J Psycholinguist Res (2014) 43:4558

DOI 10.1007/s10936-013-9238-6

Pragmatic Language Development in Language Impaired

and Typically Developing Children: Incorrect Answers
in Context
Nuala Ryder Eeva Leinonen

Published online: 14 February 2013

Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract This study focussed on young childrens incorrect answers to pragmatically

demanding questions. Children with specific language impairment (SLI), including a subgroup with pragmatic language difficulties (PLD) and typically developing children answered
questions targeting implicatures, based on a storybook and short verbal scenarios. Ninetyseven children participated in this study: 30 children with SLI of whom 12 had PLD, 32
typically developing children aged 56 years and 35 aged 711 years. The incorrect answers
produced by the children with SLI were similar in their use of context to those of the 56 year
old, suggesting developmental delay. The children with PLD produced significantly more
irrelevant answers than both the language impaired children without PLD and the typically
developing groups and had most difficulty when the context was presented solely verbally.
Results are discussed in relation to a cognitive theory of communication and the clinical
implications.
Keywords Specific language impairment Pragmatic language impairment
Incorrect answers Implicatures Relevance theory

Introduction
Answering questions about a given content is prevalent in the lives of children. The ability to
create meaning on the basis of the integration of the relevant information from the available
context, conceptual information, and previously acquired information (knowledge) is seen to
develop between the ages of 3 and 6 years (Ryder and Graves 1998; Winer et al. 2001; Sperber
and Wilson 2002). Around the age of 3 years, childrens incorrect answers to questions are

N. Ryder (B)
Department of Psychology, University of Hertfordshire, College Lane, Hatfield, Herts AL10 9AB, UK
e-mail: n.ryder@herts.ac.uk
E. Leinonen
School of Psychology, The University of Wollongong, Northfields Ave, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
e-mail: leinonen@uow.edu.au

123

46

J Psycholinguist Res (2014) 43:4558

suggested to reflect strategies such as preferentially using knowledge from memory, guessing
outcomes or answering on the basis of a key word (Paul 1990; Ryder and Leinonen 2003). For
some children i.e. children with specific language impairment (SLI) or children with primarily
pragmatic language difficulties (PLD), the use of such compensatory strategies continues for
longer suggesting an impaired ability in integrating relevant information in a given context
(Bishop and Adams 1992; Paul 1990; Bishop 2000; Bishop et al. 2000; Leinonen et al. 2003;
Botting and Adams 2005). The theoretical grounding of these strategies is important in the
clinical setting and Relevance Theory (Sperber and Wilson 1995) provides a framework in
which to explain this development in typically developing children, and children with SLI
with and without pragmatic difficulties.
Children with SLI have a delayed developmental language profile in the absence of any
explanation (normal cognitive, neurological and sensory functioning). On verbal language
tasks, 711 year old children with SLI perform similarly to 4 year old children who are still
developing the ability to integrate information and process implicatures (the outcome of this
integration). Implicatures from a Relevance Theory perspective are not inferences, but the
outcome of combining information from context (i.e. perceptual information, knowledge
in memory including conceptual knowledge, knowledge of previously generated inferences
and experiential knowledge). Both groups have been found to be competent at inferring
semantic and referential meaning (Leinonen et al. 2003; Bishop and Adams 1992; Botting and
Adams 2005). Children diagnosed with SLI comprise a heterogeneous group within which
are a sub-group of children whose primary difficulties are in pragmatic areas of language
referred to as Pragmatic Language Impairment (PLI). There is much debate over the diagnosis
of this impairment but it is generally held that these children speak in fluent and wellformed utterances with adequate articulation but have pragmatic language difficulties (PLD)
characterised by over-literal interpretation, the odd content and language use, and may have
difficulty maintaining a topic or be poor at turn-taking. The responses of these children on
verbal comprehension tasks suggest an impaired ability in understanding meaning in context
or difficulty in integrating relevant information (Bishop and Adams 1992; Ryder et al. 2008).
In typically developing 2 and 3 year old children a preference or reliance on world knowledge/experience is evident in their responses. Paul (1990) for example, found that where
children may have only partial understanding of principal semantic and/or syntactic structures of scenarios and questions in language tasks, they use their world knowledge/experience
or a probable reasoning strategy in preference to the given information. World knowledge
includes schemas, personal knowledge/experiences and knowledge about the specific communicative situation. Three and four year old children have similarly been found to use their
world knowledge in preference to the meaning of the linguistic expression (Strohner and
Nelson 1974; Marinac and Ozanne 1999) or the speakers intended meaning (Robinson and
Whittaker 1987) when answering questions. Explanations of these strategies have included
suggestions that childrens incorrect answers reflect a literal interpretation of the questions
or discourse (Marinac and Ozanne 1999; Winer et al. 2001) and a lack of abstract thinking. Winer et al. (2001) suggested abstract thinking facilitates the ability to think about the
intention of the speaker in asking a question and that this ability develops between the ages
of 3 and 4 years. Bishop et al. (2000) also suggested that children with pragmatic language
impairment do not appear to understand the speakers intention, but further suggest that their
literal interpretations are due to an inability to utilise the available context effectively. They
found that the childrens answers were irrelevant in the given context and suggested the children had a lack of understanding of the speakers intention. However, intentions were not
specifically investigated and are difficult to empirically examine. An alternative explanation
from Tomasello (1999) and Nelson (2006:185) suggests that during a childs development

123

J Psycholinguist Res (2014) 43:4558

47

they come to understand that meaning can only be interpreted in the context of particular
uses and in the early years gradually become more competent at utilising the relevant context
in interpretation.
This use of relevant contextual information has also been investigated in studies of reading
ability as it is a necessary skill in reading comprehension. Older children (78 years old) with
varied reading abilities, have been found to have difficulties in integrating information from
the text with relevant information from their knowledge base (knowledge which had been
learned and understood before reading the text) especially if the text was perceived as difficult
(Perrusi et al. (2005). Non-skilled comprehenders were found to have particular difficulties
in selecting relevant information from the text.
From a relevance theory viewpoint (Sperber and Wilson 1995), it is metarepresentational development which facilitates the ability to utilise relevant context and integrate this
with conceptual or previous information from memory. They argue humans have an inherent ability to inference and this is guided by a cognitive system which is geared towards
relevance and what develops is the ability to process implicatures (the integration of relevant information) which occurs gradually as the child interacts with others in the early
years. Implicatures are defined as being derived from integrated implicit premises (combining of conceptual information from memory, perceptual information, previously generated
inferences and so on). They are meanings which a speaker conveys, implies or suggests
without literally expressing them. On this view, as the development of the ability to process
implicatures proceeds children are able to combine the relevant information available to
them, in order to reach a conclusion or provide an answer. This processing may underlie the ability to consider the competence of the speaker and their intention in asking the
question (though it is debatable whether recognising and intention is a process/ability or
the result of the processing of implicatures). Childrens comprehension of meaning in context is therefore dependent on the processes of inferencing and deriving implicatures. The
explicitness of the language expression and the available cues from the context govern
processing. So for example, questions targeting literal meaning may require inferencing
but not the recovery of implicatures. That is, they may require referents to be assigned
and semantic meaning to be enriched but they do not require meanings to be combined to
yield an implicated conclusion. For example, answering why questions, or understanding indirect answers to questions requires going beyond the inferences that can be generated on the basis of the words alone. On this account, when children are developing the
ability to process implicatures they may preferentially infer meaning when interpreting
questions which require the recovery of implicatures. What is not clear from research is
whether childrens incorrect answers to questions reflect a reliance or preference for inferring meaning (i.e. semantic meaning or knowledge from memory) and further, whether their
answers reflect difficulty in processing implicatures or whether erroneous implicatures are
generated.
Relevance Theory also suggests the available context should be considered in interpretation. Children with SLI were found to perform similarly to their peers when answering
questions targeting implicatures on a task where they point to the pictorially given answer.
Their performance was also found to improve if a verbally presented scenario was accompanied by gestures and when giving verbal answers to questions based on storybooks with
pictorial support (but answers not available from the pictures) and when gestures accompanied verbal presentation of short scenarios. However, where the context was solely verbal
(short scenarios followed by a question) and no pictures or gestures were available, children
with SLI performed significantly less well (Ryder et al. 2008; Kirk et al. 2011). Taken together
these studies suggest symbolic gestures and pictures act as external cues which are then more

123

48

J Psycholinguist Res (2014) 43:4558

readily combined with the verbal information distributing the pragmatic load (Ryder et al.
2008).
On the basis of relevance theory, questions can be constructed to target the use of context
use and childrens incorrect answers can be examined in terms of whether they reflects inferring semantic meaning using world knowledge, or whether they reflect integrating knowledge
and given information from context. Childrens incorrect answers are expected to reflect a
developmental trend in utilising relevant context to understand the focus of the question.
On the basis of previous research suggesting 711 year old children with SLI are delayed in
language development, we expect their answer strategies to be similar to the 56 year old
typically developing children. We hypothesis that the children with SLI and the youngest
childrens answers will rely on inferring meaning when answering implicature questions
whereas the 711 year old children are expected to utilise the relevant story or scenario information. We also explore whether the answers given by children with primarily pragmatic
language difficulties reflect an inability or difficulty with implicatures.
In this study we examine childrens incorrect answers to questions based on short scenarios and a short story. We predict that in both tasks incorrect answers will reflect a reliance
on world knowledge, inferring meaning on the basis of the words in the scenario and the
question. In the storybook task we additionally expect incorrect answers to reflect the utilisation of previously generated inferences based on the story. The incorrect answers of children
with pragmatic difficulties and the youngest children are expected to be based on world
knowledge which has not been appropriately integrated with the scenario information. More
specifically:
1. Do childrens incorrect answers reflect an inability to integrate relevant information from
the scenario when answering pragmatically demanding questions?
2. Do the incorrect answer strategies of children with SLI reflect developmental delay (with
similar answers to those of younger typically developing children)?
3. Within the SLI group, do the incorrect answers strategies of children with pragmatic language difficulties reflect more specific difficulties in utilising relevant context compared
to children without pragmatic difficulties?

Method
Participants
A total of 97 children participated in this study (see Table 1). There were 30 children with
SLI aged between the ages of 7 and 11 years of age. Within this SLI group were 12 children
with primarily pragmatic language difficulties (PLD). There were 67 typically developing
monolingual children with no known language difficulties from similar socio-economic backgrounds. There were 2 age groups: 32 children aged between 5;0 and 6;0 and 35 children
aged between 7;0 and 11;0. All the children attended one of two schools in the same town.
The children with SLI had a diagnosis of SLI on the basis of no evidence of neurological,
sensori-motor, non-verbal cognitive or social emotional deficits and a score of 1SD below
the norm on at least one standard language test. They attended speech and language therapy
units within the schools, receiving therapy for their language difficulties. The children with
pragmatic language difficulties were identified from the rest of the children with SLI (without pragmatic language difficulties) on the basis of their performance on standard language
assessments as part of their speech and language therapy and on the basis of their performance

123

J Psycholinguist Res (2014) 43:4558

Table 1 Age, gender, number
and grouping of participants

Group

49
N

Age range

Average age

Gender
M

SLI

30

6;811;3

8.7

19

11

5-6 yrs

32

5;26;11

5.7

13

19

711 years

35

7;111;2

8.6

Total

97

13

22

45

52

Table 2 Language assessment scores for the children with SLI sub groups
SLI (n = 30)

Subgroups of SLI children

No pragmatic
language difficulties
(SLI) (n = 18)

Age M(SD)

8.7 (1.23)

Age range
Male/female
TROG percentile

8.5 (1.10)

With pragmatic
language difficulties
(PLD) (n = 12)
7.5 (1.18)

7;211;3

6;8-10;01

9/9

11 / 1

40.8 (28.4)

42.0 (25.7)

38.9 (32.9)

0.01 (1.0)

0.15 (0.8)

0.02 (1/2)

0.03 (1.0)

0.29(1.0)

0.14 (0.9)

6.9 (2.4)

7.4 (2.6)

6.7 (2.1)

8.1 (2.7)

8.2 (2.1)

8.4 (3.3)

29.8 (6.9)

31.5 (6.9)

27.5 (7.0)

23.6 (6.1)

25.3 (6.8)

21.5 (5.4)

RAPT grammar
Z score (SD)
RAPT Information
Z score (SD)
TOWK receptive
M standard score
TOWK expressive
M standard score
ITPA auditory association
M standard score
ITPA sequential memory
M standard score

in answering pragmatically demanding questions targeting implicatures (in a previous study

by Ryder et al. 2008).
Standard language tests were administered to the children with SLI. Inclusion in the
study required a receptive grammar score of at least age five equivalent on the TROG (Test
for the Reception of Grammar version 2, Bishop 2003a). In addition expressive grammar
(Renfrew Action Picture Test, Renfrew 1988), auditory memory for sequential numbers,
auditory association (Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Ability, Kirk et al. 1968) and expressive
and receptive vocabulary were assessed and in the normal range (Test of Word Knowledge,
Wiig and Secord 1992). The researcher also tested understanding of vocabulary used in the
study before tasks were undertaken to ensure the tasks were within the childs capabilities.
The speech and language therapists working with the children completed the Childrens
Communication Checklist (version 2, Bishop 2003b) which gives an indication of general
communicative abilities and social behaviour. Results are presented in Table 2.

123

50

J Psycholinguist Res (2014) 43:4558

The SLTs were asked to identify the children (if any), with primarily pragmatic language
difficulties (PLD) in their professional opinion. The SLTs made this judgement on the basis
of their knowledge of the child and language and behavioural assessments carried out for the
purpose of managing the childs therapy. Thirty two children with SLI were tested, and two
were excluded on the basis of their CCC-2 profile (Childrens Communicative Checklist)
which suggested autistic spectrum disorder. Twelve of the remaining 30 SLI children were
diagnosed as PLD.
Procedure and Task Design
Each child was seen individually in a quiet corner of the classroom. Each task was explained
before commencing and practice items were given to ensure the child could succeed in
the task. Incorrect answers from each of the three tasks types were coded according to the
context used in the answer. Two tasks were used with different contexts. The first was a verbal
scenario including two short sentences read aloud followed by a question. No other contextual
information was available. In line with previous studies focusing on understanding pragmatic
language expressions, short scenario rather than longer stories were used in to ensure the
youngest childrens focus of attention was engaged. The second task was a storybook task
which included pictures of the characters and the background scenes. The story repeated
characters names and the central theme. As in the verbal scenario condition, the story was
read aloud. Both tasks required combining the scenario/story information and generating an
implicature to answer successfully.
(1) Verbal Only (Verbal): Ten A5 cards had a number on one side and a verbal scenario on
the other. The cards were presented number side up and the child pointed to their chosen
card. The researcher then read aloud the scenario on that card to the child and asked a
question targeting implicature on the basis of the short scenario. The child was required
to answer verbally. The answers require integrating the information from both sentences
and utilising world knowledge (see Appendix). The context is verbal only.
(2) Storybook (Strybk): A short story was read aloud to the child and eight A4 colour pictures
accompanied the story but answers to questions were not in the pictures. The storybook
was based on a book published for the 35 year age group and sentences closely followed the same grammatical structure designed to be suitable for children aged 35 years
(Waddell and Granstrm 1997). Seven implicature questions were asked intermittently
throughout the story. The questions in the storybook were asked immediately after the
relevant text was read, and were designed to keep interruption to the flow of the story
to a minimum. The questions were kept as grammatically simple as possible using the
same structures as the storybook text. This was to minimise memory load, and to ensure
that the youngest developing children had every chance of processing the grammatical
structures involved. In addition all the SLI children scored above age 5 equivalent for
receptive grammar test. The child was required to give a verbal answer (see Appendix).
In both tasks the children could not see any text. The wording of the questions closely
followed the scenario/storybook wording and one repetition was allowed. Both tasks were
video-recorded.
In this study we focus on childrens incorrect answers and how they utilise context when
attempting to answer pragmatically demanding questions. Childrens incorrect answers for
each task were therefore coded according to the context utilised in the answer. Five categories
were apparent: 1. Story/scenario context, 2. World Knowledge/experience, 3. Irrelevant, 4.
Dont know, 5. No response/tautological (see Appendix for examples). The data were

123

J Psycholinguist Res (2014) 43:4558

51

transcribed orthographically from videotaped sessions. Two researchers coded 12 childrens

(from all groups) incorrect answers to 12 questions (chosen randomly) into one of the five
incorrect answer categories. The percentage of agreement between the coders was 94 %.
The childrens incorrect answers were analysed into five categories. Examples of each
answer type are given in the Appendix:
(1) Story/scenario context: There were answers where the child had utilised the storybook
information or the scenario information but they did not focus on the essence of the
question appropriately. The child shows evidence in the answer of comprehending the
theme of the story based on what they have heard. In Relevance theory terms, the child
has considered what is meant by the question and the comprehended information has
been utilised in the response made to the question. There might be some integration of
what has been explicitly said in the previous text and enrichment of the words in the
question (see example in Appendix). The answer is not a repetition of text previously
read out, but includes previous storybook context.
(2) World Knowledge: The question has triggered the child to use world knowledge and
experience of similar situations but does not address the focus of the question. That is,
they have utilised knowledge from memory based on the words in the text or the question.
(3) Irrelevant: The child gives an answer which is not relevant in the given context and does
not appear to be the result of world knowledge/experience or reflect an ability to consider
the focus of the question.
(4) Dont know: The child says they dont know the answer.
(5) No response/tautological: Either no response at all or child repeats words verbatim from
question or scenario.

Results
The distributional features of the dependent variables (i.e. average percent of incorrect
answers) were examined for normality, and parametric or non-parametric statistical procedures were employed accordingly. Overall, there were only a few children who gave no
response (four children) or tautological answers (three children), so these answers were combined with the dont know answer category. A frequency analysis by subject revealed that
all the children were using different types of answers when responding to the questions on
both tasks. That is, each child did not use, or have a strong preference for, one answer type.
For each child the number of incorrect answers for each incorrect answer type was converted
into a percentage score. Table 3 shows the average percentages incorrect depending on age,
incorrect answer type and task.
Overall, for all groups, the verbal task elicited more incorrect answers than the storybook
task but the differences were non significant. Figure 1 shows the groups mean percentage
of answers by incorrect answer type. We first sought to investigate whether the childrens
answers reflect an inability to integrate relevant information from context. Within group
comparisons of incorrect answer types for each group were first examined by task followed
by between group comparisons on each task.
Within group paired incorrect answer comparisons for each task were examined using
Wilcoxons signed ranks test with a Bonferroni correction ( p = 0.0127). Comparisons of
incorrect answer types revealed that the children with SLI produced significantly more world
knowledge and irrelevant answers on the verbal task compared to dont know and scenario
answers (World knowledge and Dont know Z = 4.40, p = 0.0001, Irrelevant and Dont know

123

52

J Psycholinguist Res (2014) 43:4558

Table 3 Descriptive statistics for verbal and story tasks

Group

Verbal task
WK

Irrel

20

SD

13.8

Story task
DK/NR

Scenario

WK

Irrel

DK/NR

Story

21

12

13

20.0

4.6

2.3

14.9

14.5

9.3

12.2

SLI

56 years
M

21

12

10

SD

13.2

9.7

7.4

4.6

10.2

13.1

8.9

12.8

SD

7.4

5.4

4.1

2.1

5.5

10.6

4.6

0.00

711 years

Means represent the average percent incorrect. WK world knowledge, Irrel irrelevant, DK/NR dont know or
no response

Fig. 1 Incorrect answers of children with SLI with pragmatic language difficulties (PLD) and without pragmatic language difficulties (NPLD) by answer type and task

Z = 3.95, p = 0.0001, World knowledge and Scenario Z = 4.41, p = 0.001 and Irrelevant
and Scenario Z = 4.24, p = 0.001). See Fig. 1. On the storybook task, the children with
SLI produced significantly more irrelevant answers than dont know answers (irrelevant and
dont know Z = 2.59, p = 0.007) all other comparisons were insignificant (world knowledge
and dont know Z =2.12, p = 0.034, irrelevant and story Z = 1.22, p = 0.26 and world
knowledge and story Z = .734, p = 0.46).
The 56 years old, on the Verbal task, produced significantly more world knowledge
answers than the other answer types (world knowledge and irrelevant Z = 3.95, p = 0.0001,
world knowledge and dont know Z = 4.27, p = 0.0001, world knowledge and scenario

123

J Psycholinguist Res (2014) 43:4558

53

Z = 4.48, p = 0.0001, irrelevant and dont know Z = 2.69, p = 0.007 and irrelevant and
scenario Z = 3.02, p = 0.0003). On the story book task they produced less world knowledge
answers but an increased number of answers using the story context. There were no significant
differences between the incorrect answer types (world knowledge and irrelevant Z = 2.73,
p = 0.08, world knowledge and dont know Z = 0.78, p = 0.43, world knowledge and story
Z = 1.66, p = 0.09, irrelevant and dont know Z = 2.22, p = 0.03, irrelevant and story Z =
0.31, p = 0.75).
The 711 year old group, produced significantly more answers based on world knowledge
than dont know answers (Z = 2.77, p = 0.006) on the verbal task, significantly more world
knowledge than scenario answers (Z = 2.94, p = 0.003) and more irrelevant than scenario
answers (Z = 2.64, p = 0.008). On the storybook task the only significant finding was
more irrelevant answers than dont know answers (Z = 2.94, p = 0.003) with a Bonferroni
corrected p value of 0.016. There were no incorrect answers based on story context.
To further investigate the strategies used by the groups and whether the strategies of
the children with SLI were similar to younger typically developing children, comparisons
between groups on each task were made. Comparisons on the Verbal task revealed significant
differences in the number of world knowledge (Kruksal Wallis 2 32.03(2), p = 0.0001) and
irrelevant answers (Kruksal Wallis 2 (2), p = 0.001). The performance of the children with
SLI and the 711 age group (age matched peers) on the Verbal tasks were compared using
Mann-Whitney U -tests with the critical p value set at 0.016 (Bonferroni adjustment). The
children with SLI produced significantly more answers based on world knowledge than the
711 age group (Man U 182.0, p = 0.0001) as well as irrelevant answers (Man U 240.50,
p = 0.01). Similarly, the 56 year old produced significantly more answers based on world
knowledge (Man U 167.00, p = 0.001) and irrelevant answers (Man U 346.00, p = 0.003)
than the 711 year old. The pattern of responses of the children with SLI and the 56 year
old was similar except the children with SLI produced significantly more irrelevant answers
(Man U 316.00, p = 0.016). There were no other significant differences in incorrect answer
types between these two groups.
On the Storybook task, Kruksal Wallis comparisons revealed significant differences
between groups on answers based on world knowledge (Kruksal Wallis 2 (2), p = 0.005) and
answers utilising storybook information (Kruksal Wallis 2 (2), p = 0.001). Man U comparisons (with Bonferroni correction, p = 0.016) revealed that the children with SLI produce
significantly more answers based on world knowledge (Man U 395.50, p = 0.038) and
answers based on storybook information than the 711 year old (Man U 315.00, p = 0.001).
Again the children with SLI and the 56 year olds performed similarly and no significant differences in the type of incorrect answers were found though there were more world knowledge
answers produced by the children with SLI (Man U 3.777, p = 0.063).
The third research question examined whether the incorrect answers given by the sub
group of SLI children with pragmatic language difficulties (PLD) would reveal different
strategies than the SLI children without pragmatic difficulties. Twelve of the 30 children
were diagnosed as primarily pragmatically impaired by a speech and language therapist who
treated these children on a daily basis (and administered the language assessments), and the
relevant descriptive statistics for SLI children with pragmatic language difficulties (PLD)
and without pragmatic language difficulties (NPLD) are given in Table 2. Overall, on both
tasks, the children with PLD answered more questions incorrectly (see Fig. 1).
Because of distributional anomalies and the small group sizes a Kruksal Wallis test was
used to compare incorrect answers on the two tasks. On the Story task, the PLD group
produced more answers based on world knowledge ( 2 (1), p = 0.007) and on the Verbal task they produced more irrelevant answers ( 2 (1), p = 0.029). There were no other

123

54

J Psycholinguist Res (2014) 43:4558

significant differences in answer types on the two tasks (Verbal task: world knowledge ( 2 (1),
p = 0.537; dont know ( 2 (1), p = 0.674; scenario ( 2 (1), p = 0.208); Story task: irrelevant ( 2 (1), p = 0.125), dont know ( 2 (1), p = 0.208), story ( 2 (1) p = 0.670). The
children with PLD relied on world knowledge preferentially rather than the use of story
context. Where there was no supporting context the incorrect answers of these children were
irrelevant in the context of the verbal scenario on which the questions were based.
In the analysis of the children with SLI compared to the 56 years old above, these groups
performed similarly except the SLI group produced more irrelevant answers. Given that the
children with PLD produced more of these answers than the NPLD children, we removed
the PLD children from the SLI group to examine whether the difference in the use of
irrelevant answers would remain. The irrelevant answers on verbal and story tasks of the
NPLD group and 56 year old group were compared and revealed no significant differences
(Mann-Whitney U Verbal task p = 0.911; Story task p = 0.263).
Language Abilities and Performance of Children with SLI
The data in this study are part of a data set used in a previous study focusing on childrens
pragmatic language comprehension. The extent to which structural language abilities and
auditory memory of the children with SLI were correlated with their performance on implicature questions was examined and it was found that though receptive grammar (TROG) was
moderately related to performance, an analysis of covariance controlling for TROG scores
revealed the lower means of the PLD children on the tasks were not due to their weaker
performance on the TROG (Ryder et al. 2008).

Discussion
This study examined whether childrens incorrect answers reflected an inability to integrate
relevant information when answering pragmatically demanding questions. Results suggest
that children gradually develop the ability to use relevant context in interpretation. The number of irrelevant answers reduced as age increased for the typically developing children.
All the children attempted to provide an answer and there were few dont know answers.
The younger children and the children with SLI tended to rely on world knowledge when
answering questions. In Sperber and Wilsons view (2002) these children were considering the first relevant interpretation that came to mind, without considering or integrating the
given contextual information to reach a conclusion/answer. These findings along with studies
of younger children (Paul 1990), suggest that in answering pragmatically demanding questions children utilise their world knowledge or experience, either inferring and enriching the
semantic meaning of a word in the question or recalling something they have knowledge of
on the basis of semantic meaning, which is familiar to the scenario or question being asked.
The childrens answers reflect a developing ability to utilise the given context even if they
have not quite understood the intended focus of the question.
Irrelevant answers reflected an inability to integrate relevant contextual information.
Examination of these answers revealed that the children appeared to make erroneous inferences, for example inferring the noise the ghost made to be the noise of an owl. Though this
type of answer did fulfil the discourse role in providing an answer, it reflects an inference
made on the basis of a word or phrase alone rather than the recovery of an implicature on
the basis of the context. In the RT model, the hearer attends to the information and makes
inferences on the basis of that information at the time of interpretation. A system geared

123

J Psycholinguist Res (2014) 43:4558

55

towards relevance ensures that the number of inferences which are potentially possible are
constrained by consideration of the relevant context. The owl interpretation implies that the
child relies on semantic inference without combining any contextual information. If the child
does not make inferences on the basis of the context then as the story progresses the child
will not have previously generated relevant inferences available to integrate when attempting
to answer the question. This study supports the view of Sperber and Wilson that children
develop the ability to integrate information (and possibly to understand the communicative
intention of the speaker). Increased experience of language situations where implicatures
are recovered is in their view likely to result in more procedural or automatic processing.
In providing an irrelevant answer, the child makes inferences based on world knowledge
(something which is familiar in their experience) but which is irrelevant in the context of
the story and question. Sperber and Wilson (2002) suggests that the child stops at the first
available interpretation rather than positing that the child has a difficulty in understanding
(or attending to) the focus of the question. It is not clear from the model how the child moves
on from this phase but the child is said to develop the ability to consider the intention of the
speaker as they develop.
An emergentist view may provide an explanation for this developmental change. An
emergentist perspective would propose that childrens ability to combine different sources
of information to process language is constrained by their experience of language use. In
early development, changes in external contextual demands are said to result in shifts of the
childs attention from one attractor (i.e. content word) to another. This experience of shifting
attention is said to result in self-organised patterns and the stability of these vary over time. For
children with SLI, atypical language experience may incur instability of attention preventing
comprehension of the focus of the question. Irrelevant answers might therefore be seen as a
result of instability which may also lead to atypical organisation (Evans 2001).
Lastly we explored whether within the SLI group the incorrect answer strategies of children
with pragmatic language difficulties reflect more specific difficulties in utilising relevant
context compared to children without pragmatic difficulties. The most significant difference
was the increased number of irrelevant answers of the children with pragmatic language
difficulties (PLD) compared to the children without pragmatic difficulties (NPLD) group.
This finding on the Verbal task suggests that where these children have no other contextual
cues except verbal information, this increased the level of difficulty. In the story task, irrelevant
answers were not so increased and the children relied more on their world knowledge (and to
a much lesser extent story context) as was the pattern with typically developing children. The
pattern for all groups showed that in the verbal task the scenario information was not evident
in their incorrect answers. This may be because the scenarios were short (two sentences) and
each scenario was not related to the next. Whereas, in the story context, previously generated
inferences and literal interpretation provided knowledge which could be used in interpretation
(albeit not always relevant).
The children with PLD did however, use the same strategies as the other children with SLI
and the youngest typically developing children, but they produced more irrelevant answers
if the task was purely verbal. This may implicate a greater developmental delay in utilising
relevant context in interpretation or recovering implicatures. Studies of task difficulty in false
belief tasks for example, have shown that 34 year old children were more likely to succeed if
the verbal scenario and question included indexical referents (those that could be seen in the
pictures) than if the referents were symbolic (referred to verbally but not visible in pictures)
(see the meta-analysis of Abu-Akel and Bailey 2001). Wilson and Sperber (2002) suggest
development includes an ability to see the relevance of the context and the questioner as a
cooperative communicator with communicative intent. Children learn that the given context

123

56

J Psycholinguist Res (2014) 43:4558

(or background) renders the question relevant. That is, questions often lead the hearer to
assume that there is some reason to believe that the information in the question is relevant
and relates to the background information (Schwarz 1996; Wegner et al. 1981). In this study
the scenarios and story are the given context and were relevant to the question. The increased
number of irrelevant answers by the children with PLD suggests that they are not utilising the
given context perhaps because they have not yet developed the ability to understand that this is
the relevant information rather than utilising other knowledge. This may be due to an inability
to consider what is meant by the questioner (understanding the intended meaning) as might
be suggested by a more immature comprehender who stops at the first interpretation without
considering the intention of the speaker (Wilson and Sperber 2002). The comparatively
better performance of children with PLD on the story task suggests impairment is greater
when there is little additional context. In the clinical setting when considering appropriate
therapy, additional contextual support will make the task of interpretation more achievable
where meaning of the language expression is implied or non-literal. Increased contextual
support should be provided such as pictures or storybooks with pictures and conversational
exchanges about the characters perspective or questions targeting the characters point of
view are useful in assessing the stability of the childs language system. It is also important
to draw the attention of the child with SLI or PLD to the relevant context to make them aware
of the alternatives in interpretation and to discourage stopping at the first interpretation (or
relying on a key word as is often reported in responses of children with SLI). The differences
in the clinical group highlight the importance of assessing pragmatic language understanding
alongside structural language assessments (i.e. grammar, vocabulary or semantic knowledge)
and the need for a theoretically based framework to analyse instances of pragmatic language
breakdown. Relevance theory is a useful tool with which to investigate the nature pragmatic
language comprehension and analysing childrens answers in terms of the pragmatic language
demands and contextual complexity (inferring a referent, enriching semantic meaning and
recovering implicatures). The difficulties of children with PLD can be addressed in the
clinical setting by encouraging repetition and understanding of how the context is relevant to
the interpretation. Within this framework it is possible for clinicians to explore the difficulties
with pragmatic language interpretation of language impaired children, and to consider what
kinds of contributions may be most facilitative (i.e. role play to increase different language
experiences). Further well-grounded research is necessary to provide a reliable and valid
assessment.
The study did not investigate childrens intention reading ability which Sperber and Wilson
(1995) and others (Tomasello 2002) have proposed to explain how children develop the ability
to understand meaning in context. The emergentist view (Evans 2001) however, argues that
there is no reason to assume an intention reading ability and suggests atypical experience
of language will result in a reduced ability to attend to relevant contextual information.
However, given that both impaired groups have atypical experience and the children with
SLI without pragmatic difficulties produced less irrelevant answers than the PLD group this
explanation is problematic. Further research would be needed but it appears that a delay
in language development includes a delay in combining different sources of information to
reach an implicature in children with PLD.
Overall, the study suggests that children gradually develop the ability to integrate given
information and to utilise relevant context and that verbal information without supporting
referents/context increases the pragmatic load. RT provides a framework in which to interpret
and explain the strategies. Childrens experience of being asked questions where the answer
depends on recovering implicatures may vary when they are very young. It is common in
the classroom to use open questions and imply meaning rather than explicit instruction.

123

J Psycholinguist Res (2014) 43:4558

57

In view of the developmental nature of pragmatic interpretation, this may mean that some
children do not understand what is being asked of them, particularly children who may
be language delayed. Results of this study suggest the pragmatic language difficulties of
children with SLI and PLD should be considered in language therapy and in situations where
the combining of information is required, the relevant information should be identified for the
child.
Acknowledgments We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Hertfordshire Primary Care Research
Network (Hertnet) for funding this project. Our thanks also to Margaret Ellis and Claire Hammond (Speech
and Language Therapists) for their valuable advice on the design of materials. We would also like to thank
the staff and children for their participation in this study.

Appendix: Examples of Incorrect Answers for each Category (Five Categories)

Examples of Answers to Storybook Questions
- - - - - Insert illustration here - The Storybook had colour pictures.
Text: It was midnight. The room was dark except for the torch which Mark shone on his
face. He told a scary story and spoke in a whisper. The other boys were silent as they listened.
Question: Why did Mark speak in a whisper?
Story answer: To hear the monsters/ghosts (previous text explicitly states that the children are at a ghosts and monsters sleepover). Mark was making the story more scary by
whispering.
World knowledge answer: So that others cant hear. (World knowledge of situations
when one might whisper).
Irrelevant answer: Because all the other boys havent heard the owl and they wanted to
hear it. (The childs answer is irrelevant in the context of the story, there is no owl).
Examples of Incorrect Answers to Verbal Questions
Freddie helped his dad paint the fence. Freddie had to put on old clothes.
Question: Why did Freddie put on old clothes?
World knowledge answer: Because he doesnt like his new clothes.
Scenario answer: His dad mightve told him to.
Irrelevant answer: Because he found them

References
Abu-Akel, Ahmad, & Bailey, Alison L. (2001). Indexical and symbolic referencing: What role do they play
in childrens success on theory of mind tasks? Cognition, 80, 263281.
Bishop, D. V. M. (2000). Pragmatic language impairment: A correlate of SLI, a distinct subgroup, or part of
the autistic continuum? In D. V. M. Bishop & L. Leonard (Eds.), Speech and language impairments in
children: Causes, characteristics, intervention and outcome (pp. 99113). Hove: Psychology Press.
Bishop, D. V. M. (2003a). Test for reception of grammar 2. London: Psychological Corporation.
Bishop, D. V. M. (2003b). The childrens communication checklist version 2. London: Psychological Corporation.
Bishop, D. V. M., & Adams, C. (1992). Comprehension problems in children with specific language impairment. Literal and inferential meaning. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 119129.

123

58

J Psycholinguist Res (2014) 43:4558

Bishop, D. V. M., Chan, J., Adams, C., Hartley, J., & Weir, F. (2000). Conversational responsiveness in
specific language impairment: Evidence of disproportionate pragmatic difficulties in a subset of children.
Development and Psychopathology, 12, 177199.
Botting, N., & Adams, C. (2005). Semantic and inferencing abilities in children with communication disorders.
International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 40, 4966.
Evans, J. L. (2001). An emergent account of language impairments in children with SLI: Implications for
assessment and intervention. Journal of Communication Disorders, 34, 3954.
Kirk, S. A., McCarthy, J. J., & Kirk, W. D. (1968). Illinois test of psycholinguistic abilities. Illinois: University
Of Illinois.
Kirk, E., Pine, K. J., & Ryder, N. (2011). I hear what you say but I see what you mean: The role of gestures
in childrens pragmatic comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(2), 149170.
Leinonen, E., Ryder, N., Ellis, M., & Hammond, C. (2003). The use of context in pragmatic comprehension
by specifically language-impaired and control children. Linguistics, 41, 407423.
Marinac, J. V., & Ozanne, A. E. (1999). Comprehension strategies: The bridge between literal and discourse
understanding. Child Language Teaching & Therapy, 15(3), 233246.
Nelson, K. (2006). Advances in pragmatic developmental theory: The case of Language acquisition. Human
Development, 49, 184186.
Paul, R. (1990). Comprehension strategies: Interactions between world knowledge and the development of
sentence comprehension. Topics in Language Disorders, 10, 6375.
Perrusi, C., Brandao, A., & Oakhill, J. (2005). How do you know this answer?Childrens use of text data
and general knowledge in story comprehension. Reading and Writing, 1, 687713.
Renfrew, C. E. (1988). The renfrew action picture test. Bicester: Winslow Press Ltd.
Robinson, E., & Whittaker, S. (1987). Childrens conceptions of relations between messages meanings and
reality. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5, 8190.
Ryder, R. J., & Graves, M. F. (1998). Reading and learning in content areas (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Ryder, N., & Leinonen, E. (2003). Use of context in question answering of 3, 4 and 5 year old children. Journal
of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(4), 397415.
Ryder, N., Leinonen, E., & Schulz, J. (2008). A cognitive approach to assessing pragmatic language comprehension in children with specific language. International Journal of Language and Communication
Disorders, 43(4), 427447.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind and Language, 17(12),
323.
Strohner, H., & Nelson, K. (1974). The young childs development of sentence comprehension: Influence of
event probability, nonverbal context, syntactic form, and strategies. Child Development, 45(3), 567576.
Schwarz, N. (1996). Cognition and communication: Judgmental biases, research methods, and the logic of
conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Tomasello, M. (2002). The new psychology of language (Vol. 2). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Waddell, M., & Granstrm, B. (1997). Bens bring your bear party. London: Walker Books Ltd.
Wegner, D. M., Wenzlaff, R. M., Kerker, R. M., & Beattie, A. E. (1981). Incrimination through innuendo: Can
media questions become public answers? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 822832.
Wiig, E., & Secord, W. (1992). Test of word knowledge. London: The Psychological Corporation.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2002). Relevance theory. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 14, 249287.
Winer, G. A., Cottrell, J. E., Mott, T., Cohen, M., & Fournier, J. (2001). Are children more accurate than
adults? Spontaneous use of metaphor by children and adults. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30(5),
485496.
Yazdi, A. A., German, T. P., Defeyter, M. A., & Siegal, M. (2006). Competence and performance in beliefdesire reasoning across two cultures: The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about false belief?
Cognition, 100(2), 343368.

123

Copyright of Journal of Psycholinguistic Research is the property of Springer Science &

Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted
to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may
print, download, or email articles for individual use.