This study examined the judgments and response latencies of 10 participants with aphasia and 10 participants without aphasia for responses to indirect requests. Modals such as can and should were drawn from 5 indirect request categories. There was a significant difference in judgment errors and response latency between participants with and without aphasia. There were no significant differences between aphasic participants' judgments for literal versus nonliteral contrasts. There was a significant effect among the modals and among the categories of indirect requests. Response latency reflected aphasic participants' understanding of these indirect requests.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BollerF.GreenE. (1972) Comprehension in severe aphasics. Cortex, 8, 382–394.
2.
ClarkH. H.LucyP. (1975) Understanding what is meant from what is said a study in conversationally conveyed requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 56–72.
3.
DavisG. A. (2000) Aphasiology: Disorders and clinical practice. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
4.
FoldiN. S. (1987) Appreciation of pragmatic interpretations of indirect commands: Comparisons of right and left hemisphere brain-damaged patients. Brain and Language, 31, 88–108.
5.
GoodglassH.KaplanE. (1983) The assessment of aphasia and related disorders. (2nd ed.) Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.
6.
GriceH. P. (1975) Logic and conversation. In ColeP.MorganJ. L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts. Vol. 3. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 43–58.
7.
GroefsemaM. (1992) ‘Can you pass the salt?’ A short-circuited implicature. Lingua, 87, 103–135.
8.
HalpernH. (2000) Language and motor speech disorders in adults. (2nd ed.) Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
9.
JoanetteY.AnsaldoA. I. (1999) Clinical note: Acquired pragmatic impairments and aphasia. Brain and Language, 69, 5–15.
10.
KasherA.BatoriG.SorokerN.GravesD.ZaidelE. (1999) Effects of right- and left-hemisphere damage on understanding conversational implicatures. Brain and Language, 68, 566–590.
11.
McDonaldS.PearceS. (1998) Requests that overcome listener reluctance: Impairment associated with executive dysfunction in brain injury. Brain and Language, 61, 88–104.
12.
McDonaldS.van SommersP. (1993) Pragmatic language skills after closed head injury: Ability to negotiate requests. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 10, 297–315.
13.
MorganJ. L. (1978) Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In ColeP.MorganJ. L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Pragmatics. Vol. 9. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 261–280.
14.
PruttingC.KirchnerD. (1987) A clinical appraisal of the pragmatic aspects of language. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 52, 105–119.
15.
RolnickM.HoopsM. R. (1969) Aphasia as seen by the aphasic. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 34, 48–53.
16.
SearleJ. R. (1975) Indirect speech acts. In ColeP.MorganJ. L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts. Vol. 3. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 39–82.
17.
ShapiroA. M.MurphyG. L. (1993) Can you answer a question for me? Processing indirect speech acts. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 211–229.
18.
SmithF. (1982) Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read, (3rd ed.) New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
StemmerB.GiruxF.JoanetteY. (1994) Production and evaluation of request by right hemisphere brain-damaged individuals. Brain and Language. 47, 1–31.
21.
VanhalleC.LemieuxS.JoubertS.GouletP.SkaB.JoanetteY. (2000) Processing of speech acts by right hemisphere damaged patients: An ecological approach. Aphasiology, 14, 1127–1142.
22.
WeylmanS. T.BrownellH. H.RomanM.GardmerH. (1989) Appreciation of indirect requests by left- and right-brain damaged patients: The effects of verbal context and conventionality of wording. Brain and Language, 36, 580–591.
23.
WilcoxM. J.DavisG. A.LeonardL. B. (1978) Aphasics' comprehension of contextually conveyed meaning. Brain and Language, 6, 362–377.
