Cover not available
Part of
Sources of Variation in First Language Acquisition: Languages, contexts, and learners
Edited by Maya Hickmann †, Edy Veneziano and Harriet Jisa
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 22] 2018
► pp. 427–438

Chapter 20
Non-literal language comprehension

Brain damage and developmental perspectives

| Centre de Recherches en Psychologie, Cognition et Communication, Université Rennes 2
| Laboratoire Parole & Langage, CNRS & Université Aix-Marseille
Nonliteral language includes any utterance that produces an apparent need to go beyond what is literally stated, in order to comprehend the speaker’s communicative intent and, consequently, to understand the meaning of these utterances in a given context. Impaired comprehension of indirect requests has been reported in adults with acquired brain lesions. There is little available knowledge on the development of pragmatic skills in children and adolescents with brain damage. Do children with brain damage differ from brain-damaged adults in request comprehension? To answer the question, this chapter adopts a developmental perspective, describing the results of studies with adults and children with acquired brain lesions.
Keywords: pragmatics, non-literal language, comprehension of requests, acquired brain lesions
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Indirect request comprehension in adults with right-hemisphere damage and adults with traumatic brain injury
  • 3.Request comprehension in children and adolescents with frontal lesions
  • 4.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 22 February 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.22.21dar
References (63)
References
Anderson, V., Catroppa, C., Morse, S., Haritou, F. & Rosenfeld, J. 2005. Functional plasticity or vulnerability after early brain injury? Pediatrics 116(6): 1374–1382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angeleri, R., Bosco, F. M., Zettin, M., Sacco, K., Colle, L. & Bara, B. G. 2008. Communicative impairment in traumatic brain injury: A complete pragmatic assessment. Brain and Language 107(3): 229–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do Things with Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bara, B. G., Tirassa, M. & Zettin, M. 1997. Neuropragmatics: Neuropsychological constraints on formal theories of dialogue. Brain and Language 59: 7–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M. & Frith, U. 1985. Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”? Cognition 21(1): 37–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, E. 1976. Language and Context: The Acquisition of Pragmatics. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bernicot, J. 1991. French children’s conception of requesting: The development of metapragmatic knowledge. International Journal of Behavioral Development 14: 285–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994. Speech acts in young children: Vygotsky's contribution. European Journal of Psychology of Education 9: 311–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernicot, J. & Dardier, V. 2001. Communication deficits: Assessment of frontal lobe damage subjects in an interview setting. International Journal of Language Communication Disorders 36(2): 245–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernicot, J., Laval, V. & Chaminaud, S. 2007. Nonliteral language forms in children: In what order are they acquired in pragmatics and metapragmatics? Journal of Pragmatics 39: 2115–2132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernicot, J. & Legros, S. 1987. Direct and indirect directives: What do you young children understand? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 7: 267–293.Google Scholar
Biddle, K. R., McCabe, A. & Bliss, L. S. 1996. Narrative skills following traumatic brain injury in children and adults. Journal of Communication Disorders 29: 447–469. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brooks, D. N. 1984. Closed Head Injury: Psychological, Social and Family Consequences. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Brooks, D. N., Campsie, L., Symington, C., Beattie, A. & Mc Kinlay, W. 1986. The five year outcome of severe blunt head injury: A relative’s view. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 49(7): 764–770. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brownell, H. & Stringfellow, A. 1999. Making requests: Illustrations of how right-hemisphere brain damage can affect discourse production. Brain and Language 68(3): 442–465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruner, J. S. 1983. Child’s Talk: Learning to Use Language. New York NY: Norton.Google Scholar
Catroppa, C. & Anderson, V. 2009. Traumatic brain injury in childhood: Rehabilitation considerations. Developmental Neurorehabilitation 12(1): 53–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Champagne, M., Desautels, M. C. & Joanette, Y. 2004. Lack of inhibition could contribute to non-literal language impairments in right-hemisphere-damaged individuals. Brain and Language 91: 172–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Champagne, M., Virbel, J., Nespoulous, J. L. & Joanette, Y. 2003. Impact of right hemispheric damage on a hierarchy of complexity evidenced in young normal subjects. Brain and Cognition 53(2): 152–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Champagne-Lavau, M. & Joanette, Y. 2009. Pragmatics, theory of mind and executive functions after a right-hemisphere lesion: Different patterns of deficits. Journal of Neurolinguistic 22(5): 413–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Channon, S., Pellijeff, A. & Rule, A. 2005. Social cognition after head injury: Sarcasm and theory of mind. Brain and Language 93: 123–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chapman, S. B., Sparks, G., Levin, H. S., Dennis, M., Roncadin, C., Zhang, L. et al. 2004. Discourse macrolevel processing after severe pediatric traumatic brain injury. Developmental Neuropsychology 25(1–2): 37–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dardier, V. 2004. Pragmatique et pathologies. Comment étudier les troubles de l’usage du langage. Paris: Bréal.Google Scholar
Dardier, V., Delaye, C. & Laurent-Vannier, A. 2003. La compréhension des actes de langage par des enfants et des adolescents porteurs de lésions frontales: L’analyse des demandes. Enfance 3: 223–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dardier, V., Deleau, M., Delanoë, A., Delaye, C. & Laurent-Vannier, A. 2006. La compréhension des différentes formes de demandes chez des enfants et des adolescents lésés frontaux. Le Langage et l’Homme 41(2): 101–118.Google Scholar
Dardier, V., Bernicot, J., Delanoë, A., Vanberten, M., Fayada, C., Chevignard, M., Delaye, C., Laurent-Vannier, A. & Dubois, B. 2011. Severe traumatic brain injury, frontal lesions, and social aspects of language use: A study of French speaking adults. Journal of Communication Disorders 44(3): 359–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dennis, M., Guger, S., Roncadin, C., Barnes, M. & Schachar, R. 2001. Attentional- inhibitory control and social-behavioral regulation after childhood closed head injury: Do biological, developmental, and recovery variables predict outcome? Journal of International Neuropsychological Society 7(6): 683–692. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. 1976. Is Sybil there? The structure of some American directives. Language and Society 5: 25–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. & Mitchell-Kernan, C. 1977. Child Discourse. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ewing-Cobbs, L., Levin, H. S., Eisenberg, H. M. & Fletcher, J. M. 1987. Language functions following closed-head injury in children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 9: 575–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foldi, N. S. 1987. Appreciation of pragmatic interpretations of indirect commands: Comparison of right and left-hemisphere brain-damaged patients. Brain and Language 31(1): 88–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, P. 1969. Utterer's Meaning and Intentions. Philosophical Review 78: 147–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1975. Logic and Conversation. In Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts, P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds), 41–58. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hannequin, D., Goulet, P. & Joanette, Y. 1987. La contribution de l'hémisphère droit à la communication verbale. Paris: Masson.Google Scholar
Hebb, D. O. 1942. The effects of early and late brain injury upon test scores, and the nature of normal adult intelligence. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 85: 275–292.Google Scholar
Levin, H. & Kraus, M. F. 1994. The frontal lobes and traumatic brain injury. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 6: 443–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcos, H. & Bernicot, J. 1997. How do young children reformulate assertions? A comparison with requests. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 781–798. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, I. & McDonald, S. 2003. Weak coherence, no theory of mind, or executive dysfunction? Solving the puzzle of pragmatic language disorders. Brain and Language 85: 451–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonald, S. 1999. Exploring the process of inference generation in sarcasm: A review of normal and clinical studies. Brain and Language 68(3): 486–506. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. Exploring the cognitive basis of right hemisphere pragmatic language disorders. Brain and Language 75: 82–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonald, S., English, T., Randall, R., Longman, T., Togher, L. & Tate, R. L. 2013. Assessing social cognition and pragmatic language in adolescents with traumatic brain injuries. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 19: 528–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonald, S. & Pearce, S. 1996. Clinical insights into pragmatic theory: Frontal lobe deficits and sarcasm. Brain and Language 53: 81–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998. Request that overcome listener reluctance: Impairment associated with executive dysfunction in brain injury. Brain and Language 61: 88–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonald, S. & Van Sommers, P. 1993. Pragmatic skills after closed head injury: Ability to negotiate requests. Cognitive Neuropsychology 10: 297–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Monetta, L. & Champagne-Lavau, M. 2009. Right hemisphere damage and pragmatics. In The Pragmatics Encyclopedia (1st edition), L. Cummings (ed.), 438–440. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Myers, P. S. 1998. Right Hemisphere Damage: Disorders of Communication and Cognition. San Diego CA: Singular.Google Scholar
Ninio, A. & Snow, C. E. 1996. Pragmatic Development. Boulder CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Penn, C. 1999. Pragmatic assessment and therapy for persons with brain damage: What have clinicians gleaned in two decades? Brain and Language 68: 535–552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Premack, D. & Woodruff, G. 1978. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4: 515–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. & Vanderveken, D. 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Stemmer, B. 2008. Neuropragmatics: Disorders and neural systems. In Handbook of the Neuroscience of Language, B. Stemmer & H. Whitaker (eds), 175–187. London: Academic press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stemmer, B., Giroux, F. & Joanette, Y. 1994. Production and evaluation of requests by right hemisphere brain-damaged individuals. Brain and Language 47(1): 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toga, A. W., Thompson, P. M. & Sowell, E. R. 2006. Mapping brain maturation. Trends in Neurosciences 29(3): 148–159 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tompkins, C. A., Lehman, M. T., Baumgaertner, A., Fossett, T. R. D. & Vance, J. E. 1996. Suppression and discourse comprehension in right brain-damaged adults: Inferential ambiguity processing. Brain and Language 55(1): 172–175.Google Scholar
Towne, R. L. & Entwisle, L. M. 1993. Metaphoric comprehension in adolescents with traumatic brain injury and in adolescents with language learning disability. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools 24: 100–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turkstra, L. S., McDonald, S. & DePompeii, R. 2001. Social information processing in adolescents: Data from normally developing adolescents and preliminary data from their peers with traumatic brain injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 16(5): 469–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vanhalle, C., Lemieux, S., Joubert, S., Goulet, P., Ska, B. & Joanette, Y. 2000. Processing of speech acts by right hemisphere brain-damaged patients: An ecological approach. Aphasiology 11: 1127–1142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Leer, E. & Turkstra, L. 1999. The effect of elicitation task on discourse coherence and cohesion in adolescents with brain injury. Journal of Communication Disorders 32: 327–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, J. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J., Östman, J. -A. & Blommaert, J. 1995. Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weylman, S. T., Brownell, H. H., Roman, M. & Gardner, H. 1989. Appreciation of indirect requests by left-brain-damaged and right-brain-damaged patients: The effects of verbal context and conventionality of wording. Brain and Language 36(4): 580–591. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yeates, K. O., Swift, E., Taylor, H. G., Wade, S. L., Drotar, D., Stancin, T. & Minich, N. 2004. Short- and long-term social outcomes following pediatric traumatic brain injury. Journal of International Neuropsychological Society 10(3): 412–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Chevignard, Mathilde, Hugo Câmara-Costa & Georges Dellatolas
2020. Pediatric traumatic brain injury and abusive head trauma. In Neurocognitive Development: Normative Development [Handbook of Clinical Neurology, 173], ► pp. 451 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.