@phdthesis{discovery10021777,
            note = {There are extra pages 313a, 389a, 671 and 681 (4) but no pages 518, 522, pp. 562-569, 632, 641, 643, 645, 647, 649, 652, 654, 656, 658-660 (22) which is 18 fewer pages in total. The thesis therefore has 666 pages not 684.},
            year = {1997},
           title = {Understanding pragmatic meaning: a study of secondary school students with specific developmental language disorder.},
          school = {Institute of Education, University of London},
        abstract = {This study explores the hypothesis that there are
particular difficulties for secondary school students
with specific developmental language disorder (SDLD)
in understanding contextual, pragmatic meaning in
relation to non pragmatic (semantic) meaning. It
compares sixty-four SDLD students, aged between twelve
and fourteen years, with chronolgical-age-matched and
language-age-matched non-language impaired students.
Language age is measured by a test of non-pragmatic
meaning comprehension.
Incorporating the development of new procedures, the
study examines the students' comprehension of two
types of ambiguity where the context determines the
speaker's intention: inconsistent messages of emotion
and multiple meanings in context. These types of
ambiguity are evident in a range of communicative
intent, for example, to express sarcasm, idiomatic
expression, deceipt and humour. Preliminary study
into adolescent language suggests that, at this age,
there is a particular expectation for students to be
able to understand these kinds of communication, both
in the classroom and socially. The study provides much evidence to support its
central hypothesis: SDLD students made significantly
fewer pragmatic responses than both comparison groups.
The way students responded suggested two types of
pragmatic analysis, one concerning plausibility
judgment and a second concerning awareness of multiple
reference and detection of miscomprehension. Nonlanguage-
impaired children were significantly more
able to use these types of analysis, for example, to
rule out literal interpretations when they did not
know the contextually implied meaning. Some evidence
is provided to suggest that these analyses are
underpinned by skills in both the metacommunicative
and linguistic domains.
The study's findings have several implcations for
research and practice. The are serious implications,
for example, for diagnostic assessment, in the light
of the literature survey revealing that those
currently available do not assess pragmatic meaning
comprehension. The findings further provide a basis
to challenge a view that disorders in the semantic and
pragmatic domains necessarily co-occur, as reflected
in the diagnostic category semanti-pragmatic disorder.},
          author = {Rinaldi, Wendy Frances.},
             url = {https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10021777/}
}