Investigations in Clinical Phonetics and Linguistics

Investigations in Clinical Phonetics and Linguistics

Investigations in Clinical Phonetics and Linguistics

Investigations in Clinical Phonetics and Linguistics

Synopsis

Investigations in Clinical Phonetics and Linguistics is a sequel to the eighth meeting of the International Clinical Phonetics and Linguistics Association, attended by delegates from 26 different countries. This book reflects the scope of the subject area of clinical phonetics and linguistics, the balance of input into it with respect to the different kinds of research being carried on, and the representation of researchers from different parts of the world. Its scope includes the application of all levels of linguistic analysis and the chapters of the book have been ordered as far as possible according to linguistic level, beginning with pragmatics and ending with acoustics. It will be immediately apparent that a greater number of chapters are concerned with applications of phonetics and phonology then with any other levels.

Excerpt

Definitions of pragmatics vary widely, and yet despite this, in most clinical studies and assessments of pragmatic impairment it is taken for granted that the nature of pragmatics is well known and straightforward, even though quite inconsistent analytical frameworks are used. To cite only one example, two widely used checklists of pragmatic impairment — Penn's Profile of Communicative Appropriateness, and Prutting & Kirchner's Pragmatic Protocol (Penn, 1988; Prutting & Kirchner, 1983), contain 30 and 51 items respectively, and yet have only about a dozen items in common (Perkins, 2000).

A classic definition of pragmatics is 'the way language is used', and yet we often find non-linguistic features of communication such as gesture, eye gaze, posture and social rapport described as examples of pragmatics even when they occur independently of language use, as often happens in aphasia. This is common in the language pathology literature. For example, Dronkers, Ludy and Redfern (1998) and Avent, Wertz and Auther (1998) both assume that 'pragmatic behavior' is isolable and distinct from linguistic behavior, as is clear from the titles of their articles — viz. “Pragmatics in the absence of verbal language” and “Relationship between language impairment and pragmatic behavior in aphasic adults” respectively. Neurolinguists, also, tend to distinguish . . .

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.