 44 Gemmel and Paul (2014) found that while formal language ability (assessed by the CELF, 45 46 Semel, Wiig & Secord, 1995) did not correlate with pragmatic error for a DLD group, it was 47 48 negatively correlated with pragmatic errors for their ASD group. However, it was also 49 50 negatively correlated with relevant propositions ( 1.35), suggesting that more verbally able 51 52 53 children with ASD may be more verbose but are then prone to more irrelevance. 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 13 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 13 1 2 3 Irony. Since tests of irony comprehension usually require understanding short 4 5 stories, they also necessarily call on receptive vocabulary and grammar. Performance on 6 7 corresponding tests could be related for this reason alone. Understanding the ironic element 8 9 of these stories specifically could also plausibly be linked to language ability through 10 11 language experience. That is, children with more experience of language will have larger 12 13 14 vocabularies and more incidental practice with this aspect of non literal language use (see, 15 16 e.g., O’Reilly, PetersonFor &Peer Wellman, 2014, Review for evidence of delayOnly in deaf children of hearing 17 18 parents). The relatively large literature on this topic reports consistent evidence of medium 19 20 large associations with formal language ability for typically developing children (Filippova & 21 22 Astington, 2008; Angeleri & Airenti, 2014; Massaro, Valle & Marchetti, 2014; Mewhort 23 24 Buist & Nilsen, 2013; Nilsen, Glenwright & Huyder, 2011). Studies of children with ASD 25 26 27 (Huang, Oi & Taguchi, 2015; Nicholson, Whalen & Pexman, 2013) and ADHD (Adachi et 28 29 al., 2004; Caillies, Bertot, Motte, Raynaud & Abely, 2014) did not find relationships with the 30 31 particular formal language measure used although parent report measures may not have been 32 33 sensitive enough. All things considered, there tends to be an association with receptive 34 35 vocabulary, certainly in typical development. 36 37 Summary. Many tests of pragmatics have clear formal language demands and this is 38 39 40 reflected in a consistent pattern of medium large associations for all measures except tests 41 42 that deliberately seek to minimise demands on vocabulary and grammar. This would suggest 43 44 that formal language and pragmatic language are not entirely separable, a conclusion 45 46 consistent with studies of atypical development that find children with DLD to be impaired 47 48 relative to typical controls on many measures of pragmatic language (e.g. Norbury, Nash, 49 50 Baird & Bishop, 2004; Norbury, Gemmel & Paul, 2014) even if children with ASD show 51 52 53 greater pragmatic impairments (e.g., Colozzo, Morris & Mirenda, 2015; Norbury & Bishop, 54 55 2003; see also Miller et al., 2015). It is therefore clear that future studies should control for 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 14 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 14 1 2 3 formal language ability if they are to look for specific links between pragmatics and other 4 5 domains. This said, from the current research it is not possible to rule out Matthew effects 6 7 (Merton, 1968; Stanovich, 1986) whereby children with high scores on pragmatic and formal 8 9 language tests would have had high scores on many other tests, including non verbal IQ. An 10 11 important step for the field will be to do the necessary factor analytic work to gauge the 12 13 14 extent to which pragmatic and formal language skills reflect a single underlying factor, and 15 16 the extent to whichFor they arePeer separable fromReview each other and fromOnly other social and cognitive 17 18 dimensions, or indeed reflect a domain general construct (e.g., ‘g’, Gustafsson, 1984) at 19 20 certain points in development. 21 22 Associations between pragmatic measures and mentalising ability 23 24 The term mentalising is used here to encompass children’s understanding of 25 26 27 themselves and others as mental beings who are guided by their attentional states, beliefs, 28 29 desires, intentions, emotions, interests and perspectives. Mentalising (or Theory of Mind, 30 31 ToM) has traditionally been seen as the most important cognitive underpinning of pragmatics 32 33 (e.g., Baron Cohen, 1988; Geurts, Broeders & Nieuwland, 2010; Perner, Frith, Leslie & 34 35 Leekam, 1989). Under O’Neill’s (2012) pragmatic taxonomy, one of the three main sets of 36 37 pragmatic skills is labelled ‘mindful pragmatics’, grouping together instances of language use 38 39 40 that require taking the perspective of a specific interlocutor (as opposed to having a model of 41 42 interlocutors in general, or a routine social situation). On the face of it, having difficulties 43 44 recognising such perspectives should cause communication problems. However, mentalising 45 46 may not be a unitary construct, particularly in terms of the distinction between understanding 47 48 the emotions of others versus understanding their knowledge states. Therefore, part of the 49 50 challenge of research is to identify which types of mentalising are necessary in specific 51 52 53 communicative situations. To date, the vast majority of research has focused on false belief 54 55 understanding. Yet, for many pragmatic tasks it is not always clear why this would be called 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 15 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 15 1 2 3 upon and so an important question is whether it can be taken as a proxy for mentalising 4 5 ability more generally or not. Another aspect of the challenge is to unpack the evolving 6 7 association between mentalising and pragmatic development given that each is likely to 8 9 influence the other. Indeed, there is a large body of research highlighting the importance of 10 11 language exposure for typical development of theory of mind (e.g., Astington & Wild, 2006; 12 13 14 de Rosnay & Hughes, 2005; Dunn, Brown, Slomkowski, Tesla & Youngblade, 1991; 15 16 Hughes, 2011; ForHughes, etPeer al., 2005; Milligan, Review Astington & Dack,Only 2007). 17 18 Overall, where studies have managed to run tests of mentalising that yield substantial 19 20 variance, this tends to be associated with individual differences in pragmatic function, 21 22 especially for global pragmatic measures, conversational ability and irony comprehension. 23 24 For many of these studies, few control variables are taken into account and so the specificity 25 26 27 of the association is unclear. For others, when language is controlled for, the association 28 nd 29 remains providing strong evidence for a specific link between mentalising (particularly 2 30 31 order ToM – knowing that person A thinks that person B thinks something) and both 32 33 conversation skills and irony comprehension, although notably no studies have included a 34 35 control measure of non verbal IQ. Occasionally, once controls are accounted for, no 36 37 association between mentalising and pragmatic function remains (e.g., Pellicano, 2013; 38 39 40 Whyte & Nelson, 2015). In these cases, it is not always easy to know whether this is because 41 42 mentalising is not the limiting factor for the type of pragmatic ability assessed (something 43 44 that is hard to establish when global measures are used) or whether all the variance in 45 46 mentalising was already lost in the soup of control variables that are known to co vary with 47 48 it. It might be possible to solve this problem but it is also possible that we are trying to hone 49 50 in on dimensions of cognitive function that cannot exist in isolation from each other – raising 51 52 53 questions about the limits of individual differences research. Finally, for studies of 54 55 referential communication and narrative production, the evidence of an association with 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 16 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 16 1 2 3 mentalising, often assessed as 1st order false belief, is mixed. This could sometimes be due to 4 5 lack of variance in measures and/or a mismatch between the mentalising skill tested and the 6 7 mentalising demands of the pragmatic task. In sum, while there is enough evidence of a 8 9 broad brush link between the two domains, we now need to pin down specifically how this 10 11 link is substantiated for individual pragmatic functions. 12 13 14 Global measures of pragmatics. Studies of typical development that have explored 15 16 how mentalisingFor relates toPeer a broad measure Review of pragmatic ability Only consistently find a medium 17 18 to large association. Bernard and Deleau (2007) found medium to large correlations between 19 20 a composite false belief measure and a composite measure of communicative perspective 21 22 taking at all three time points (3;8, 4;2, 4;8) in their longitudinal study. Likewise, De 23 24 Rosnay, Fink, Begeer, Slaughter, and Peterson (2014) found a large correlation between 25 26 27 mindful conversational competence and ToM, a relationship that remained after covariates 28 29 including age, receptive vocabulary, emotion understanding and shyness were controlled for. 30 31 This suggests that measures taken from traditional assessments of false belief understanding 32 33 can predict real world use of mentalising for conversation. However, one quarter of the 34 35 items on de Rosnay et al.’s (2014) measure of conversational competence were measures of 36 37 mentalising so the specificity of association is not clear. 38 39 40 Looking at atypical development, one study that stands out from the point of view of 41 42 tackling the methodological challenges of indvidual differences research is reported by Losh, 43 44 Martin, Klusek, Hogan Brown, and Sideris (2012). ToM was assessed using one of two 45 46 batteries (made up of tasks from published studies) depending on the child’s developmental 47 48 level. Both batteries included the same test of perspective taking and this allowed the 49 50 development of a single theory of mind scale onto which all children could be mapped. This 51 52 53 is a good solution to the problem of needing measures with sufficient variance. Large 54 55 correlations were observed between this ToM score and performance on the pragmatic 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 17 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 17 1 2 3 judgment subtest of the CASL for children with ASD, Fragile X Syndrome, Down Syndrome 4 5 and neuro typical children. Two further studies provide support for this association between 6 7 pragmatic ability and concurrent mentalising (Whyte & Nelson, 2015, for TD children and 8 9 children with ASD; Andrés Roqueta et al., 2013, for children with DLD). 10 11 One problem with research on the association between mentalising and pragmatic 12 13 14 skills is that other co variates are not always controlled for. When they are, the picture 15 16 regarding associationsFor becomes Peer mixed (e.g.,Review Whyte & Nelson, Only 2015). One study of high 17 18 functioning children with ASD found no role for mentalising in explaining variance on the 19 20 ADOS G once a range of other factors had been controlled for. Pellicano (2013) found a 21 22 large negative association between ToM at time 1 and communication problems at time 2 23 24 (i.e, better ToM, fewer problems). However, when age, verbal ability, and non verbal ability 25 26 27 were partialled out, this association did not hold (only early differences in executive function 28 29 scores remained related to later ADOS G scores – see EF section below). It is difficult to 30 31 interpret this absence of correlation (since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), 32 33 an issue we return to in the discussion. 34 35 Overall, there is some evidence of an association between mentalising and global 36 37 assessments of pragmatic function but the specificity of this association is currently unclear. 38 39 40 Conversational skills. While extent of engagement in a conversation can vary, one 41 42 needs, at a minimum, to attend to an interlocutor’s conversational turn, understand it and 43 44 respond, ideally by taking into account common ground, the question under discussion, and 45 46 interlocutor interests. In a study of peer interaction in typically developing 4 year olds, 47 48 Slomskowski and Dunn (1996) found a large correlation between connectedness of peer 49 50 conversation and performance on 1st order false belief tasks. An initial study of children with 51 52 53 ASD (Capps et al., 1998) found that, once formal language had been controlled for, there was 54 55 no evidence of a specific association between mentalising ability and provision of new and 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 18 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 18 1 2 3 relevant information. However, when Hale and Tager Flusberg (2005) followed up on this 4 5 by using a more extensive battery of ToM tests (to avoid the possibility that lack of variance 6 7 was responsible for null findings), they observed that once age, IQ and vocabulary score were 8 9 controlled for, ToM explained additional variance (8%) in the amount of speech that was 10 11 contingent on what their partner had said. This study provided good evidence for a role of 12 13 14 mentalising. However, it is worth noting that the ToM scale included items (e.g., about lies 15 16 and jokes) that Fordirectly tap Peer nominally pragmaticReview abilities and Only it is not clear which aspects of 17 18 the ToM tasks related to conversational proficiency. Unpacking this association is an 19 20 important challenge for future research. 21 22 Referential communication. Studies of referential communication require children 23 24 to take common ground into account – i.e., to assess whether a partner can see something that 25 26 27 is being referred to or whether they have prior experience with it. There is tentative evidence 28 29 that referential communication ability is related to mentalising. For example, Resches and 30 31 Perez Pereira (2007) found evidence of large correlations between mentalising 32 33 (knowledge/ignorance and false belief combined) and some (but not all) measures of 34 35 performance on a highly motivating task that required children to describe to a peer the 36 37 location of hidden treasure (a location that the director child had previously experienced but 38 39 40 the hunter child had not). Similar mixed results are reported by Maridaki Kassotaki and 41 42 Antonopoulou (2011) and Dahlgren and Dahlgren Sandberg (2008). Overall, studies on 43 44 referential communication and mentalising have not resulted in a consistent picture, 45 46 sometimes because of a lack of variance on key measures. Furthermore, studies do not 47 48 always control for formal language or assess the specific mentalising skill that is presumed to 49 50 be required for the referential communication task. That is, if the task requires adjusting 51 52 53 language production according to what an interlocutor can see, we would expect success to 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 19 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 19 1 2 3 correlate with a measure of level 1 visual perspective taking but not necessarily with tests of 4 5 false belief understanding. 6 7 Narrative. Producing a narrative potentially calls on mentalising in that one could 8 9 model the listener’s (or at least a generic listener’s) epistemic state in order to manage 10 11 information flow for them (e.g., introducing characters appropriately, maintaining 12 13 14 accessibility of story elements as the narrative progresses, building up tension and 15 16 resolution). However,For evidence Peer regarding Review the link between mentalisingOnly and narrative 17 18 production is mixed. Fernández (2013) found no correlation between any of four measures of 19 20 narrative quality and 1st order ToM scores (perhaps due to a ceiling effect on the latter) but 21 22 did observe a medium correlation with 2nd order ToM and narrative coherence. Ketelaars, 23 24 Jansonius, Cuperus, and Verhoeven (2012) found no evidence of an association between 1st 25 26 27 order ToM and narrative organization (amount of relevant content) or cohesion (use of 28 29 anaphora and deixis as cohesive devices) for children with SCD or typically developing 30 31 children. Capps, Losh and Thurber (2000) found, for a group of children with ASD (but not a 32 33 group with developmental delay), a correlation between 1st order false belief understanding 34 35 and a range of narrative properties including evaluatuative statements and mention of mental 36 37 state terms, although only the latter remained once language ability was controlled for. Losh 38 39 40 and Capps (2003) found no correlations between advanced ToM (strange stories) and 41 42 narrative measures including evaluation in high functioning children with ASD, although 43 44 associations with emotion understanding were observed. Kuijper, Hartman and Hendriks 45 46 (2015) found that 1st and 2nd order ToM were predictors of appropriate referent 47 48 reintroduction (using a noun instead of a pronoun), with 2nd order ToM remaining predictive 49 50 in a multivariate model. In sum, it is hard to pinpoint which measures of narrative we should 51 52 53 consider ‘pragmatic’ (see related discussion in O’Neill, 2014 on anaphora) and, given the 54 55 range of different options and mixed evidence, it is hard to come to any solid conclusions. 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 20 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 20 1 2 3 However, given the importance of narrative production as a human activity (Bruner, 1990), 4 5 future work could aim at a consensus on measures of interest and then establish the extent to 6 7 which these depend on formal language skills or social cognition. 8 9 Irony. The understanding of irony should theoretically be related to higher order 10 11 theory of mind in that it requires understanding that a speaker thinks their addressee will 12 13 14 know they are not being literal, and understanding the speaker’s attitude in producing the 15 16 statement. The Forliterature tendsPeer to confirm Review that this is the case. Only In a particularly well 17 18 controlled study, Filippova and Astington (2008) assessed 2nd order false belief, receptive 19 20 vocabulary, forwards and backwards digit span and the ability to detect emotions from 21 22 prosodic cues. There was a large correlation between 2nd order ToM and irony 23 24 comprehension. Regression models showed that even once age, memory, attunement to 25 26 27 prosody and receptive vocabulary were controlled for, ToM was a significant predictor of 28 29 irony comprehension (explaining an additional 4% of variance). This study was notable in 30 31 clearly spelling out why a specific type of mentalising should be associated with a specific 32 33 pragmatic skill and then testing for the association while carefully controlling for relevant 34 35 covariates. 36 37 Several more studies support this association. Nilsen et al. (2011) pinpointed a 38 39 40 medium large relationship between 2nd order false belief and a measure of children’s 41 42 sensitivity to the effect of a listener’s knowledge state on their understanding of a speaker’s 43 44 ironic intentions. A further five studies of irony comprehension in typically developing 45 46 children also found a relationship with ToM although they did not control for formal 47 48 language ability (Massaro, et al., 2014; Banasik, 2013(mixed results); Mewhort Buist & 49 50 Nilsen; 2013 (mixed results); Angeleri & Airenti, 2014; Nicholson, Whalen & Pexman 51 52 53 2013). Massaro, Valle and Marchetti (2014) is the only study of typically developing children 54 55 that did not find evidence of a relationship between ToM and irony interpretation. However, 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 21 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 21 1 2 3 this study used few items for both measures. Finally, in a study of children with ADHD, 4 5 Caillies et al. (2014) found a large correlation between 2nd order false belief understanding 6 7 and irony comprehension. Taken together, there is good evidence of an association between 8 9 2nd order mental state reasoning and irony comprehension. An important question for future 10 11 research is the extent to which this relation is observed because many 2nd order ToM tests tap 12 13 14 essentially pragmatic skills. 15 16 Associations betweenFor pragmatic Peer measures Review and Executive Only Functions 17 18 Executive Functions (EFs) are a set of higher order skills that allow individuals to 19 20 think and behave in a flexible, controlled and goal directed way (Diamond, 2013). Working 21 22 memory, inhibition and cognitive flexibility are the EFs most commonly reported in the 23 24 literature on pragmatic development, although organisation, planning, self control and 25 26 27 generativity are also considered. It is intuitively plausible that any of these would be called 28 29 upon for pragmatic function. Language use regularly requires us to hold in mind and update 30 31 linguistic and contextual information (working memory), suppress one’s own perspective 32 33 (inhibition), flexibly respond as a discourse unfolds (cognitive flexibility), think ahead to 34 35 what will be communicated (planning), order information to form cohesive and coherent 36 37 narratives (organisation) and develop new topics of conversation (generativity). Limits on 38 39 40 any of these abilities are likely to shape the course of typical pragmatic development and 41 42 potentially explain departure from the normal trajectory for many children with 43 44 developmental disorders. 45 46 Deficits in executive functions have been implicated in a number of neuro 47 48 developmental disorders (e.g., Kingdon et al., 2016; Lai et al., 2017; Landry & Al Taie, 49 50 2016; Sjöwal et al., 2013). While many assume that executive problems cause pragmatic 51 52 53 problems, some have flipped the question and asked whether language impairments can 54 55 explain deficits in executive function (e.g., Akbar, Loomis, & Paul, 2013), for example, 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 22 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 22 1 2 3 because inner speech is needed to regulate non routine behaviours (Joseph, McGrath, & 4 5 Tager Flusberg, 2005; Ren, Wang & Jarrold, 2016). Thus any link between the two domains 6 7 is at least theoretically bi directional. 8 9 Perhaps the most important point to bear in mind while interpreting reported 10 11 associations below is that there is currently little consensus in the field of executive function 12 13 14 about what the different types of EF are, how they relate to each other and how reliable 15 16 measures of themFor are. Wiebe Peer et al. (2011) Review suggest that early Onlyon in development EF is a 17 18 unitary, domain general construct. For adults, Miyake et al.’s (2008; 2012) factor analytic 19 20 work found separable but correlated factors. We are therefore in the tricky business of 21 22 looking for associations between two domains (EF and pragmatics) for which the 23 24 dimensional structure is unclear and likely to change over developmental time. The adult 25 26 27 psycho linguistic literature further suggests that evidence of correlations will be patchy 28 29 because the types of cognitive support called on, for example, in communicative perspective 30 31 taking, are highly task specific (Ryksin et al. 2015), anticipated effect sizes are small (and 32 33 sample sizes are often not large enough to detect them), and measurement reliability for both 34 35 domains is suboptimal (Brown Schmidt & Fraundorf, 2015; Hedge, Powell & Sumner, 36 37 2017). 38 39 40 With these substantial caveats in mind, overall, the research reviewed below does 41 42 suggest that executive functions are globally associated with pragmatic functions, as we 43 44 would expect. Beyond this, however, a consistent picture is yet to emerge. There is evidence 45 46 of inhibitory control affecting performance on some tests of communicative perspective 47 48 taking, and of a relationship between working memory and the ability to respond 49 50 contingently in conversation. However, the latter needs to be followed up since there is some 51 52 53 debate about the order of dependence between working memory and language development 54 55 (e.g., Jones et al., 2014). There has been less work on other EFs but there is some evidence 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 23 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 23 1 2 3 that cognitive flexibility may be an important bottleneck early on, particularly in the process 4 5 of repair. Less well studied abilities that are arguably executive in nature, like generativity, 6 7 also emerge as potentially important for language use in social contexts. Certainly, research 8 9 on atypical development suggests that poor executive function is often associated with 10 11 pragmatic difficulties. Precisely why this is the case is not yet clear. 12 13 14 Global measures of pragmatic development. When global measures of executive 15 16 function and pragmaticsFor arePeer used, there Review is evidence of a broad brush Only association between the 17 18 two domains. Thus, in a study of high functioning children with ASD, Pellicano (2013) 19 20 observed a large negative association between an aggregate EF measure at time 1 (assessing 21 22 planning, cognitive flexibility and inhibition) and social communication problems (ADOS G) 23 24 at time 2. This association remained when age, verbal ability, and non verbal ability at time 1 25 26 27 were partialled out, leading Pellicano to argue that EFs are likely to place direct constraints 28 29 on the development of social communicative behaviour (i.e., they do not only exert an 30 31 influence via mentalising). While the composite task used here had the advantage of factoring 32 33 out task specific variance and reducing risk of type I error (because it avoids running many 34 35 correlations, one for each EF measure), the next step is to break down this broad brush 36 37 association to look at specific executive functions. There are relatively few studies that have 38 39 40 looked for links between specific EFs and global pragmatic ability but some have 41 42 investigated inhibition, working memory and generativity. 43 44 Regarding inhibition, Rints, McAuley, and Nilsen (2015) found that children whose 45 46 parents rated them as more inattentive or hyperactive impulsive also rated them as having 47 48 poorer pragmatic skills on the LUI. They also found a large correlation between inhibition 49 50 (movement errors on a statue task) and pragmatic scores on the Pragmatic Judgment subtest 51 52 53 of the CASL. In contrast, Akbar, Loomis, and Paul (2013) found no correlation between this 54 55 subtest of the CASL and inhibition (a colour word interference test) in a study of children 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 24 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 24 1 2 3 with ASD. Finally, in a study of children with DLD, Andrés Roqueta, Adrian, Clemente, and 4 5 Katsos (2013) found that inhibition was associated with pragmatic proficiency. Thus, 6 7 evidence is currently mixed. 8 9 Regarding working memory, links to global pragmatic function in children with ASD 10 11 have been observed, although the direction of causation is assumed to be from language to 12 13 14 executive function. Akbar, Loomis, and Paul (2013) found a large correlation between 15 16 performance onFor the pragmatic Peer judgement Review subtest of the CASL Only and both working memory and 17 18 organisation (but not with cognitive flexibility or inhibition). 19 20 Regarding generativity, there is evidence that the ability to fluently generate novel 21 22 ideas (i.e., thinking of all the possible uses of a pencil or all the possible interpretations of an 23 24 abstract line drawing) is associated with general pragmatic function. Bishop and Norbury 25 26 27 (2005) derived a composite pragmatic language score (from the CCC pragmatic composite, 28 29 the SCQ communication scale, and ADOS–G) for children with a range of related 30 31 development disorders (DLD, SCD, ASD) and found a large correlation with generativity. An 32 33 association held when structural language and age were controlled for. The authors proposed 34 35 that generation of relevant ideas is needed to consider multiple possible meanings of an 36 37 utterance and to avoid restricting conversation to specific topics or have it depart on 38 39 40 unexpected tangents. This study was also interesting in that it took a dimensional approach 41 42 and included children with different diagnostic labels in the same analyses. 43 44 Conversation skills. Although intuitively conversation should call on executive 45 46 functions (e.g., updating the record of conversation or, as just noted, inhibiting irrelevant or 47 48 tangential turns) evidence regarding a relation is still sparse. One comprehensive study of 49 50 typical conversational development points to a role for both inhibition and working memory. 51 52 53 Blain Brière, Bouchard, and Bigras (2014) coded semi structured conversations and found 54 55 that talkativeness was negatively correlated with inhibition and responsiveness was positively 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 25 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 25 1 2 3 associated with working memory. In general, self control, flexibility and planning showed 4 5 very little association with pragmatic function. This confirms the general picture in this 6 7 section whereby inhibition and working memory appear to be the most consistently important 8 9 factors for pragmatic development. 10 11 Referential communication. Succeeding on referential communication tasks in 12 13 14 principle requires inhibiting one’s own perspective to consider the interlocutor’s and 15 16 potentially switchingFor back Peer and forth between Review the two. In a particularly Only meticulous test of this 17 18 hypothesis, Nilsen and Graham (2009) reported two studies assessing comprehension and 19 20 production of referring expressions alongside tasks tapping working memory, inhibition and 21 22 cognitive flexibility. In a first study, executive function was not associated with performance 23 24 on a production task. However, there was a medium sized correlation between egocentric 25 26 27 errors on the comprehension task and inhibitory control (which withstood controlling for age 28 29 and verbal ability). Of particular interest was the fact that children’s performance on control 30 31 trials (where the speaker could see all relevant objects and so inhibiting conflicting 32 33 information about one’s own perspective to avoid egocentric responses was not required) was 34 35 not correlated with any executive function measure. This provides a clear demonstration that 36 37 inhibition is involved in preventing the selection of referents that, while plausible from the 38 39 40 child’s point of view, are not from the speaker’s. A second study found that better conflict 41 42 inhibition specifically (i.e., inhibition where a specific response is suppressed while an 43 44 alternative response is generated as opposed to delay inhibition where a response is 45 46 suppressed for a given amount of time) was related to reduced egocentric looking during 47 48 communicative perspective taking. Taken together, these studies provide a clear 49 50 demonstration of the potential importance of inhibition in explaining why some children find 51 52 53 communicative perspective taking easier than others. 54 55 One challenge with individual differences research is finding measures with sufficient 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 26 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 26 1 2 3 variance to test hypotheses. Nilsen and Graham, (2009) noted that their measure of cognitive 4 5 flexibility was negatively skewed, which may have explained null findings. However, in a 6 7 follow up, Gillis and Nilsen (2014) found a large negative correlation between cognitive 8 9 flexibility (sorting objects according to different dimensions) and 5 year olds’ rating of how 10 11 helpful an ambiguous description was (a relationship that remained after controlling for age, 12 13 14 receptive language and baseline ratings of unambiguous cues). No significant correlations 15 16 were found for Forolder children, Peer illustrating Review how EF bottlenecks Only in language processing are 17 18 likely to change over developmental time 19 20 Looking at production of unambiguous referring expressions and children’s ability to 21 22 repair misunderstandings, Bacso and Nilsen (2017) found that cognitive flexibility and 23 24 working memory (but not inhibition) were correlated with the quality of children’s 25 26 27 descriptions even when expressive vocabulary was controlled. The authors suggest working 28 29 memory may be called upon to identify which features best distinguish a target from 30 31 distractors and/or to update a discourse model. Cognitive flexibility was also correlated with 32 33 children’s ability to repair initially under informative descriptions, which the authors suggest 34 35 is because flexibility allows consideration of the referent from a different angle in order to 36 37 generate new descriptions. 38 39 40 Overall, there is evidence that executive capacity explains variance on referential 41 42 communication tasks although why specific relations hold and how these vary from 43 44 comprehension to production tasks is not yet clear. Inhibition seems to be important for 45 46 comprehension and future studies could establish if this is generally the case or whether this 47 48 relation depends on the set up of referential communication tasks (where inhibiting a 49 50 prepotent reach to respond is important). Future research might also assess whether working 51 52 53 memory is less important in tasks that manipulate what is visually available (which is given 54 55 at the time of testing and thus has a low memory demand) compared to what is available in 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 27 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 27 1 2 3 the discourse or in social common ground (which needs to be remembered from prior 4 5 interaction – episodic memory and updated as the discourse unfolds – working memory). 6 7 Narrative. Narrative production requires organising a large amount of linguistic 8 9 information and producing it in a given order such that a listener may be able to follow it. 10 11 The need to manage common ground and update one’s model of what has been said over an 12 13 14 extended period of time suggests an important role for executive functions. This may explain 15 16 why children withFor SCD strugglePeer to convey Review as much plot content Only as typically developing peers 17 18 (often omitting initiating events and the story outcome). Ketelaars, Jansonius, Cuperus, and 19 20 Verhoeven (2012) derived a composite EF measure (covering planning, inhibition, cognitive 21 22 flexibility and working memory) and found that, once language ability was controlled for, EF 23 24 was predictive of narrative productivity (i.e., length) in children with Pragmatic Language 25 26 27 Impairment, explaining an additional 9% of variance (NB children with PLI – now referred to 28 29 as SCD – were defined as those with a pragmatic composite below the cutoff score of 132 on 30 31 the CCC). In contrast, no specific links with EF held for typically developing children once 32 33 formal language ability was controlled for. Narrative length is not a measure of pragmatic 34 35 ability, however, so future research could clarify these findings. 36 37 With a large group of children with DLD and a group of typically developing 38 39 40 children, Blom and Boerma (2016) measured narrative comprehension and production 41 42 (macrostructure measure). For the DLD group, they found working memory was associated 43 44 with concurrent narrative comprehension and production as well as production measured a 45 46 year later. For the typically developing group, only concurrent narrative comprehension was 47 48 significantly associated with working memory (although other correlations approached 49 50 significance). This study also measure sustained attention and, while this was not included as 51 52 53 an executive function in this review, it is worth noting that mediation analyses suggested an 54 55 important role for sustained attention in story generation. 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 28 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 28 1 2 3 Looking more specifically at referring expression production in narrative, Kuijper, 4 5 Hartman and Hendriks (2015) found that working memory and inhibition were predictive of 6 7 appropriate referent reintroduction (using a noun instead of a pronoun), although formal 8 9 language ability was not controlled for. 10 11 Irony. Just as irony comprehension should require mentalising skill, it should also 12 13 14 require holding in mind different perspectives and potentially inhibiting one protagonist’s 15 16 point of view inFor order to understandPeer the Review other’s. Filippova andOnly Astington (2008) observed a 17 18 medium correlation between working memory and the performance of typically developing 19 20 children on irony comprehension tasks, although the degree to which it explained unique 21 22 variance is unknown since it was used only as a control measure. Godbee and Porter (2013) 23 24 found a similar association for a typically developing group but no role for working memory 25 26 27 in children and adults with Williams Syndrome (possibly due to floor effects). Finally, 28 29 Caillies, et al. (2014) measured working memory and inhibitory control with multiple tasks 30 31 and found a large correlation between inhibitory control and irony comprehension for 32 33 typically developing children but surprisingly not for their ADHD group, although the 34 35 authors note that the small sample size limits conclusions. Overall, the picture is mixed but it 36 37 would be worth exploring the role of inhibition and working memory further. 38 39 40 Discussion 41 42 Of the three domains considered in this review, formal language was the one most 43 44 consistently associated with pragmatic ability. Once this had been controlled for, a number 45 46 of studies found that a measure of mentalising explained further variance in pragmatic skills 47 48 ranging from contingent conversation to irony comprehension. When no association with 49 50 mentalising was observed, it was not clear whether this was because the specific type of 51 52 53 mentalising measured was not required for the pragmatic task in question or whether 54 55 collinearity with control variables could explain null findings. While there were fewer studies 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 29 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 29 1 2 3 on executive functions and these covered a broad range of skills, there was evidence that 4 5 inhibitory control is associated with communicative perspective taking, and that working 6 7 memory and generativity are important for some tasks. Overall, however, few studies 8 9 examining the relationship between pragmatics, on the one hand, and either mentalising or 10 11 EF on the other, had: a) a sufficient sample size for correlational analyses; b) good quality 12 13 14 measures yielding sufficient variance; c) a clear information processing rationale and d) 15 16 controls for theoreticallyFor importantPeer covariates Review (e.g., formal language,Only non verbal IQ). 17 18 Given the overall conclusion that all three domains are likely to be important for 19 20 pragmatic function but in currently unspecified ways, we need to consider how future 21 22 research would be best directed. One obvious next step would be to unpack why the broad 23 24 associations that are observed to hold do so for specific pragmatic functions (or not). To date, 25 26 27 generic measures of pragmatic ability and associated variables have often been employed 28 29 and, while these have been helpful for establishing global links and providing cognitive 30 31 profiles for developmental disorders, these do not allow for mechanistic explanations of the 32 33 psycholinguistic processes that constitute pragmatic language use or the developmental 34 35 processes that explain pragmatic growth. Pinning down the specific associates of every 36 37 possible pragmatic skill (and every candidate social and cognitive underpinning) individually 38 39 40 is a quite an undertaking and has the potential of generating an uninterpretable mass of data. 41 42 To make progress on this front, then, a number of things need to happen. 43 44 First, we need to empirically test potential taxonomies of pragmatics skills (e.g., as 45 46 put forward by O’Neill, 2012). Factor analytic work in pragmatics is rare. Given the extreme 47 48 diversity of abilities that make their way into pragmatic tests (Russel & Grizzle, 2008) it is 49 50 important to get a better grip of the dimensional structure of this heterogeneous set of skills – 51 52 53 and to consider stability over developmental time. Unfortunately, the same problem holds for 54 55 the other social and cognitive domains reviewed. Ideally, then, we would consider a set of 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 30 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 30 1 2 3 these related domains in order to establish whether or not pragmatic skills can sensibly be 4 5 thought of as a natural kind, separate from formal language skills and other aspects of 6 7 cognition. Once we have an understanding of the dimensional structure of cognition and a 8 9 clearly articulated taxonomy of pragmatic skills, systematically studying the development of 10 11 different branches will be more manageable. 12 13 14 Second, we need to establish which pragmatic skills matter the most for everyday 15 16 functioning andFor wellbeing. Peer Doing this Reviewwill help direct research Only at those skills that will be 17 18 most consequential. For example, being able to maintain a conversation by responding to a 19 20 partner is presumably very important for peer relations at every stage in development 21 22 (Slomkowski & Dunn, 1996), whereas the ability to understand sarcasm might be less 23 24 essential, especially for pre adolescents. Ideally, we would be able to develop lab based 25 26 27 measures that are highly related to measures of everyday functioning and parent/teacher 28 29 reports. While it has traditionally been held that lab tasks necessarily bleach out the very 30 31 context specific challenges that everyday conversation involves, there is recent work to 32 33 suggest, for example, that parent reports of conversation skills (measured by the LUI) 34 35 correlate with some carefully designed lab tasks (e.g., Abbot Smith, Nurmsoo, Croll, 36 37 Ferguson & Forrester, 2016). 38 39 40 Third, for each important pragmatic function, we need to aim for a mechanistic 41 42 account of its use, taking an information processing approach to specify which social and 43 44 cognitive sub processes are called upon and therefore may explain atypical development. For 45 46 example, given an individual who has difficulties with discourse contingency, we need to 47 48 establish whether this is because they have difficulty with, say, switching from their own 49 50 topic of interest to that of a conversational partner, quickly accessing lexical and grammatical 51 52 53 content, understanding the informational needs of the conversational partner, attending to the 54 55 same things, generating new ideas in order to elaborate on the conversational partner’s 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 31 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 31 1 2 3 comment and/or integrating all of these things in time. Without clearly specifying expected 4 5 sub processes, studies run the risk of measuring social and cognitive associates that actually 6 7 do not have that much in common with the kinds of things we expect a child would need to 8 9 do for the given pragmatic task in question. This is particularly important given the task 10 11 specificity of many cognitive pragmatic associations found in the adult psycho linguistic 12 13 14 literature (e.g., Ryskin et al., 2015). 15 16 Fourth, Foronce we havePeer specific hypothesesReview about mec hanisms,Only we need to develop 17 18 tests of pragmatic and related skills that lend themselves to individual differences research 19 20 (Cronbach, 1957; Hedge, Powell & Sumner, 2017). The availability of suitable measures was 21 22 perhaps the most important limiting factor, alongside sample size, for studies in this review 23 24 (see also Brown Schmidt & Fraundorf, 2015 for similar conclusions in the adult literature). 25 26 27 Many studies could not test for an association because one measure used was at floor or was 28 29 otherwise problematic (sometimes because it was directly imported from experimental 30 31 research and not ideal for correlational research). There are relatively few tests of individual 32 33 differences in pragmatic skills available that have good psychometric properties in terms of 34 35 reliability, validity and distributional properties. Indeed, those that do exist tend to be very 36 37 generic in nature, leaving us with the problem of identifying specific links. Some studies took 38 39 40 the approach of having a large number of items on a test of a single skill that was well 41 42 adapted to developmental level so as to yield the requisite variance (something that demands 43 44 substantial piloting). A few studies used multiple measures and collapsed them onto one, for 45 46 example, using principle components analysis. This has the advantage of removing task 47 48 specific variance and avoiding running a large number of correlations (with the risk of type I 49 50 errors). However, while in principle this could yield a specific measure, in practice it often 51 52 53 resulted in a general measure (i.e., measurement quality often trades off with specificity). 54 55 While a global measure was the goal for the reported research, we will want more specific 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 32 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 32 1 2 3 measures in the future. Other work has employed scales, such as the one developed by 4 5 Wellman and colleagues to measure ToM (Wellman & Liu, 2004). Often these have been 6 7 shown to form Guttman scales so we know that children are likely to pass through steps on 8 9 them in a given order. The assumption is that the individual skills on the scale are progressive 10 11 expressions of, for example, a single underlying mentalising construct. Whether this 12 13 14 assumption is valid for all scales and what relative success on them tells us about 15 16 performance onFor a given pragmaticPeer task Reviewis not always clear, however.Only It could be that a single 17 18 item on a scale taps an ability that is central to performance on a given pragmatic task and 19 20 only this item is of relevance. Ideally, we would be able to analyse a given communicative 21 22 task for the specific type of, say, mentalising we think is required and then test whether 23 24 children who master this type of mentalising did well. The inescapable fact is that it is very 25 26 27 challenging indeed, particularly for cross sectional studies, to find a set of measures (for the 28 29 domains of interest plus controls) that tap specific constructs (avoiding problematic levels of 30 31 incidental task demands) and yield sufficient variance. 32 33 It would be particularly helpful to have non verbal tests of covariates including 34 35 mentalising. These are extremely difficult to develop for 2nd order false belief and more 36 37 advanced forms of mentalising (see e.g., Freed et al., 2015). The most frequently used 38 39 40 measures either require an advanced vocabulary (RMET, Baron Cohen et al., 2001) or 41 42 involve comprehension of vignettes of around 100 words each (e.g., Astington et al., 2002; 43 44 Happé, 1994). The Animations task (Abel, Happé & Frith, 2000) does not burden language 45 46 comprehension but participants are required to formulate descriptions of moving shapes that 47 48 include mental state vocabulary. Film versions of Happé’s (1994) Strange Stories task, as 49 50 developed by Devine and Hughes (2013), are an improvement but still require participants to 51 52 53 formulate fairly complex responses and are still related to verbal ability. While less word 54 55 heavy measures of 2nd order false belief exist (Grueneisen, Wyman & Tomasello, 2014), 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 33 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 33 1 2 3 these are time consuming to administer and not easily scalable. Without such measures, it is 4 5 possible that some associations are found between 2nd order ToM and some pragmatic tests 6 7 simply because they essentially measure the same verbal abilities. 8 9 The problem of cross over of measures from one domain to another is quite 10 11 frequently observed. Thus, the ability to understand jokes formed parts of a mentalising scale 12 13 14 for at least one study reviewed here (Hale & Tager Flusberg, 2005; see also Happé, 1994) 15 16 whereas in anotherFor both jokesPeer and irony Review were considered aspects Only of pragmatic language and 17 18 were thus conflated in the analyses (Angeleri & Airenti, 2014). Similarly, the Mindful 19 20 Conversational Difficulties scale used by de Rosnay et al. (2014) included items on the 21 22 ability to understand others’ thoughts (i.e., mentalising). Elements of the CCC2 such as the 23 24 scales on social relations and interests are included in measures of pragmatic ability for some 25 26 27 studies. Similar measures of narrative (e.g., coherence) are sometimes considered pragmatic, 28 29 sometimes not. Referential communication tasks are considered by some researchers to 30 31 measure pragmatics (e.g., Nilsen & Graham, 2009) and by others to measure dynamic theory 32 33 of mind (e.g., Begeer, Malle, Nieuwland & Keysar, 2010). Such blurring is inevitable for a 34 35 field that has no clearly developed taxonomies or dimensional structure. 36 37 Fifth, assuming the above methodological challenges can be overcome, we will need 38 39 40 to cast the net wider when considering the psychological variables that explain differences in 41 42 pragmatic function. Some of the studies in the current review hinted at socio emotional and 43 44 personality traits that would be associated with pragmatics. We would also argue that lower 45 46 level cognitive factors such as attentional biases and statistical learning (Bannard, Rosner & 47 48 Matthews, 2017) are likely to be important. And at the other end of the spectrum, meta 49 50 cognition would deserve attention, at least in so far as poor meta cognition might prevent an 51 52 53 individual from improving their pragmatic proficiency (e.g., Collins, Lockton & Adams, 54 55 2014). To fully understand how these factors come to have their effects, it will be necessary 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 34 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 34 1 2 3 to determine their genetic and environmental bases (see Losh, et al, 2012a; Losh et al., 2012b 4 5 for an example of work seeking to uncover genetic bases of social communication). 6 7 Sixth, we need to adopt statistical and modelling tools that will enable us to make 8 9 best use of a dimensional approach to the study of pragmatic development. By a dimensional 10 11 approach, we mean one where an individual child’s relative strengths and weaknesses are 12 13 14 represented as a vector in multidimensional space. As mentioned above, through factor 15 16 analysis, datasetsFor with multiple Peer measures Review from multiple children Only can help to give a sense of 17 18 the dimensional structure of cognition. They can be used to derive clinical groups children 19 20 with particular clusters of strengths and weaknesses may be diagnosed with a given disorder 21 22 in order to best target support. Datasets collected over longitudinal time can also be helpful in 23 24 predicting outcomes (e.g., Pellicano, 2013). However, to really explain pragmatic 25 26 27 development, we would argue that individual differences data sets should also be used for 28 29 building and testing mechanistic models of development. 30 31 One challenge to overcome with using individual differences data to build models is 32 33 that the dimensions of interest rarely stand in isolation from another. When looking at higher 34 35 order cognition, we assume this is because performance on tests of, say, pragmatics, 36 37 mentalising and inhibition, all call on related sub processes. That is, different skills are often 38 39 40 nested in others or are related in an interconnected hierarchy of cognitive functions. Basic 41 42 correlation and regression will not yield such a hierarchy or account for this nested structure 43 44 and thus we are often left at a dead end. For example, if when predicting a general measure of 45 46 pragmatic ability we control for vocabulary, grammar, IQ and some measure of executive 47 48 function and we then fail to see an association with mentalising, is this because we do not 49 50 take the other’s perspective during this task, is it because we do but everyone manages to do 51 52 53 so equally, or is it because real variance in this ability was already accounted for by control 54 55 measures that were each somewhat correlated with mentalising because they were drawing 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 35 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 35 1 2 3 on the same cognitive sub processes? This kind of problem seemed to be quite common in 4 5 this review. And of course the better controlled the study, the more likely the problem is. To 6 7 make progress we need to make sense of the collinearity we see, rather than simply analysing 8 9 it away. That is, we could use multidimensional data sets to generate (and/or test theoretical 10 11 proposals about) an underlying hierarchy of cognitive functions and thereby identify 12 13 14 plausible cognitive sub processes that are called upon to deploy a range of higher order 15 16 functions. TheseFor sub processes Peer could inReview turn be verified by lookingOnly for their neural 17 18 signatures. For this process to be rigorous and to avoid likely problems with publication bias, 19 20 theory driven analyses will ideally be preregistered. 21 22 The argument being made here is not a reductionist one, but rather a call to integrate 23 24 the results of modelling indiviudal differences data and complementary experimental work 25 26 27 (which would appear on the basis of the current review to be essential) into psycholinguistic 28 29 models of language processing. Pragmatic phenomena have often caused problems for the 30 31 construction of language processing models. For example, Hagoort and van Berkum (2007) 32 33 review evidence that contextual information rapidly influences utterance interpretation 34 35 (contra original assumptions that the language system first computes the meaning of an 36 37 utterance and then engages in pragmatic processes). If we adopt Levinson’s (1983) Artificial 38 39 40 Intelligence definition of pragmatics, where the contextual information that needs to be 41 42 considered covers the entirety of interlocutors’ knowledge of the world, then it becomes clear 43 44 why integrating pragmatic processes into models of language processing is very rarely 45 46 attempted. Allowing for individual differerences in model architecture only compounds the 47 48 difficulty. We might therefore wonder whether it is naïve to aim for a full working model of 49 50 language use (which necessitates a model of cognition generally) in the same way as we 51 52 53 might have a model of, say, how the heart works. While we certainly need to be careful to 54 55 articulate the level of explanation we are looking for (Rosenblueth & Wiener, 1945), 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 36 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 36 1 2 3 ultimately, a mechanistic model of language processing systems is the only satisfying 4 5 explanation worth having. Since we have seen how cognitive bottlenecks to pragmatic 6 7 function are not persistent over development (e.g., Gillis & Nilsen, 2014), a valuable model 8 9 will be one that changes over time. Certainly it seems worth directing research on pragmatics 10 11 to explicitly aim for this goal. 12 13 14 In sum, there is considerable potential to make progress in understanding how we 15 16 achieve the communicativeFor Peer feats we do, Review why some children struggleOnly to achieve them, and 17 18 what can be done to help those who face difficulties. The cultural differences in many aspects 19 20 of pragmatic language (e.g., Filippova, 2014; Küntay, Nakamura & Ateş Şen, 2014) mean 21 22 that it will not always make sense to say that someone is ‘good’ at pragmatics (nor to only 23 24 seek to change children’s skills to the norm if they develop atypically). However, there is 25 26 27 significant potential to help children for whom pragmatic difficulities impair wellbeing 28 29 (Adams et al., 2014; Pickles et al., 2016). Individual differences research has the potential to 30 31 contribute to this progress but we need to overcome a few challenges in order to take a 32 33 programmatic approach to the problem. 34 35 36 37 References 38 39 40 41 Note: 42 References preceded by an asterisk indicate articles included in the table of 43 44 reviewed studies (Appendix B). 45 46 Abel, F., Happé, F., & Frith, U. (2000). Do triangles play tricks? Attribution of mental states 47 to animated shapes in normal and abnormal development. Cognitive Development, 48 49 15(1), 1 16. 50 51 Abbot Smith, K., Nurmsoo, E., Croll, R., Ferguson, H & Forrester, M. (2016). Awareness 52 53 of 2½ year olds to levels of listener informational need when making requests. 54 55 Journal of Child Language, 43(6): 1277 1291. 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 37 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 37 1 2 3 * Adachi, T., Koeda, T., Hirabayashi, S., Maeoka, Y., Shiota, M., Wright, C., & Wada, A. 4 5 (2004). The metaphor and sarcasm scenario test: A new instrument to help 6 7 differentiate high functioning pervasive developmental disorder from attention 8 9 defecit/hyperactivity disorder. Brain and Development, 26(5), 301 306. 10 11 Adams, C. (2002). Practitioner review: The assessment of language pragmatics. Journal of 12 13 14 Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43(8), 973 987. 15 16 Adams, C., Green,For J., Gilchrist, Peer A., & Cox,Review A. (2002). Conversational Only behaviour of children 17 18 with Asperger syndrome and conduct disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and 19 20 Psychiatry, 43(5), 679 690. 21 22 * Akbar, M., Loomis, R., & Paul, R. (2013). The interplay of language on executive 23 24 functions in children with ASD. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7(3), 494 25 26 27 501. 28 29 * Andrés Roqueta, C., Adrian, J., Clemente, R., & Katsos, N. (2013). Which are the best 30 31 predictors of theory of mind delay in children with specific language impairment? 32 33 International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 48(6), 726 737. 34 35 *Angeleri, R., & Airenti, G. (2014). The development of joke and irony understanding: A 36 37 study with 3 to 6 year old children. Canadian Journal of Experimental 38 39 40 Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 68(2), 133. 41 42 Ariel, M. (2010). Defining pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. 43 44 Arnold, J. E., Bennetto, L., & Diehl, J. J. (2009). Reference production in young speakers 45 46 with and without autism: Effects of discourse status and processing constraints. 47 48 Cognition, 110(2), 131 146. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.016 49 50 Astington, J. W., Pelletier, J., & Homer, B. (2002). Theory of mind and epistemological 51 52 53 development: The relation between children's 2nd order false belief understanding 54 55 and their ability to reason about evidence. New ideas in Psychology, 20(2), 131 144. 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 38 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 38 1 2 3 Astington, J. W., & Baird, J. A. (Eds.). (2005). Why language matters for theory of mind. 4 5 Oxford University Press. 6 7 *Banasik, N. (2013). Non literal speech comprehension in preschool children–An example 8 9 Language and Communication, 17(3), 309 324from a study on verbal irony. 10 11 Psychology of Language and Communication, 17(3), 309 324. 12 13 14 Banerjee, R. (2000). The development of an understanding of modesty. British Journal of 15 16 DevelopmentalFor Psychology Peer, 18 (4),Review 499 517. Only 17 18 Bannard, C., Rosner, M., & Matthews, D. (2017). What's worth talking about? Information 19 20 theory reveals how children balance informativeness and ease of production. 21 22 Psychological Science, 28(7), 954 966 23 24 *Bacso, S. A., & Nilsen, E. S. (2017). What’s That You’re Saying? Children with Better 25 26 27 Executive Functioning Produce and Repair Communication More Effectively. 28 29 Journal of Cognition and Development. 30 31 Baron Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a “theory of 32 33 mind”?. Cognition, 21(1), 37 46. 34 35 Baron Cohen, S. (1988). Social and pragmatic deficits in autism: cognitive or affective? 36 37 Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18(3), 379 402. 38 39 40 Bauer, P., & Burch, M. (2004). Developments in early memory: multiple mediators of 41 42 foundational processes. In J. Lucariello, J. Hudson, R. Fivush, & P. Bauer, The 43 44 development of the mediated mind: Culture and cognitive development (pp. 101 125). 45 46 Mahwah: NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 47 48 Begeer, S., Malle, B., Nieuwland, M. & Keysar, B. (2010). Using Theory of Mind to 49 50 represent and take part in social interactions: Comparing individuals with high 51 52 53 functioning autism and typically developing controls. European Journal of 54 55 Developmental Psychology, 7(1), 104–122 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 39 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 39 1 2 3 * Bernard, S., & Deleau, M. (2007). Conversational perspective taking and false belief 4 5 attribution: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Developmental Psychology , 6 7 25(3), 443 460. 8 9 Berument, S., Rutter, M., Lord, C., Pickles, A., & Bailey, A. (1999). Autism screening 10 11 questionnaire: diagnostic validity. The British Journal of Psychiatry , 175(5), 444 12 13 14 451. 15 16 Bishop, D. (1993).For Annotation: Peer autism, Reviewexecutive functions andOnly theory of mind: A 17 18 neuropsychological perspective. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 34, 19 20 279 293. 21 22 Bishop, D. (2003). The Children's Communication Checklist: CCC-2. London: Harcourt 23 24 Assessment. 25 26 27 * Bishop, D., & Norbury, C. (2005). Executive functions in children with communication 28 29 impairments, in relation to autistic symptomatology. 2: Response inhibition. Autism: 30 31 The International Journal of Research and Practice, 9(1), 29 43. 32 33 * Blain Brière, B., Bouchard, C., & Bigras, N. (2014). The role of executive functions in the 34 35 pragmatic skills of children aged 4 5 . Frontiers in Psychology, 5. 36 37 Blom, E., & Boerma, T. (2016). Why do children with language impairment have difficulties 38 39 40 with narrative macrostructure?. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 55, 301 311. 41 42 Bonifacio, S., Girolametto, L., Bulligan, M., Callegari, M., Vignola, S., & Zocconi, E. 43 44 (2007). Assertive and responsive conversational skills of Italianspeaking late 45 46 talkers. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 42(5), 607 47 48 623. 49 50 Boudreau, D. (2005). Use of a parent questionnaire in emergent and early literacy assessment 51 52 53 of preschool children . Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 36(1), 33 54 55 47. 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 40 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 40 1 2 3 Brown Schmidt, S. (2009). The role of executive function in perspective taking during online 4 5 language comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(5), 893 900. 6 7 Brown Schmidt, S., & Fraundorf, S. H. (2015). Interpretation of informational questions 8 9 modulated by joint knowledge and intonational contours. Journal of Memory and 10 11 Language, 84, 49 74. 12 13 14 Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press. 15 16 DevelopmentalFor Psychology, Peer 13(4), Review 377 388. Only 17 18 *Caillies, S., Bertot, V., Motte, J., Raynaud, C., & Abely, M. (2014). Social cognition in 19 20 ADHD: Irony understanding and recursive theory of mind. Research in 21 22 Developmental Disabilities, 35(11), 3191 3198. 23 24 Camarata, S. M., & Gibson, T. (1999). Pragmatic language deficits in attentiondeficit 25 26 27 hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 5(3), 28 29 207 214. 30 31 *Capps, L., Losh, M., & Thurber, C. (2000). “The frog ate the bug and made his mouth sad”: 32 33 Narrative competence in children with autism. Journal of Abnormal Child 34 35 Psychology, 28(2), 193 204. 36 37 * Capps, L., Kehres, J., & Sigman, M. (1998). Conversational abilities among children with 38 39 40 autism and children with developmental delays. Autism, 2(4), 325 344. 41 42 Carrow Woolfolk, E. (1995). OWLS, Oral and Written Language Scales. NCS Pearson 43 44 Incorporated. 45 46 Carrow Woolfolk, E. (1999). CASL: Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language . 47 48 American Guidance Service. 49 50 Carter, J., Lees, J., Murira, G., Gona, J., Neville, B., & Newton, C. (2005). Issues in the 51 52 53 development of cross cultural assessments of speech and language for children. 54 55 International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 40(4), 385 401. 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 41 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 41 1 2 3 Clark, E. (2005). Pragmatics and language acquisition. In Horn, L. & Ward, G. (Eds.). The 4 5 Handbook of Pragmatics. Blackwell 6 7 Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155. 8 9 Cohen, M. (1997). Children's Memory Scale. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. 10 11 Collins, A., Lockton, E., & Adams, C. (2014). Metapragmatic explicitation ability in children 12 13 14 with typical language development: Development and validation of a novel clinical 15 16 assessment.For Journal Peer of Communication Review Disorders, 52 Only, 31 43. 17 18 Colozzo, P., Morris, H., & Mirenda, P. (2015). Narrative production in children with autism 19 20 spectrum disorder and specific language impairment. Canadian Journal of Speech- 21 22 Language Pathology & Audiology, 39(4). 23 24 Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 25 26 27 12(11), 671. 28 29 * Dahlgren, S., & Dahlgren Sandberg, A. (2008). Referential communication in children with 30 31 autism spectrum disorder. Autism, 12(4), 335 348. 32 33 * Davies, C., Andrés Roqueta, C., & Norbury, C. (2016). Referring expressions and 34 35 structural language abilities in children with Specific Language Impairment: A 36 37 pragmatic tolerance account. Journa of Experimental Child Psychology, 144, 98 113. 38 39 40 De Bruin, A., Treccani, B., & Della Sala, S. (2015). Cognitive advantage in bilingualism: An 41 42 example of publication bias? Psychological Science, 26(1), 99 107. 43 44 *De Marchena, A., & Eigsti, I. M. (2016). The art of common ground: Emergence of a 45 46 complex pragmatic language skill in adolescents with autism spectrum 47 48 disorders. Journal of Child Language, 43(1), 43 80. 49 50 * De Rosnay, M., Fink, e., Begeer, S., Slaughter, V., & Peterson, C. (2014). Talking theory of 51 52 53 mind talk: young school aged children's everyday conversation and understanding of 54 55 mind and emotion . Journal of Child Language, 41(05), 1179 1193. 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 42 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 42 1 2 3 De Rosnay, M., & Hughes, C. (2006). Conversation and theory of mind: Do children talk 4 5 their way to sociocognitive understanding?. British Journal of Developmental 6 7 Psychology, 24(1), 7 37. 8 9 Deleau, M. (1999). Assessing links between conversational awareness and cognitive 10 11 development. Developmental Science , 2(1), 16 18. 12 13 14 Devine, R. & Hughes, C. (2013). Silent films and strange stories: theory of mind, gender and 15 16 social experiencesFor Peer in middle childhood. Review Child Development, Only 84(3): 989 1003. 17 18 Diamond, A. (2013). Executive Functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135 168. 19 20 Dunn, J., Brown, J., Slomkowski, C., Tesla, C., & Youngblade, L. (1991). Young children's 21 22 understanding of other people's feelings and beliefs: Individual differences and their 23 24 antecedents. Child Development, 62(6), 1352 1366. 25 26 27 Dunn, L., & Dunn, L. (1981). PPVT R Manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance 28 29 Service. 30 31 Dunn, D. M., & Dunn, L. M. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test: Manual. Pearson. 32 33 Durkin, K. (1987). Minds and Language: Social cognition, social interaction and the 34 35 development of language. Mind & Language, 2, 105 140. 36 37 Eaves, L. C., & Ho, H. H. (2008). Young adult outcome of autism spectrum disorders. 38 39 40 Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38(4), 739 747. 41 42 ñ Farrant, B., Maybery, M., & Fletcher, J. (2010). Socio emotional engagement, joint 43 44 attention, imitation and conversational skill: Analysis in typical development and 45 46 specific language impairment . First Language, 31(1), 23 46. 47 48 Fenson, L., Dale, P., Reznick, S., Thai, D., Bates, E., Hartung, J., . . . Reilly, J. (1994). 49 50 MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories user's guide and technical 51 52 53 manual. San Diego: Thomson Learning. 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 43 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 43 1 2 3 * Fernández, C. (2013). Mindful storytellers: Emerging pragmatics and theory of mind 4 5 development. First Language, 33(1), 20 46. 6 7 Filippova, E. (2014). Developing appreciation of irony in Canadian and Czech discourse. 8 9 Journal of Pragmatics, 74: 209 223. 10 11 * Filippova, E., & Astington, J. (2008). Further development in social reasoning revealed in 12 13 14 discourse irony understanding. Child Development, 79(1), 126 138. 15 16 Freed, J., McBean,For K., Adams, Peer C., Lockton, Review E., Nash, M. & OnlyLaw, J. (2015). Performance of 17 18 children with social communication disorder on the Happé Strange Stories: physical 19 20 and mental state responses and relationship to language ability. Journal of 21 22 Communication Disorders, 55: 1 14. 23 24 *Fukumura, K. (2016). Development of audience design in children with and without ASD. 25 26 27 Developmental Psychology, 52(1), 71. 28 29 Gallagher, T. (1991). A retrospective look at clinical pragmatics. In T. Gallagher, Pragmatics 30 31 of Language: Clinical Practice Issues (Vols. 1 9). New York: Chapman and Hall. 32 33 Gagarina, N., Klop, D., Kunnari, S., Tantele, K., Välimaa, T., Balčiūnienė, I., ... & Walters, J. 34 (2012). MAIN: Multilingual assessment instrument for narratives. Zentrum für 35 Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. 36 Garon, N., Bryson, S., & Smith, I. (2008). Executive function in preschoolers: a review using 37 38 39 an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134(1), 31. 40 41 Geurts, H., Broeders, M., & Nieuwland, M. (2010). Thinking outside the executive functions 42 43 box: Theory of mind and pragmatic abilities in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder 44 45 . European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7(1), 131 151. 46 47 * Gillespie Lynch, K., Khalulyan, A., del Rosario, M., McCarthy, B., Gomez, L., Sigman, 48 49 M., & Hutman, T. (2015). Is early joint attention associated with school age 50 51 pragmatic language? Autism, 19(2), 168 177. 52 53 54 * Gillis, R., & Nilsen, E. (2014). Cognitive flexibility supports preschoolers' detection of 55 56 communicative ambiguity. First Language, 34(1), 58 71. 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 44 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 44 1 2 3 Gilmour, J., Hill, B., Place, M., & Skuse, D. H. (2004). Social communication deficits in 4 5 conduct disorder: a clinical and community survey. Journal of Child Psychology and 6 7 Psychiatry, 45(5), 967 978. 8 9 Girolametto, L. (1997). Development of a parent report measure for profiling the 10 11 conversational skills of preschool children. American Journal of Speech-Language 12 13 14 Pathology, 6(4), 25 33. 15 16 Glucksberg, S.,For & Krauss, Peer R. (1967). What Review do people say after Only they have learned to talk? 17 18 Studies of development of referential communication . Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 13, 19 20 309 316. 21 22 *Godbee, K., & Porter, M. (2013). Comprehension of sarcasm, metaphor and simile in 23 24 Williams syndrome. International journal of language & communication disorders, 25 26 27 48(6), 651 665. 28 29 Gottman, J., Gonso, J., & Rasmussen, B. (1975). Social interaction, social competence, and 30 31 friendship in children. Child Development, 709 718. 32 33 Grueneisen, S. Wyman, E. & Tomasello, M. (2014). “I know that you don’t know I know” 34 35 Children use 2nd order false belief reasoning for peer coordination. Child 36 37 Development, 86(1): 287 293. 38 39 40 Gustafsson, J. E. (1984). A unifying model for the structure of intellectual abilities. 41 42 Intelligence, 8, 179–203. 43 44 Hagoort, P., & van Berkum, J. (2007). Beyond the sentence given. Philosophical 45 46 Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 362(1481), 801 47 48 811. 49 50 * Hale, C., & Tager Flusberg, H. (2005). Social communication in children with autism: The 51 52 relationship between theory of mind and discourse development. Autism, 9(2), 157 53 54 178. 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 45 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 45 1 2 3 Happé, F. G. (1994). An advanced test of theory of mind: Understanding of story characters' 4 5 thoughts and feelings by able autistic, mentally handicapped, and normal children and 6 7 adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24(2), 129 154. 8 9 Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2017). The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive 10 11 tasks do not produce reliable individual differences. Behavior Research Methods, 1 12 13 14 21. 15 16 Helland, W. A.,For Lundervold, Peer A. J., Heimann, Review M., & Posserud, Only M. B. (2014). Stable 17 18 associations between behavioral problems and language impairments across 19 20 childhood–The importance of pragmatic language problems. Research in 21 22 Developmental Disabilities, 35(5), 943 951. 23 24 *Huang, S. F., Oi, M., & Taguchi, A. (2015). Comprehension of figurative language in 25 26 27 Taiwanese children with autism: The role of theory of mind and receptive vocabulary. 28 29 Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 29(8 10), 764 775. 30 31 Hughes, C. (2011). Social understanding and social lives: From toddlerhood through to the 32 33 transition to school. Psychology Press. 34 35 Hughes, C., Jaffee, S. R., Happé, F., Taylor, A., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. (2005). Origins of 36 37 individual differences in theory of mind: from nature to nurture?. Child 38 39 40 Development, 76(2), 356 370. 41 42 Jansonius Schultheiss, K., Borgers, M., DeBruin, B., & Stumpel, H. (2006). Renfrew’s 43 44 language scales Dutch adaptation. Amsterdam: Pro-education, HvA. 45 46 Jones, G., Gobet, F., Freudenthal, D., Watson, S. E., & Pine, J. M. (2014). Why 47 48 computational models are better than verbal theories: the case of nonword 49 50 repetition. Developmental Science, 17(2), 298 310. 51 52 53 Jones, C. D., & Schwartz, I. S. (2009). When asking questions is not enough: An 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 46 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 46 1 2 3 observational study of social communication differences in high functioning children 4 5 with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39(3), 432 443. 6 7 Joseph, R. M., McGrath, L. M., & Tager Flusberg, H. (2005). Executive dysfunction and its 8 9 relation to language ability in verbal school age children with autism. Developmental 10 11 Neuropsychology, 27(3), 361 378. 12 13 14 Ketelaars, M., Cuperus, J., Jansonius, K., & Verhoeven, L. (2010). Pragmatic language 15 16 impairmentFor and associated Peer behavioural Review problems. International Only Journal of Language 17 18 & Communication Disorders, 45(2), 204 214. 19 20 * Ketelaars, M., Jansonius, K., Cuperus, J., & Verhoeven, L. (2012). Narrative competence 21 22 and underlying mechanisms in children with pragmatic language impairment. Applied 23 24 Psycholinguistics, 33(02), 281 303. 25 26 27 Kemple, K., Speranza, H., & Hazen, N. (1992). Cohesive discourse and peer acceptance: 28 29 Longitudinal relations in the preschool years. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (1982-), 364 30 31 381. 32 33 Kingdon, D., Cardoso, C., & McGrath, J. J. (2016). Research Review: Executive function 34 35 deficits in fetal alcohol spectrum disorders and attentiondeficit/hyperactivity 36 37 disorder–a metaanalysis. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57(2), 116 38 39 40 131. 41 42 Korkman, M., Kirk, U., & Kemp, S. L. (2003). Bilan neuropsychologique de l'enfant. ECPA. 43 44 Küntay, A., Nakamura, K., & Ateş Şen, A. B. (2014). Crosslinguistic and crosscultural 45 46 approaches to pragmatic development. In D. Matthews (Ed.) Pragmatic 47 48 Development in First Language Acquisition (pp. 317 341). Amsterdam: John 49 50 Benjamins. 51 52 53 Lai, C. L. E., Lau, Z., Lui, S. S., Lok, E., Tam, V., Chan, Q., ... & Cheung, E. F. (2017). 54 55 Metaanalysis of neuropsychological measures of executive functioning in children 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 47 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 47 1 2 3 and adolescents with highfunctioning autism spectrum disorder. Autism 4 5 Research, 10(5), 911 939. 6 7 Landry, O., & Al Taie, S. (2016). A meta analysis of the Wisconsin Card Sort Task in 8 9 autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(4), 1220 1235. 10 11 12 * Leonard, M., Milich, R., & Lorch, E. (2011). The role of pragmatic language use in 13 14 mediating the relation between hyperactivity and inattention and social skills 15 16 problems.For Journal Peer of Speech, Language Review and Hearing Only Research, 54(2), 567 579. 17 18 Lewis, F. M., Woodyatt, G. C., & Murdoch, B. E. (2008). Linguistic and pragmatic language 19 20 21 skills in adults with autism spectrum disorder: A pilot study. Research in Autism 22 23 Spectrum Disorders, 2(1), 176 187. 24 25 Lloyd, P., Camaioni, L., & Ercolani, P. (1995). Test of Referential Communication: (TREC) 26 27 skills. London : The Psychological Corporation. 28 29 Lloyd, P., Peers, I., & Foster, C. (2001). The Listening Skills Test. London: The 30 31 Psychological Corportation. 32 33 34 Lohmann, H., & Tomasello, M. (2003). The role of language in the development of false 35 36 belief understanding: A training study . Child Development, 74(4), 1130 1144. 37 38 *Losh, M., & Capps, L. (2003). Narrative ability in high functioning children with autism 39 40 or Asperger's syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33(3), 239 41 42 251. 43 44 Lord, C., Risi, S., Lambrecht, L., Cook Jr, E., Leventhal, B., DiLavore, P., . . . Rutter, M. 45 46 47 (2000). The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule Generic: A standard measure 48 49 of social and communication deficits associated with the spectrum of autism. Journal 50 51 of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30(3), 205 223. 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 48 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 48 1 2 3 * Losh, M., Martin, G., Klusek, J., Hogan Brown, A., & Sideris, J. (2012). Social 4 5 communication and theory of mind in boys with autism and fragile X syndrome. 6 7 Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1 12. 8 9 Loukusa, S. & Moilanen, I. (2009). Pragmatic inference abilities in individuals with Asperger 10 11 Syndrome or high functioning autism: a review. Research in Autism Spectrum 12 13 14 Disorders, 3: 890 904. 15 16 * Maridaki Kassotaki,For K., Peer & Antonopoulou, Review K. (2011). Examination Only of the relationship 17 18 between false belief understanding and referential communication skills. European 19 20 Journal of Psychology of Education , 26(1), 75 84. 21 22 Martin, I., & McDonald, S. (2003). Weak coherence, no theory of mind, or executive 23 24 dysfunction? Solving the puzzle of pragmatic language disorders. Brain and 25 26 27 Language, 85(3), 451 466. 28 29 *Massaro, D., Valle, A., & Marchetti, A. (2014). Do social norms, false belief understanding 30 31 and metacognitive vocabulary influence irony comprehension? A study of five and 32 33 seven year old children. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11(3), 292 34 35 304. 36 37 Matthews, D., Butcher, J., Lieven,& Tomasello, M. (2012). Twoand fouryearolds 38 39 40 learn to adapt referring expressions to context: effects of distracters and feedback on 41 42 referential communication. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(2), 184 210. 43 44 Matthews, D. (2014). Pragmatic Development in First Language Acquisition (Vol. 10). 45 46 Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 47 48 Mayer, M. (1969). Frog Where Are You? New York: Puffin Pied Piper. 49 50 McDonald, S., & Van Sommers, P. (1993). Pragmatic language skills after closed head 51 52 53 injury: Ability to negotiate requests. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 10(4), 297 315. 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 49 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 49 1 2 3 * McEvoy, R., Rogers, S., & Pennington, B. (1993). Executive function and social 4 5 communication deficits in young autistic children. Journal of Child Psychology and 6 7 Psychiatry, 34(4), 563 578. 8 9 Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56 63. 10 11 12 *MewhortBuist, T. A., & Nilsen, E. S. (2013). What are you really saying? Associations 13 between shyness and verbal irony comprehension. Infant and Child Development, 14 15 22(2), 180 197. 16 For Peer Review Only 17 Miller, M., Young, G. S., Hutman, T., Johnson, S., Schwichtenberg, A. J., & Ozonoff, S. 18 19 20 (2015). Early pragmatic language difficulties in siblings of children with autism: 21 22 implications for DSM5 social communication disorder?. Journal of Child 23 24 Psychology 25 26 and Psychiatry, 56(7), 774 781. 27 28 Milligan, K., Astington, J., & Dack, L. (2007). Language and theory of mind: meta analysis 29 30 of the relation between language ability and false belief understanding . Child 31 32 33 Development , 78(2), 622 646. 34 35 * Miniscalco, C., Rudling, M., Rastam, M., Gillberg, C., & Johnels, J. (2014). Imitation 36 37 (rather than core language) predicts pragmatic development in young children with 38 39 ASD: a preliminary longitudinal study using CDI parental reports. International 40 41 Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 49(3), 369 375. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 50 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 50 1 2 3 Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. 4 5 (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to 6 7 8 complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 9 10 49 100. Chicago 11 12 Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012). The nature and organization of individual differences 13 14 in executive functions: Four general conclusions. Current Directions in Psychological 15 16 ScienceFor, 21(1), 8 14. Peer Review Only 17 18 Mundy, P., Delgado, C., Block, J., Venezia, M., Hogan, A., & Seibert, J. (2003). Early social 19 20 21 communication scales (ESCS). Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami 22 23 Murphy, S. M., Faulkner, D. M., & Farley, L. R. (2014). The behaviour of young children 24 25 with social communication disorders during dyadic interaction with peers. Journal of 26 27 28 Abnormal Child Psychology, 42(2), 277 289. 29 30 Nadig, A., & Sedivy, J. (2002). Evidence of perspective taking constraints in children's on 31 32 line reference resolution. Psychological Science, 13, 329 336. 33 34 *Nadig, A., Vivanti, G., & Ozonoff, S. (2009). Adaptation of object descriptions to a 35 36 partner under increasing communicative demands: A comparison of children with and 37 38 without autism. Autism Research, 2(6), 334 347. 39 40 41 *Nicholson, A. T., Whalen, J. M., & Pexman, P. M. (2013). Children’s Processing of Verbal 42 43 Irony: The Earliest Moments. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(4), 44 45 292. 46 47 *Nilsen, E. S., Glenwright, M., & Huyder, V. (2011). Children and adults understand that 48 49 verbal irony interpretation depends on listener knowledge. Journal of Cognition 50 51 and Development, 12(3), 374 409. 52 53 54 * Nilsen, E., & Graham, S. (2009). The relations between children's communicative 55 56 perspective taking and executive functioning. Cognitive Psychology, 58(2), 220 249. 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 51 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 51 1 2 3 * Nilsen, E., & Graham, S. (2012). The development of preschoolers' appreciation of 4 5 communicative ambiguity. Child Development, 83(4), 1400 1415. 6 7 Norbury, C. F. (2014). Practitioner review: Social (pragmatic) communication disorder 8 9 conceptualization, evidence and clinical implications. Journal of Child Psychology 10 11 and Psychiatry, 55(3), 204 216. 12 13 14 Norbury, C. F., & Bishop, D. V. (2003). Narrative skills of children with communication 15 16 impairments.For International Peer Journal Review of Language & CommunicationOnly Disorders, 38(3), 17 18 287 313. 19 20 *Norbury, C. F., Gemmell, T., & Paul, R. (2014). Pragmatics abilities in narrative 21 22 production: a cross disorder comparison. Journal of Child Language, 41(3), 485 510. 23 24 Norbury, C. F., Nash, M., Baird, G., & Bishop, D. V. (2004). Using a parental checklist to 25 26 27 identify diagnostic groups in children with communication impairment: a validation 28 29 of the Children's Communication Checklist—2. International Journal of Language & 30 31 Communication Disorders, 39(3), 345 364. 32 33 O’Neill, D. K. (2007). The language use inventory for young children: A parent report 34 35 measure of pragmatic language development for 18 to 47 month old 36 37 children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50(1), 214 228. 38 39 40 O'Neill, D. (2009). Language Use Inventory: An assessment of young children's pragmatic 41 42 language development for 18 to 47 month old children [Manual]. Waterloo, Ontario, 43 44 Canada: Knowledge in Development. 45 46 O'Neill, D. (2012). Components of pragmatic ability and children's pragmatic language 47 48 development. In H. Schmid (Ed.), Cognitive Pragmatics (Vol. 4, pp. 261 287). Walter 49 50 de Gruyter. 51 52 53 O’Neill, D. K. (2014). Assessing pragmatic language functioning in young children. In D. 54 55 Matthews (Ed.) Pragmatic Development in First Language Acquisition (pp. 363 386). 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 52 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 52 1 2 3 Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 4 5 *O’Reilly, K., Peterson, C. & Wellman, H. (2014). Sarcasm and advanced Theory of Mind 6 7 understanding in children and adults with prelingual deafness. Developmental 8 9 Psychology, 50(7): 1862 1877. 10 11 *Pellicano, E. (2013). Testing the predictive power of cognitive atypicalities in autistic 12 13 14 children: evidence from a 3 year follow up study. Autism Research, 6(4), 258 267. 15 16 Pelletier, J., & Astington,For Peer J. W. (1998). Review Metacognitive vocabulary Only test. Unpublished ms., 17 18 Institute for Child Studies, University of Toronto. 19 20 Perner, J., Frith, U., Leslie, A. M., & Leekam, S. R. (1989). Exploration of the autistic child's 21 22 theory of mind: Knowledge, belief, and communication. Child Development, 689 23 24 700. 25 26 27 Pesco, D., & O’Neill, D. K. (2012). Predicting later language outcomes from the Language 28 29 Use Inventory. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55(2), 421 434. 30 31 Peterson, C., & Siegal, M. (2000). Insights into theory of mind from deafness and autism. 32 33 Mind & Language, 15(1), 123 145. 34 35 Peterson, C., Garnett, M., Kelly, A., & Attwood, T. (2009). Everyday social and conversation 36 37 applications of theory of mind understanding by children with autism spectrum 38 39 40 disorders or typical development. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 18(2), 41 42 105 115. 43 44 *Pexman, P. M., Zdrazilova, L., McConnachie, D., Deater Deckard, K., & Petrill, S. A. 45 46 (2009). “That Was Smooth, Mom”: Children's Production of Verbal and Gestural 47 48 Irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 24(4), 237 248. 49 50 Phelps Terasaki, D., & Phelps Gunn, T. (2007). TOPL-2 Test of Pragmatic Language: 51 52 53 Examiner's Manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 53 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 53 1 2 3 Philofsky, A., Fidler, D., & Hepbum, S. (2007). Pragmatic language profile of school age 4 5 children with autism spectrum disorders and Williams syndrome. American Journal 6 7 of Speech-Language Pathology, 16(4), 368 380. 8 9 Pons, F., Harris, P. L., & de Rosnay, M. (2004). Emotion comprehension between 3 and 11 10 11 years: Developmental periods and hierarchical organization. European Journal of 12 13 14 Developmental Psychology, 1(2), 127 152. 15 16 Racine, T. P., &For Carpendale, Peer J. I. (2007). Review The role of shared Onlypractice in joint attention. 17 18 British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25(1), 3 25. 19 20 Ren, X., Wang, T., & Jarrold, C. (2016). Individual differences in frequency of inner speech: 21 22 Differential relations with cognitive and non cognitive factors. Frontiers in 23 24 Psychology, 7. 25 26 27 Renfrew, C. E. (2010). Bus Story Test: A test of narrative speech. Speechmark. 28 29 *Resches, M., & Pereira, M. P. (2007). Referential communication abilities and theory of 30 31 mind development in preschool children. Journal of Child Language, 34(01), 21 52. 32 33 * Rinaldi, P., Baruffaldi, F., Burdo, S., & Caselli, M. (2013). Linguistic and pragmatic skills 34 35 in toddlers with cochlear implant. International Journal of Language & 36 37 Communication Disorders , 48(6), 715 725. 38 39 40 * Rints, A., McAuley, T., & Nilsen, E. (2015). Social communication is predicted by 41 42 inhibitory ability and ADHD traits in preschool aged children a mediation model . 43 44 Journal of Attention Disorders, 19(10), 901 911. 45 46 Rosenblueth, A., & Wiener, N. (1945). The role of models in science. Philosophy of Science, 47 48 12(4), 316 321. 49 50 Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic Procedures for Social Research (Vol. 6). Sage. 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 54 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 54 1 2 3 Russell, R., & Grizzle, K. (2008). Assessing child and adolescent pragmatic language 4 5 competencies: Toward evidence based assessments. Clinical Child and Family 6 7 Psychology Review, 11(1 2), 59 73. 8 9 Russell, J., Jarrold, C., & Hood, B. (1999). Two intact executive capacities in children with 10 11 autism: Implications for the core executive dysfunctions in the disorder. Journal of 12 13 14 Autism and Developmental Disorders, 29(2), 103 112. 15 16 Saborit, C., & Julián,For J. (2005). Peer L‘avaluació Review del llenguatge infantil.Only ELI. . Universitat Jaume I 17 18 de Castelló (UJI). Col· lecció: Educació. 19 20 Schulze, C., Grassmann, S., & Tomasello, M. (2013). 3YearOld children make relevance 21 22 inferences in indirect verbal communication. Child Development, 84(6), 2079 2093. 23 24 Seibert, J., Hogan, A., & Mundy, P. (1987). Assessing social communication skills in 25 26 27 infancy. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 7, 32 48. 28 29 Semel, E. M., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. (1995). CELF3: Clinical Evaluation of Language 30 31 Fundamentals. Psychological Corporation, Harcourt Brace. 32 33 Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2003). Clinical Evaluation of Language 34 35 Fundamentals (CELF-4) The Psychological Corporation. 36 37 Sherrod, L., & Lamb, M. (1981). Infant social cognition: An introduction. In L. Michael, & 38 39 40 L. Sherrod, Infant Social Cognition: Empirical and Theoretical Considerations (pp. 41 42 1 10). Hillsdale: NJ: Erlbaum. 43 44 Sjöwall, D., Roth, L., Lindqvist, S., & Thorell, L. B. (2013). Multiple deficits in ADHD: 45 46 executive dysfunction, delay aversion, reaction time variability, and emotional 47 48 deficits. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54(6), 619 627. 49 50 *Slomkowski, C., & Dunn, J. (1996). Young children's understanding of other people's 51 52 53 beliefs and feelings and their connected communication with friends. Developmental 54 55 Psychology, 32(3), 442. 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 55 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 55 1 2 3 Sparrow, S., Balla, D., & Cichetti, D. (1984). Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scales. American 4 5 Guidance Services. MN: Circle Pines. 6 7 Spitzberg, B., & Adams, T. (2007). CSRS, the Conversational Skills Rating Scale: an 8 9 Instructional Assessment of Interpersonal Competence. NCA, National 10 11 Communication Association. 12 13 14 Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual 15 16 differencesFor in the Peeracquisition of Reviewliteracy. Reading Research Only Quarterly, 360 407. 17 18 St Clair, M. C., Pickles, A., Durkin, K., & Conti Ramsden, G. (2011). A longitudinal study of 19 20 behavioral, emotional and social difficulties in individuals with a history of specific 21 22 language impairment (SLI). Journal of Communication Disorders, 44(2), 186 199. 23 24 Sullivan, K., Zaitchik, D., & Tager Flusberg, H. (1994). Preschoolers can attribute 2nd order 25 26 27 beliefs. Developmental Psychology, 30(3), 395. 28 29 Sullivan, K., Winner, E., & Hopfield, N. (1995). How children tell a lie from a joke: The role 30 31 of 2ndorder mental state attributions. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 32 33 13(2), 191 204. 34 35 Tager Flusberg, H. (1996). Brief report: Current theory and research on language and 36 37 communication in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental disorders, 26(2), 38 39 40 169 172. 41 42 Tager Flusberg, H. (1999). A psychological approach to understanding the social and 43 44 language impairments in autism. . International review of psychiatry, 11(4), 325 334. 45 46 Tager Flusberg, H., Paul, R., Lord, C., Volkmar, F., Paul, R., & Klin, A. (2005). Language 47 48 and communication in autism. Handbook of Autism and Pervasive Developmental 49 50 Disorders, 1, 335 364. 51 52 53 *Tager Flusberg, H., & Sullivan, K. (1995). Attributing mental states to story characters: A 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 56 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 56 1 2 3 comparison of narratives produced by autistic and mentally retarded 4 5 individuals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 16(3), 241 256. 6 7 Trabasso, T., & Nickels, M. (1992). The development of goal plans of action in the narration 8 9 of a picture story. Discourse Processes, 15(3), 249 275. 10 11 Volden, J. (2002). Features leading to judgements of inappropriacy in the language of 12 13 14 speakers with autism: A preliminary study. Journal of Speech Language Pathology 15 16 and AudiologyFor, 26 Peer(3), 138 146. Review Only 17 18 *Volden, J., Coolican, J., Garon, N., White, J., & Bryson, S. (2009). Brief report: pragmatic 19 20 language in autism spectrum disorder: relationships to measures of ability and 21 22 disability. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39(2), 388 393. 23 24 Volden, J., & Phillips, L. (2010). Measuring Pragmatic Language in Speakers With Autism 25 26 27 Spectrum Disorders: Comparing the Children's Communication Checklist 2 and the 28 29 Test of Pragmatic Language. American Journal Of Speech-Language 30 31 Pathology, 19(3), 204 212. 32 33 Wardlow, L. (2013). Individual differences in speakers’ perspective taking: The roles of 34 35 executive control and working memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(4), 766 36 37 772. 38 39 40 Welch Ross, M. K. (1997). Mother–child participation in conversation about the past: 41 42 Relationships to preschoolers' theory of mind. Developmental Psychology, 33(4), 618. 43 44 Wellman, H. M., & Liu, D. (2004). Scaling of theoryofmind tasks. Child Development, 45 46 75(2), 523 541. 47 48 Whitehouse, A. J., Watt, H. J., Line, E. A., & Bishop, D. V. (2009). Adult psychosocial 49 50 outcomes of children with specific language impairment, pragmatic language 51 52 53 impairment and autism. International Journal of Language & Communication 54 55 Disorders, 44(4), 511 528. 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 57 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 57 1 2 3 *Whyte, E., & Nelson, K. (2015). Trajectories of pragmatic and nonliteral language 4 5 development in children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Communication 6 7 Disorders, 54, 2 14. 8 9 Wiebe, S. A., Sheffield, T., Nelson, J. M., Clark, C. A., Chevalier, N., & Espy, K. A. (2011). 10 11 The structure of executive function in 3 year olds. Journal of Experimental Child 12 13 14 Psychology, 108(3), 436 452. 15 16 Williams, K. T.For (1997). ExpressivePeer Vocabulary Review Test Second OnlyEdition (EVT™ 2). Pearson. 17 18 Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining 19 20 function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of deception. Cognition, 21 22 12(1), 103 128. 23 24 Winner, E., Brownell, H., Happé, F., Blum, A., & Pincus, D. (1998). Distinguishing lies from 25 26 27 jokes: Theory of mind deficits and discourse interpretation in right hemisphere brain 28 29 damaged patients. Brain and Language, 62(1), 89 106. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Language, Learning and Development Page 58 of 83
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 58 1 2 3 Appendix A 4 5 Search strategy 6 7 Web of Science, SCOPUS and PsycINFO were searched by the second author between 8 9 February and March 2016. Search terms were combined to cover the following domains: 1) 10 11 pragmatics (pragmatic, social communication, audience design, common ground, 12 13 14 conversation, discourse), 2) child development (child*, infan*, devel*, toddler, pre school, 15 16 preschool) and For3) the three Peer underpinning Review cognitive domains (vocabulary,Only syntax, grammar, 17 18 formal language, structural language; social cognition, social cognition, theory of mind, false 19 20 belief, joint attention, perspective taking, mental state, mentali*; executive function*, 21 22 memory, cognitive flexibility, mental flexibility, set switching, inhibition, inhibitory control, 23 24 executive control). Any further papers identified from other sources (e.g., references section 25 26 27 of initially identified papers) were included. The third author expanded this search in July 28 29 2016 to include the term irony as a pragmatic key word. Case studies or studies with small 30 31 groups of brain damaged individuals or individuals with rare clinical disorders were excluded 32 33 along with intervention studies and studies of bilingual children. Only papers that reported a 34 35 measure of the strength of association between two continuous variables were included. 36 37 Studies that reported group comparisons (e.g., incidence of pragmatic impairment associated 38 39 40 with incidence of language impairment), while reflective of the same relationship, were not 41 42 considered. A meta analysis calculator was used to report effect sizes as Cohen’s d (Cohen, 43 44 1992). We consider d=0.2 a ‘small’ effect size, 0.5 a ‘medium’ effect size and 0.8 a 45 46 ‘large’ effect size. For studies which presented data based on the same sample, a single effect 47 48 size was calculated (Rosenthal, 1991). 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] Page 59 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
1 2 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 59 3 4 5 6 APPENDIX B 7 8 9 10 Table 1: Study characteristics and findings. (Effect sizes reported in parentheses as Cohen’s d. Acronyms are spelt out at the end of the table.) 11 12 For Peer Review Only 13 Author (year) N, Pragmatic Executive Mentalising Formal Findings (effect size, Cohen’s d) 14 Population, measure function measure language 15 16 Mean age measure measure 17 (years; 18 months) 19 Adachi et al., 29, ADHD, Metaphor and Verbal IQ For children with ADHD, VIQ was correlated with 20 (2004) 9;6 Sarcasm metaphor (0.89) but not with sarcasm (0.15) or landmine 21 54, Scenario Test ( 0.10) scores. 22 HFPDD, (A written test For HFPDD children, VIQ was correlated with metaphor 23 9;8 that child need (1.24) but not with sarcasm (0.17) or landmine (0.04) 24 to be able to scores 25 read) 26 Akbar, 62, ASD, CASL Pragmatic WM – Letter CELF 4 (Core CASL was correlated with CELF 4 (2.35) 27 28 Loomis, and 8;7 Judgement number Language 29 Paul (2013) Subtest sequencing standard score) CASL was correlated with WM (1.90) and O (0.92) but 30 task of the not with CF or I. 31 WISC 32 O – NEPSY II CASL correlated positively with parent report Vineland 33 animal sort Communication Scale (1.17), teacher report Vineland 34 subtest Communication Scale (1.25), and negatively with 35 CF – D KEFS teacher report WM (1.51) 36 trail making 37 subtest 38 I – D KEFS 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] 46 47 48 Language, Learning and Development Page 60 of 83
1 2 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 60 3 4 5 colour word 6 interference 7 subtest 8 Parent report 9 and teacher 10 report 11 12 For PeerBRIEF Review Only 13 Andrés 93, DLD, ELI Pragmatics I – Matching Change of CEG (receptive Pragmatic score correlated with ToM (1.28), Inhibition 14 Roqueta, 5;4 Subtest Familiar location task grammar) (1.31) grammar receptive (1.58), grammar expressive 15 Adrian, (Receptive and Figures test Unexpected Sentence recall (0.89), vocabulary receptive (1.28), vocabulary 16 Clemente, and Expressive items contents task (expressive expressive (1.62) 17 Katsos (2013) related to grammar) NB Items on ELI test vary in terms of whether they 18 figurative ELI (receptive would traditionally be classified as pragmatic. 19 language, and expressive 20 politeness vocabulary) 21 (metacognitive) 22 Angeleri and 100, TD, Irony 1st and 2nd Italian version The overall humor score was significantly correlated 23 24 Airenti, 2014; 4;9 comprehension order ToM of PPVT R with the ToM score (0.80), with the PPVT R score 25 and joke tasks (1.35), and with children’s age (1.28). Analyses looking 26 comprehension at each type of pragmatic and ToM task, tended to reveal 27 (combined for correlations between ToM tasks and irony stories but no 28 overall humour correlations between ToM tasks and control stories. 29 score) 30 Path analyses suggested that language ability affected 31 both humour comprehension and ToM, and ToM had no 32 independent causal effect on humor comprehension. 33 34 35 Bacso and 109, TD, Referential WM Digit Picture Naming Looking at children’s initial descriptions of referents, the 36 Nilsen, 2017 5;0 communication Span subtest task from the number of descriptors they produced was correlated with 37 task (production from the WPPSI III expressive vocabulary (0.77) working memory (0.85), 38 of unambiguous WISC 4th and cognitive flexibility (0.70) but not inhibition. 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] 46 47 48 Page 61 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
1 2 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 61 3 4 5 descriptions) Edition Once age and vocabulary were partialled out, the 6 I Red dog correlation held with working memory (0.56) and 7 Blue dog task working cognitive flexibility (0.43) 8 CF Object 9 classification Looking at children’s repairs of initially inadequate 10 task for descriptions, the number of new descriptors they 11 12 For Peerchildren Review Onlyproduced was correlated with expressive vocabulary 13 (0.63) working memory (0.43), and cognitive flexibility 14 (0.70) but not inhibition. 15 Once age and vocabulary were partialled out, a 16 correlation held for working cognitive flexibility (0.43) 17 18 Banasik, 2013 46, TD, 5;1 Irony Reflection on Recognition of irony did not correlate with children’s 19 comprehension thinking test: 9 score on the ToM tests but did correlate with a measure 20 task (force tasks including of the quality of justification of their ToM responses 21 choice touch tests of: (0.68) 22 screen task) Appearance NB No age effect was found in group of 3 5 year olds. 23 reality, 1st 24 25 and 2nd order 26 belief, 27 deception, 28 emotion 29 understanding 30 Bernard and 81, TD, Communicative 1st order ToM Language score At time 3;8: 31 Deleau (2007) seen perspective (Unexpected composite Communicative perspective taking was correlated with 32 longitudinal taking measure transfer task (Receptive language ability (1.28), and false belief understanding 33 ly at (collapsing Unexpected vocab) and (0.85). 34 3;8, 4;2 and across three contents task comprehension At 4;2: 35 4;8 dimensions: Unexpected of relative Communicative perspective taking was correlated with 36 1: social status, pictures task) clauses) derived language ability (1.12), and false belief understanding 37 38 2: common from subtest (0.70). 39 ground from the At 4;8 40 41 42 43 44 45 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] 46 47 48 Language, Learning and Development Page 62 of 83
1 2 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 62 3 4 5 3. Gricean ISADYLE. Communicative perspective taking was correlated with 6 maxims.) language ability (0.85), and false belief understanding 7 (0.47). 8 9 Three regression analyses were run to explain variance 10 in: CPT at time2 from measures taken at time1; CPT 11 12 For Peer Review Onlytime 3 from measures at time 1 and CPT time 3 from 13 measures at time 2. 14 After controlling for age and CPT at the relevant prior 15 time point, language scores predicted significant 16 additional variance (between 8 and 10%) but FB scores 17 did not. 18 19 Need to bear in mind that FB tasks at time 1 were 20 nearing floor. 21 22 Bishop and 17, DLD, 6 Principal Generativity Generativity was correlated with the pragmatic 23 Norbury 10 component Composite of composite (0.93) 24 25 (2005) 25, SCD, 6 from: CCC two ideational 26 10 (teacher/therapis fluency tasks Generativity was not correlated with 27 14, HFA, 6 t report) (Use of SCQ communication scale but was correlated with the 28 10 pragmatic Objects and CCC pragmatic composite (0.45) and with the ADOS–G 29 composite and Pattern communication scale (1.11). Both the latter correlations 30 communication Meanings) remained the same size when age and language were 31 scales of SCQ, partialled out. 32 ADOS G 33 Blain Brière, 70, TD, 4;8 Semi structured SC – No relationship between EF and PSCS P complexity was 34 Bouchard and conversation Prohibited toy strong enough to reach significance (0.49) 35 Bigras (2014) protocol Talkativeness was negatively correlated with inhibition 36 WM – ( 0.58) 37 38 Backwards Responsiveness was positively associated with working 39 digit span memory (0.61) 40 41 42 43 44 45 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] 46 47 48 Page 63 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
1 2 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 63 3 4 5 CF – DCCS Fluidity (speech free of hesitation and repetition), was 6 P/I – Tower of positively correlated with all EF measures except 7 Hanoi flexibility (Self control: 0.63, Inhibition: 0.63, Working 8 memory: 0.52, Planning: 0.65) 9 Measures of self control, flexibility and planning showed 10 very little association with pragmatic function other than 11 12 For Peer Review Onlyfluidity. 13 Blom and 84 DLD 5;9 Narrative WM – PPVT III For the children with DLD, narrative comprehension was 14 Boerma 45 TD 5;9 production and Backwards (Dutch Version) associated with vocabulary at both time points (0.63), 15 (2016) (with a comprehension digit span TAK sentence with sentence repetition at time 1 (0.75) and with 16 follow up at (Macrostructure) repetition task working memory at time 1 (0.75). 17 6;9) Multilingual Narrative production was associated with sentence 18 Assessment repetition at both time points (0.54) and with working 19 Instrument for memory at both time points ( 0.47, 0.82) 20 Narratives 21 (LITMUS For the TD children, narrative comprehension was 22 MAIN) associated with sentence repetition at time 1 (1.03) and 23 with working memory at time 1 (0.82). 24
25 nd 26 Caillies et al. 15 TD, 9;0 Irony WM Digit Two 2 order Verbal For children with ADHD, 2nd order false belief 27 (2014) 15 ADHD comprehension Span subtest false belief reasoning understanding related to both an ‘explanation’ question 28 9;0 from the tests Similarities (What did [IRONIST] mean when s/he said X?) (1.42) 29 WISC IV and subtest of the and to a question about the ironist’s belief (1.85). 30 Sentence WISC IV Verbal reasoning was also correlated with both 31 Repetition measures; irony explanation (1.91), ironist’s belief 32 subtest of the (2.27), and to an even greater degree than ToM (1.85). 33 French version EF measures did not correlate with comprehension 34 of the NEPSY scores. 35 I. Auditory 36 Attention and For the typical group, ToM only related to the question 37 38 Response Set, about the ironists belief. Verbal reasoning was not 39 and Statue correlated with either measure. Inhibitory control was 40 41 42 43 44 45 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] 46 47 48 Language, Learning and Development Page 64 of 83
1 2 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 64 3 4 5 from French correlated with both measures irony explanation (1.58), 6 version of the ironist’s belief (2.87), but working memory was not. 7 NEPSY 8 Neither age nor verbal IQ was controlled for in these 9 analyses. Authors note small sample size. 10 11 Capps et al., 15, ASD, Semi structured 1st order ToM CELF (language For the ASD group, the amount of contingent, relevant 12 (1998) 11;11 conversationFor Peer Review(Smarties task age) Onlyand new information they provided was correlated with 13 15, DD, 9;5 Sally Anne ToM scores (1.5). However, when language age was 14 task) accounted for, the association with ToM was no longer 15 significant. 16 For the developmentally delayed control group, language 17 age was correlated with contingent, relevant, new info, 18 (2.14) but ToM was not. 19 Capps, Losh 13, ASD, Narratives 1st order ToM CELF language For the ASD group, scores of ToM tasks were correlated 20 and Thurber, 12.6 elicited using (Smarties task, age with the following narrative qualities: syntactic diversity 21 (2000) 13, DD, 9.8 wordless picture puppet and (2.41), evaluative statements (1.35), evaluative diversity 22 13, TD, 6.0 book interactive (1.85), mental state terms (2.49) and negatively 23 24 versions of the correlated with affective state terms ( 2.49). 25 Sally Anne Theory of mind continued to be marginally correlated 26 task) with the mental state terms (1.28), and affective state 27 terms, ( 1.25) when language ability was controlled for. 28 For the developmentally delayed group, there were no 29 significant correlations between scores of ToM tasks and 30 narrative qualities. 31 Dahlgren and 30, ASD, Referential 1t order ToM Verbal IQ For children with ASD, verbal IQ was related to the 32 Dahlgren 10;1 communication (ToM1) number of relevant features mentioned and referential 33 Sandberg 30, TD, 9;6 task (describing 2nd order ToM efficiency in a sample of 30 7 to 14 year olds with ASD 34 (2008) cards that (ToM2) 35 listener could For children with ASD, ToM1 was correlated with both 36 37 not see) the number of relevant features mentioned when 38 describing a target (1.10) and the efficiency with which 39 these (and not irrelevant features) were mentioned (1.08) 40 41 42 43 44 45 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] 46 47 48 Page 65 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
1 2 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 65 3 4 5 However, these measures were also associated with 6 verbal IQ so the specificity of association is unclear. 7 N.B., ToM1 was a binary measure (pass / fail), only five 8 of the thirty children with ASD failed 1st order ToM. 9 No associations with 2nd order ToM were observed for 10 TD children or those with ASD (possibly due to lack of 11 12 For Peer Review Onlyvariance). 13 Davies, 18, DLD, 5 Reference Receptive and Across both groups there were significant correlations 14 Andrés 10;11 production task expressive between production of optimal utterances in the contrast 15 Roqueta, and 18, TD, 5 Comprehension grammar condition and all formal language measures (combined 16 Norbury 10;11 and judgement (sentence recall) effect size 0.93) 17 (2016) task (describing subtests from Across both groups, performance on the judgement task 18 referents a the ELI. significantly correlated with receptive grammar and 19 listener cannot Vocabulary vocabulary (combined effect size 2.27) 20 see and selecting subtest from the Correlations are also reported by group 21 referents based WISC IV For children with DLD, there were correlations between 22 on visual and production of optimal utterances on a referential 23 discourse communication task and receptive grammar: (1.49) and 24 25 context) vocabulary (1.01) but not sentence recall ( 0.12) 26 For TD children there was an association with receptive 27 grammar only (2.49) 28 29 De Marchena 18, ASD, Narrative task – PPVT Receptive vocabulary was not found to correlate with the 30 and Eigsti, 12;7 16;11 private condition common ground measure, within or across groups. 31 2016 18, TD, and shared NB Authors note that participants were selected to be in 32 12;2 17;11 condition normal range for vocabulary. 33 yielding an When the groups were collapsed, scores on the Social 34 adaptation to Responsiveness Scale (SRS) were negatively correlated 35 common ground with the common ground measure. 36 measure. 37 38 De Rosnay, 129, TD, Mindful Ten item ToM PPVT III PPVT III and MCC were significantly correlated (0.63) 39 Fink, Begeer, 6;6 Conversation battery Total ToM was significantly correlated with MCC (0.85) 40 41 42 43 44 45 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] 46 47 48 Language, Learning and Development Page 66 of 83
1 2 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 66 3 4 5 Slaughter, and Competence consisting of and this relationship remained after age and PPVT III 6 Peterson standard false and shyness were controlled for (0.54) 7 (2014) belief tasks NB Some questions on the MCC are directly tap ToM 8 (e.g., ‘Does the child have difficulty understanding other 9 people‘s thoughts?’). 10 11 Farrant, Study 1: 99, Conversation Socio Study 1 – CSRS was significantly related to socio 12 Maybery, and TD, 5;4 SkillFor Rating Peer Reviewemotional Onlyemotional engagement (0.93), joint attention (1.42) and 13 Fletcher Study 2: Scale engagement, imitation (0.95) 14 (2010) 93 TD 5;1 joint attention Study 2 – CSRS was significantly correlated with socio 15 and 30 DLD and imitation emotional engagement (0.70), joint attention (0.80) and 16 5;3 were measured imitation (0.95). 17 retrospectively NB Reliability of retrospective reports is unclear. 18 using scales 19 developed for 20 this project 21 Fernández 115, TD, Narrative ToM1 Spanish Pragmatic language scores were correlated with number 22 (2013) 4;8 8;8 production ToM2 adaptation of of utterances (0.89) and number of clauses (1.62) 23 24 coded for Messy room the PPVT R TVIP scores were only significantly correlated with 25 evaluation, story narrative coherence (0.54) 26 accurate Faux pas story There was no correlation between any of four measures st 27 cohesion, of narrative quality and 1 order ToM scores (perhaps 28 psychological due to a ceiling effect on the latter) 29 cohesion and There was a correlation with 2nd order ToM and 30 coherence (plus coherence scores (0.47) 31 combined A regression model predicting overall pragmatic score 32 pragmatic score) found, after entering gender and length of narrative, 2nd 33 order ToM explained an additional 5% of variance 34 Filippova and 24, TD, 5;8 Irony WM – Combined: Receptive Irony was significantly positively correlated with 2nd 35 Astington 24, TD, 7;7 comprehension Numbers 2nd order false vocabulary order ToM (1.19), PPVT III (1.42), WM (0.63) and 36 37 (2008) 24, TD, 9;7 subtest of the belief stories, PPVT III prosodic understanding (0.75). 38 children’s Strange Once age, vocabulary, and digit span were controlled 39 memory scale stories, for, a marginally significant association between ToM 40 41 42 43 44 45 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] 46 47 48 Page 67 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
1 2 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 67 3 4 5 Faux pas and Irony scores remained (0.45) 6 stories Regression models showed that once age, memory, 7 attunement to prosody and receptive vocabulary were 8 controlled for, ToM was a significant predictor of irony 9 comprehension 10 When all other variables are controlled for, vocabulary 11 12 For Peer Review Onlyalso explained unique variance 13 Fukumura 20, ASD, Referential BPVS; For both the ASD group, neither receptive nor expressive 14 (2016) 8;10 communication Expressive vocabulary was correlated with the tendency to use more 15 20, TD, 8;4 task vocabulary sub adjectives in the shared rather than privileged context, or 16 (plus test of the with the number of egocentric adjectives in the 17 additional WASI privileged context. 18 study with There were large correlations between the number of 19 adolescents) adjectives produced in the shared context and both 20 receptive (1.46) and expressive (d=0.98) vocabulary. 21 22 In the TD group, adjective use was not correlated with 23 either vocabulary measure. 24 25 Gillespie 23, TD, 31 CCC 2 ESCS Groups analysed separately. No association between 26 Lynch et al., TD sibs at Pragmatic joint attention variables at 12 months or 18 months and 27 (2015) high risk composite school age pragmatic language for children with ASD or 28 ASD, 10 (parent report) for TD children (collected approximately 6 years later) 29 high risk NB Behaviours observed during infancy occurred with a 30 sibs who low frequency. 31 went on to 32 have ASD, 33 7;5 34 Gillis and 40, TD 5;0 Referential CF – Object Picture Significant negative correlation between scores on the 35 Nilsen (2014) 36, TD, 7;1 communication classification vocabulary CF task and ratings of how helpful the ambiguous clues 36 37 – Ambiguity task for subtest of the were for 5 year olds ( 1.15, i.e, the better the CF, the 38 detection task children TOLD more likely they were to say ambiguity was unhelpful). 39 This 40 41 42 43 44 45 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] 46 47 48 Language, Learning and Development Page 68 of 83
1 2 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 68 3 4 5 relationship remained after controlling for age and 6 receptive language. No significant correlations were 7 found for 7 year olds. 8 Significant negative correlation between TOLD (formal 9 language) and ambiguity detection for both groups (5 10 years 0.77; 7 years –0.72). 11 12 Godbee and 26, WS, Non literalFor PeerVerbal Review Expressive Only For TDCA and TDMA controls combined, each of the 13 Porter (2013) 18;3 speech stories working vocabulary (WJ cognitive measures assessed using the WJ R COG 14 26, TDCA (sarcasm, memory (WJ Revised) (including expressive vocabulary, verbal working 15 (Chronologi metaphor, simile Revised) memory, perceptual integration, inferential reasoning and 16 cal Age comprehension) overall cognitive ability) was significantly and positively 17 matched) correlated with each of the measures of non literal 18 18;0, language comprehension (no individual results reported 19 26, TDMA by all effect sizes d >1.39). 20 (Mental 21 Age For the WS group, measures of sarcasm comprehension 22 matched), were not correlated with any cognitive measures. 23 5;9 Metaphor comprehension was correlated with verbal 24 working memory (0.84) but not expressive vocabulary. 25 26 Simile comprehension was correlated with verbal 27 working memory (0.88) but not expressive vocabulary. 28 29 NB small sample size and large age range (early 30 childhood to late adulthood) 31 32 Hale and 57, ASD, 4 Natural language Ten item ToM Combined: Time 1 – significant correlation between contingent 33 Tager 13;11 with parent battery in 3 Receptive discourse and vocab (0.87) and ToM (1.12). 34 Flusberg during free play sequenced vocabulary 35 (2005) coded for topic batteries PPVT III and Time 2 – significant correlation between contingent 36 contingent covering: Expressive discourse and vocab (0.95) and ToM (1.31) 37 discourse Desire and a Vocabulary test 38 pretense, At both time points, regression analysis confirmed that 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] 46 47 48 Page 69 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
1 2 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 69 3 4 5 perception/kno ToM explained additional variance (8%) once age, IQ 6 wledge, 1st and and vocab score were controlled for. 7 2nd order false 8 belief, lies Time 1 vocabulary was the only significant longitudinal 9 jokes, moral predictor of time 2 contingent discourse. 10 judgement. 11 Huang, Oi and 50, 40 figurative ToM Battery – PPVT R, Verbal For TD children, receptive vocabulary was correlated 12 For Peer Reviewst nd Only 13 Taguchi HFASD, language tasks 1 and 2 IQ (WISC III) with metaphor comprehension (0.62) but not with any 14 (2015) 10;2 (comprehension order ToM other measures of figurative language. 15 50, TD, of metaphor, For HFASD children, receptive vocabulary was 16 10;7 irony, sarcasm, significantly correlated with metaphor comprehension 17 indirect reproach (1.13) as was verbal IQ. No correlations with other 18 and indirect measures of figurative language were observed. 19 request) No correlations with ToM measures were reported 20 (instead children were classified into one of 3 groups for 21 this measure) 22 Ketelaars, 77, SCD, Dutch adaptation Principal 1st order ToM: Composite of: For TD children, narrative productivity (but not content 23 24 Jansonius, 5;6 of the Renfrew component of: Three change Receptive and or cohesion) was positively correlated with EF (0.63) and 25 Cuperus, and 77, TD, 5;6 bus story test. Planning, of location sentence ToM (0.85). Once language was controlled for, only 26 Verhoeven Narratives coded inhibition, tasks comprehension ToM was predictive of narrative productivity. 27 (2012) for: productivity cognitive (from Dutch 28 (length), flexibility Language test For SCD children (who tended to convey less plot 29 organization (Tower task for children) content, often omitting initiating events and the story 30 (relevant Auditory Expressive outcome) EF was correlated with narrative productivity 31 content), and attention and vocabulary (0.79) and organisation (0.45). 32 cohesion (use of response set (from Dutch Once language was controlled for, EF was predictive of 33 cohesive from NEPSY) Renfrew Word SCD children’s narrative productivity (explaining an 34 devices) and working Finding additional 9% of variance) 35 memory Vocabulary 36 (number recall Test) 37 38 from Kaufman 39 Assessment 40 41 42 43 44 45 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] 46 47 48 Language, Learning and Development Page 70 of 83
1 2 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 70 3 4 5 Battery for 6 Children) 7 8 9 st nd 10 Kuijper, 46, ASD Narrative I – stop signal 1 and 2 Vocabulary None of the cognitive predictors explained variance in 11 Hartman and 37, ADHD production: task order ToM from Dutch the rate at which children appropriately maintained 12 Hendriks 38, TD ReferentFor PeerWM – n back Review WISC III Only referenced. 13 (2015) maintenance and task and Dutch In a series of mixed effects logistic regression models, a 14 to reintroduction PPVT III (not cognitive variables analysed (1st and 2nd order ToM, WM 15 analysed) and I) were found to be associated with appropriate 16 referent reintroduction. 17 In a multivariate model with all four cognitive predictors 18 considered simultaneously (fitted to data from all three 19 groups), reintroduction was predicted by 2nd order ToM 20 and working memory. 21 22 Note, formal language was not controlled in these 23 analyses. 24 Leonard et al 54, CCC 2 OWLS. No correlations between CCC2 and either OWLS or 25 (2011) TD, 10;6 composite of Combined Oral verbal IQ. 26 scales E J Expression and NB This study includes CCC2 subscales I and J, which 27 (parent ratings) Listening cover social relations and interests (i.e., non pragmatic 28 Comprehension. features of autism). Not clear whether a correlation 29 would be expected. 30 Verbal IQ 31 (KBIT 2) 32 Losh and 28, high Semi structured Happé’s Verbal IQ Narrative measures were not correlated with Verbal IQ 33 Capps (2003) functioning conversational strange stories (WISC III) or ToM, although associations with emotion 34 35 ASD, 11.3 storytelling, understanding were observed. 36 22, TD, storybook 37 10.6 narratives 38 (coded for 39 length, 40 41 42 43 44 45 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] 46 47 48 Page 71 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
1 2 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 71 3 4 5 grammatical 6 complexity, 7 evaluation and 8 structure) 9 Losh, Martin, 28, ASD, Pragmatic Basic battery: Correlations between ToM and performance on the 10 11 Klusek, 9;2, Judgement intentionality, CASL for ASD (1.35), FXS (0.77), DS (1.19) and TD 12 Hogan 40 FXS subtestFor of CASL Peer Reviewunderstanding Only(1.28) 13 Brown, and ASD, 10;7 CCC 2 (teacher of desires, Correlations between ToM and scores on the CCC 2 14 Sideris (2012) 21, FXS ratings) false belief initiation subscale for ASD (1.35) and coherence 15 only, 9;7 (reduced subscale for FXS (0.77). 16 21, DS, verbal load), 17 10;10 appearance 18 20, TD, reality and 19 4;10 perspective 20 (All groups taking. 21 male) Advanced 22 battery: 23 perspective 24 25 taking, diverse 26 desires, 27 diverse belief, 28 false belief and 29 knowledge 30 access 31 Maridaki 76, TD, 5;6 Listening Skills Composite of: False belief was correlated with two out of four 32 Kassotaki, and Test. Unexpected components of the LIST: referent identification (0.47) 33 Antonopoulou Test of transfer test and comprehension of directions (0.61) 34 (2011) Referential Deceptive box It was also correlated with one out of the three 35 Communication test components of the TREC: the ability to detect ambiguity 36 Deceptive in oral messages and respond adequately as listener 37 38 object test (0.66). It did not correlate with the component ‘adequate 39 message to speaker’. 40 41 42 43 44 45 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] 46 47 48 Language, Learning and Development Page 72 of 83
1 2 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 72 3 4 5 NB Many items on this LIST could be classified as 6 calling on semantic knowledge whereas the TREC 7 requires children to unambiguously describe a target in 8 an array of distractors (and to do the receptive 9 equivalent) 10
11 12 Massaro et al., 34, TD, 5;8 IronyFor Peer Review 1st order Metacognitive Only Collapsing across age groups and partialling out age, 13 (2014) 36, TD, 7;3 comprehension: (unexpected vocabulary test; there was a significant correlation between both irony 14 socially shared transfer) and Italian tasks and both vocabulary tasks and some correlation 15 (SS) irony and 2nd order FB standardisation with FB1: 16 situationally tasks of PPVT R SS irony: correlated with PPVT (0.56); and MVT (0.47) 17 defined (SD) ToM and FB1 (0.54) 18 irony SD irony: correlated with PPVT (0.74); and MVT (0.51) 19 20 Regression analyses by age revealed nothing was 21 predictive of 5 year olds’ comprehension. For 7 year 22 olds, only vocabulary was a predictor of SS irony. 23 Vocabulary and MVT were predictors of SD irony. 24 nd 25 NB: Only one item tapping 2 order ToM – lack of 26 variance could explain some null findings. 27 28 McEvoy, 17, ASD, ESCS: Joint I – AB error Verbal tasks Correlation analyses run for three groups combined for 29 Rogers, and 5;1 Attention, Social task from the BSID children contributing data to the spatial reversal task 30 Pennington 13, DD, 4;2 Interaction and I – Delayed Picture naming (focused on because most sensitive to group differences 31 (1993) 16, TD, 3;2 Behaviour response task and Perseverative errors on the spatial reversal task were 32 regulation CF – Spatial identification correlated with the Joint Attention scale of ESCS and ( 33 scales. reversal task œ and verbal tasks 1.25) and the Social interaction scale ( 0.98) 34 CF – from the 35 Alternation Stanford Binet Verbal ability was correlated with the Social interaction 36 task Intelligence scale ( 0.82) 37 38 Scale 39 Regression analysis controlling for group membership 40 41 42 43 44 45 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] 46 47 48 Page 73 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
1 2 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 73 3 4 5 and verbal ability revealed that joint attention was a 6 significant predictor of spatial reversal. 7 8 NB The ESCS largely assesses non verbal 9 communication and some scales could equally be 10 categorised as a measure of mentalising. 11 12 For Peer Review Only 13 Mewhort 88, TD, Irony 2nd order false Picture When a speaker made an ironic criticism, receptive 14 Buist and 9;10 comprehension belief task Vocabulary vocabulary skills were correlated with understanding the 15 Nilsen, 2013 (understanding subtest of the speaker’s belief (0.37) and their intent (0.68). ToM 16 speaker belief TOLD I:4 skills were not correlated with understanding (although 17 and intent for the measure of understanding speaker belief was almost 18 criticism and at ceiling). 19 compliments) 20 When a speaker made an ironic compliment, vocabulary 21 skills were significantly associated with understanding 22 the speaker’s belief (0.37) but not their intent. ToM was 23 correlated with understanding the speaker’s belief (.36) 24 but not their intent. 25 26 NB Large number of measures correlated, with some 27 28 towards ceiling. 29 30 Miniscalco, 34, ASD, Swedish version CDI words and Partial correlations (accounting for age): 31 Rudling, 3;5 of CDI:WS gestures (CDI: Pragmatics scales at time 1 and 2 were significantly 32 Rastam, and 4;6 WG) positively correlated with vocabulary (time 1 (1.76); time 33 Gillberg, and Pragmatics scale CDI:WS 2 (1.25)) and grammar (time 1 (2.20); time 2 (1.07)). 34 Johnels (2014) from Swedish 35 CDI:WS In a regression analysis predicting time 2 pragmatic 36 score, with age, time elapsed since time 1 and time 1 37 pragmatic score as control, vocab and grammar did not 38 predict pragmatic language outcomes (but the ‘imitating 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] 46 47 48 Language, Learning and Development Page 74 of 83
1 2 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 74 3 4 5 adults score did). 6 7 NB The pragmatic scale assessed whether children use 8 language to talk about the past or future and whether 9 they engage in pretend play. 10 11 Nadig, 17, HFA, Referential CELF 4 Level 1 adaptation (when both speaker and addresses can 12 Vivanti and 11;3 communicationFor Peer Review Onlysee all the objects, providing sufficient disambiguating 13 14 Ozonoff 17, TD, tasks information to select one) was correlated with formal 15 (2009) 10;8 language level for the TD group (1.07) but not the HFA 16 group. 17 18 Level 2 adaptation (when an addressee cannot see all the 19 objects, only using descriptions that make sense from 20 their point of view) was not correlated with language 21 level for the TD group but it was for the HFA group 22 (0.85). 23 24 25 26 Level 3 adaptation (efficiently providing indirect clues to 27 hidden object identity) was correlated with language 28 level for both the TD (marginally significant correlation) 29 and the HFA group. 30 31 Nicholson et 31, TD, 9;2 Comprehension Empathy CCC 2 No measure of irony comprehension was correlated with 32 al., 2013) of ironic Quotient (EQ (subscales A D) the CCC2 structural language or pragmatic subscales. 33 34 criticisms (overt C) The structural language subscales of the CCC2 were 35 forced choice 36 response and eye correlated with the pragmatic subscales (1.67) 37 movement 38 measures) Comprehension choice scores were correlated with 39 CCC 2 empathy quotient (0.95) and some eye movement 40 41 42 43 44 45 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] 46 47 48 Page 75 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
1 2 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 75 3 4 5 (subscales E H) measures. 6 7 NB large number of measures correlated in analyses. 8 9 10 11 Nilsen and 34, TD, 4;1 Referential I – Day night PPVT III Inhibition was not related to looking time or object 12 Graham, (then communicationFor Peer I – Grass snow Review Onlychoice. 13 (2012) longitudinal – Task assessing Inhibition was not related to message evaluations within 14 ly followed object choice, the same assessment period 15 16 to 4;6 and looking time, For the knowledgeable ambiguous condition, 17 5;0) and message inhibition at 4 years was correlated message evaluation 18 evaluation. both at 4;6 (1.35) and 5;0 (0.95) when verbal skills were 19 controlled for. 20 Inhibition was not correlated with performance in any of 21 the other conditions 22 23 Vocabulary skills were not significantly related to 24 message evaluations at any age 25 Nilsen and 60, TD, 5;0 Referential WM – PPVT III The production measure was only correlated with 26 Graham, communication Backwards memory for objects (0.61) and this did not hold when age 27 (2009) – task with objects digit span and verbal skills were controlled for. 28 29 experiment in/outside visual WM – 30 one common ground. Memory for All three measures of comprehension (of egocentric 31 Production and objects taken interpretation) were significantly negatively correlated 32 comprehension from WISC III with performance on inhibition tasks but not other 33 (object choice I – Red measures of EF (Red/blue dog; 0.65, Tapping task; 34 and looking dog/blue dog 0.52). After controlling for age and verbal skills, 35 time) measures I – Tapping correlations remained between red/blue dog task and 36 task both looking time and choice of referential alternative ( 37 CF – Flexible 0.52) and between the tapping task and looking time. 38 item selection 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] 46 47 48 Language, Learning and Development Page 76 of 83
1 2 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 76 3 4 5 PPVT was correlated with how often two objects were 6 chosen in privileged ground condition ( 0.54) 7 Nilsen and 47, TD, Referential I – PPVT PPVT was correlated with how often a referential 8 Graham 3;10 communication Bear/dragon alternative was picked in privileged ground condition - 9 (2009) – task with objects task (conflict .77 but not other measures of egocentric comprehension 10 11 experiment in/outside visual inhibition) (although association was in same direction). 12 two commonFor ground. Peer I – Gift delay Review Only 13 Comprehension task (delay The bear/dragon task was correlated with duration of 14 measures of inhibition) egocentric eye gaze ( 0.98) and remained so when verbal 15 egocentrism skills and age were controlled for. It was not correlated 16 (object choice with the object choice measures of comprehension. 17 and looking time The gift delay task was significantly correlated with the 18 measures) choice comprehension measures ( 0.71), however only 19 the relationship between gift delay and both objects 20 chosen remained significant when age and verbal skills 21 were controlled for ( 0.68). There was no correlation 22 between the gift delay task and duration of eye gaze 23 In a regression model, children’s performance on the 24 25 conflict inhibition task was the only variable that 26 accounted for unique variance in the looking time 27 measure (18%). 28 29 Nilsen, 53, TD, 8;8 Irony 2nd order false Picture In this task children heard a story about two protagonists 30 Glenwright comprehension – belief tasks Vocabulary a speaker who made a sarcastic remark, and a listener 31 and Huyder forced choice subtest of the who was either in a position to understand it was 32 (2011) measure TOLD Primary sarcastic or not. A measure of children’s sensitivity to 33 3 the listener’s knowledge state affecting their 34 understanding of the speaker’s intentions was 35 significantly correlated with 2nd order ToM (0.70) but 36 not with their understanding of the listener’s 37 38 interpretation of humorous intent. Receptive vocabulary 39 was not correlated with either measure although it was 40 41 42 43 44 45 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] 46 47 48 Page 77 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
1 2 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 77 3 4 5 correlated with a measure of understanding what the 6 listener would believe to be the true state of affairs 7 (0.56). 8 9 10 11 12 For Peer Review Only 13 14 15 16 Norbury, 22, DLD, Narrative CELF 4, Verbal In the DLD group, language ability was not correlated 17 Gemmel, and 6;7 – 15;4 elicitation task, IQ (WISC or with pragmatic errors. 18 Paul (2014) 26, ASD, wordless picture BPVS) In the ASD group language ability was negatively 19 20 6;6 – 15;9 book coded for correlated with pragmatic errors (1.22) However, it was 21 27, TD, internal state also negatively correlated with relevant propositions ( 22 6;9 – 15;2 language, 1.35), suggesting more verbally able children may be 23 relevant content, more verbose but not in an adaptive way. 24 pragmatic errors, 25 and 26 macrostructure 27 28 O’Reilly, 10, native Comprehension 1st and 2nd Syntax subtest For all children combined, the ToM measure was 29 Peterson and signing of sarcasm order false of CELF correlated with sarcasm measure (1.12) 30 Wellman deaf, 9;0, belief Preschool For the deaf children only, this correlation was re run 31 (2014) 32, deaf of translated into partialling out age and language ability and an 32 hearing Auslan or NSS correlation between ToM and sarcasm comprehension 33 parents (late (no test remained (.90) 34 signers), 9;3 administered for 35 39 hearing hearing 36 children, children) 37 8;8 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] 46 47 48 Language, Learning and Development Page 78 of 83
1 2 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 78 3 4 5 Pellicano 37, ASD, ADOS G Aggregate of: Sum of: 1st PPVT III Individual differences in children’s verbal ability ( 0.77) 6 (2013) 6;7 at time (higher scores P – Tower of order ToM ( 0.79) and EF ( 1.15) scores at time 1 were 7 1, follow up reflect greater London task unexpected significantly and negatively related to ADOS G scores at 8 3 years later difficulty with CF – Teddy contents task, time 2 (whereas time 1 age, non verbal ability and 9 (time 2) social bear set 1st order central coherence bore no such relation). 10 communication) shifting task unexpected When age, verbal ability, and non verbal ability at time 1 11 12 For PeerIC – Luria’s Reviewlocation task, Onlywere partialled out, only early differences in EF scores 13 hand game 2nd order remained related to later ADOS G scores (0.21) 14 P – Mazes task unexpected In a regression analysis, only EF (not ToM or Central 15 from the location task Coherence) predicted unique variance (16%) above and 16 Wechsler beyond age verbal and non verbal ability. 17 Preschool and 18 Primary Scales 19 of Intelligence 20 –Revised 21 Pesco and 348 LUI parent DELV NR For children with LUI total score collected between 12 22 O’Neill children completed (total language and 24 months (N= 112), there was a correlation with the 23 (2012) between 18 (language total composite DELV NR language composite at 5;8 (0.4) but not with 24 25 and 47 score) score), The the other two language measures. 26 months CELF P2 (core For children with LUI total score collected between 24 27 when LUI language score); and 29 months (N= 94), there was a correlation with all 28 collected CCC2 (language three language outcome measures at 5;8 ( d between .6 29 and mean composite) and .73) 30 age 5;8 For children with LUI total score collected between 30 31 when and 35 months (N= 67), there was a correlation with all 32 language three language outcome measures at 5;8 (average d = 33 outcomes 1.21) 34 collected. For children with LUI total score collected between 36 35 Oversampli and 41 months (N= 32), there was a correlation with all 36 ng to ensure three language outcome measures at 5;8 ( d between .79 37 38 representati and 1.4). 39 on of For children with LUI total score collected between 42 40 41 42 43 44 45 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] 46 47 48 Page 79 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
1 2 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 79 3 4 5 children and 47 months (N= 43), there was a correlation with all 6 with weak three language outcome measures at 5;8 ( d between .35 7 pragmatic and .67) 8 skills on Thus the LUIs predictive validity changed with age and 9 LUI peaked approximately when children turn 3 years of age. 10 11 12 For Peer Review Only 13 14 15 Pexman et al. 118 older Production of PPVT No correlations observed between receptive vocabulary 16 (2009) TD, 9;9, irony during and irony production. 17 and 118 naturalistic play NB broad definition of irony used. 18 younger with two other 19 TD 6;9 family members 20 Resches and 74, TD, 4;6 Referential ToM – 2 tasks ToM was correlated with the number of accurate 21 22 Pereira (2007) communication assessing descriptions children produced (1.96), an association 23 task – treasure knowledge that remained once age was controlled for (0.87). 24 hunt where ignorance and ToM was also negatively correlated with the number of 25 director child 1st order false ambiguous descriptions produced ( 1.58) but once age 26 helps another belief was controlled for this association did not hold. 27 who was not 28 previously party NB pragmatic ability was a property of dyads, large 29 to information number of correlations run. 30 about location of 31 treasure 32 Rinaldi, 23, deaf, Italian version of Short form of Significant correlation between word production and the 33 Baruffaldi, 1;7 3;0 the Social the Italian pragmatic subscales assertiveness (1.67) and 34 35 Burdo, and (correlation Conversational version of the responsiveness (2.02) 36 Caselli (2013) s N = 11) Skills Rating MacArthur 37 Scale. Parent Bates CDI 38 report with Words and 39 assertiveness Sentences 40 41 42 43 44 45 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] 46 47 48 Language, Learning and Development Page 80 of 83
1 2 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 80 3 4 5 and (expressive 6 responsiveness vocabulary 7 scales analysed) 8 9 10 Rints, 36, TD, 3;7 CASL – I – Statue Controlling for age, children who made more movement 11 McAuley, and Pragmatic subtest of the errors on the Statue task also obtained lower scores on 12 Nilsen (2015) JudgementFor PeerNEPSY II Review Onlythe CASL ( 1.12) 13 subtest Children who were rated as more inattentive or 14 LUI (part 3) SWAN parent hyperactive impulsive by their parents were also rated as 15 rating scale: having poorer pragmatic skills on the LUI (.80) 16 total scores 17 18 reflecting 19 inattention and 20 hyperactivity 21 impulsivity 22 Slomkowski 36 TD (3;4 Naturalistic 1st order ToM False belief scores were correlated with mean length of 23 and Dunn for ToM conversation (change of connected episode (.84), mean length of play episode 24 (1996) assessment with a peer location tasks) (.93) and mean length of pretend episode (.70) 25 3;11 for coded for 26 communicat connectedness 27 ion) 28 Tager 27, ASD, Narrative 1st order ToM PPVT No correlations were observed for the Developmentally 29 30 Flusberg and 16;8 production based (4 false belief CELF Sentence Delayed group. 31 Sullivan 27 DD, on wordless tasks) Structure and For the ASD group, ToM scores were correlated with 32 (1995) 12;6 picture book Formulated narrative measures including number of propositions 33 Sentences (1.12), and number of connectives (1.03). (NB no clear 34 division between formal and pragmatic narrative 35 measures as this was not the focus of the study) 36 37 Volden et al., 37, ASD, TOPL CELF 3 70% of variance in TOPL was explained by a model 38 (2009) 8;6 VABS including CELF expressive, CELF receptive and a non 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] 46 47 48 Page 81 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
1 2 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 81 3 4 5 (Communication verbal cognitive score. Only the CELF measures were 6 and significant predictors. So combined formal language 7 Socialization scores explain majority of variance in TOPL. 8 scales) CELF expressive, CELF receptive and TOPL account fo 9 ADOS 30% of the overall variance in VABS Communication 10 communication Scale. But TOPL did not explain unique variance. No 11 12 For Peer Review Onlypredictive value of any measures for the Socialization 13 scale. 14 Only TOPL scores predicted ADOS communication. 15 Whyte and 26, ASD, CASL Children’s Syntax Pragmatic judgment scores were correlated with syntax 16 Nelson (2015) 9;8 (Pragmatic version of the construction scores both for TD children (2.87) and children with 17 69, TD, Judgment reading the subtest of the ASD (2.97) 18 8;10 subtest and mind in the CASL Pragmatic judgment scores were correlated with 19 Nonliteral eyes task Receptive and vocabulary scores both for TD children (3.22) and 20 Language (Baron Cohen expressive children with ASD (2.49) 21 subtest) et al., 2001) vocabulary from Pragmatic judgment scores were correlated with ToM 22 Verbal IQ scores both for TD children (1.39) and children with 23 subtests from ASD (1.54) 24 25 the Kaufman When controlling for vocabulary and syntax, ToM 26 Brief abilities were correlated with pragmatic judgment scores 27 Intelligence for TD children (0.52) but not for children with ASD. nd 28 Test, 2 edition Nonliteral language abilities were correlated with syntax 29 age for TD children (2.98), and for children with ASD 30 (2.27). 31 Nonliteral language abilities were correlated with 32 vocabulary age for TD children (2.87), and for children 33 with ASD (2.76). 34 Nonliteral language abilities were correlated with TOM 35 for TD children (1.76), and for children with ASD (1.35) 36 These correlations held when vocabulary and syntax 37 38 were controlled for (TD 0.93, ASD 0.80) 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] 46 47 48 Language, Learning and Development Page 82 of 83
1 2 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 82 3 4 5 Note: Acronyms used in the table are as follows: 6 7 Population: 8 TD = Typically Developing, ASD = Autism Spectrum Disorder, DLD = Developmental Language Disorder, SCD= Social Communication Disorder, FXS 9 Fragile X Syndrome, WM = working memory, O = organization, CF = cognitive flexibility, I = inhibition, SC = self control, P = planning 10
11 12 Pragmatic tests: For Peer Review Only 13 ADOS G = Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule – General (Lord et al., 2000) 14 CASL = Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language, (Carrow Woolfolk, 1999) 15 CCC, CCC2 = Children’s Communication Checklist 2 (Bishop, 2003) 16 ELI = Evaluacion del Lenguaje Infantil (Saborit & Julian, 2005) 17 LITMUS MAIN = Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives (Gagarina et al., 2012) 18 LUI = Language Use Inventory (O’Neill, 2009) 19 MCDS = Mindful Conversational Difficulties Scale (Peterson, Garnett Kelly & Attwood, 2009) 20 SCQ = Social Communication Questionnaire (Rutter, Bailey, & Lord, 2003) 21 TOPL Test of Pragmatic Language (Phelps Terasaki & Phelps Gunn, 1992) 22 VABS Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (Sparrow, Balla, Cicchetti, 1997) 23
24 25 Executive function tests: 26 BRIEF = Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning (Gioia, Isquith, Guy, & Kenworthy, 2000) 27 DCCS = The Dimensional Change Card Sort (Zelazo, 2006) 28 D KEFS = Delis Kaplan Eexecutive Function System (Delis et al., 2001) 29 NEPSY II = Neuro Psychological Assessment of Children (Korkman, Kirk, & Kemp, 2007) 30 SWAN = Strengths and Weaknesses of ADHD Symptoms and Normal 31 Behavior rating scale. (Swanson, n.d.) 32 WISC IV = Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Wechsler, 2003) 33 WJ Revised = Woodcock–Johnson (Revised) Tests of Cognitive Ability (Woodcock, 1989) 34 35 Theory of Mind tests: 36 ESCS Early Social Communication Scale (Mundy et al., 2003) 37 38 39 Formal language tests: 40 41 42 43 44 45 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] 46 47 48 Page 83 of 83 Language, Learning and Development
1 2 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PRAGMATIC ABILITY 83 3 4 5 BPVS = The British picture vocabulary scale (Dunn & Dunn, 2009) 6 BSID Bayley Scales of Infant Development (Bayley, 1969) 7 CDI (WG, WS) = The MacArthur Bates Communicative Development Inventories (Words & Gestures, Words & Sentences. Fenson et al., 1996) 8 CEG = Comprension de Estructuras Gramaticales (Mendoza et al. 2005) 9 CELF 4, CEFL Preschool 2 = Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (Semel, Wiig, Secord, & Langdon, 2006). 10 DELV NR = Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation Norm Referenced (Seymour, Roeper, & de Villiers, 2005) 11 12 ELI = Evaluacion del Lenguaje Infantil (SaboritFor and JulianPeer 2005) Review Only 13 ISADYLE = Instruments pour le Screening et l'Evaluation Approfondie 14 des Dysfonctionnements du Langage chez l'Enfant (Piérart, Comblain, Gregoire, & Mousty, 2009) 15 KBIT 2 = Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test 2 (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004) 16 OWLS = Oral and Written Language Scales (Carrow Woolfolk, 1995) 17 PPVT (R, III) = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (multiple editions: Dunn & Dunn, 1981, 2007) 18 TAK = Taaltoets Alle Kinderen Verhoeven & Vermeer, 2001) 19 TOLD = Test of Language Development Primary 3rd Edition (Newcomer & Hammill, 1997) 20 WASI = Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (Wechsler, 1999) 21 WPPSI = Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (multiple editions: Wechsler, Scales & Index, 2012) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hlld Email: [email protected] 46 47 48