MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
RESEARCH REVIEWS 3: 323333 (1997)
PRAGMATIC DEVELOPMENT IN INDIVIDUALS WITH
MENTAL RETARDATION: LEARNING TO USE
LANGUAGE IN SOCIAL INTERACTIONS
Leonard Abbeduto1,2* and Linda J. Hesketh2
1Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
2 Waisman Center on Mental Retardation and Human Development, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
Pragmatics is the intentional use of language to achieve
interpersonal goals. Pragmatic problems figure prominently in the
definition and diagnosis of mental retardation. In this article, we
describe the pragmatic development of persons with mental retarda-
tion, the ways in which their linguistic, cognitive, and social-
emotional limitations influence their pragmatic competence, and
the prelinguistic foundations of that competence. Delays in inten-
tional communication during the prelinguistic period are severe and
often exceed those in cognitive development. After the transition to
language, developmental delays are seen in all components of
pragmatics, but the delays are more severe and the final level of
achievement lower for some components than for others. Conversa-
tional turn-taking is an area of relative strength, although it remains
to be determined whether contextual variations in the rules govern-
ing turn-taking have been mastered. Individuals with mental retarda-
tion have special difficulty in learning to formulate their utterances
in ways that make their intended referents clear. Development here
often lags behind nonverbal cognitive development. Delays also
occur in expressing and understanding speech acts, such as requests
and questions. Especially problematic is the task of learning to use
linguistic politeness formulae when expressing speech acts. Individu-
als with mental retardation are also delayed in learning to signal
when they have not understood an utterance and in learning how to
respond to such signals from others, although the extent of their
problems here varies with the nature of the task. They achieve a
considerable level of topic-related skill in that they typically produce
utterances that are on topic, but the quality of these contributions to
the topic is not clear. Pragmatic delays do not appear to be
attributable to the language-learning environments provided for
individuals with mental retardation by their parents. It is more likely
that these delays result from the cognitive, linguistic, and social-
emotional limitations that define mental retardation, although
there remains much to be learned about the relation between
specific pragmatic problems and specific limitations in these other
domains. r 1997 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
MRDD Research Reviews 1997;3:323333.
Key Words: pragmatics; language; communication; mental retarda-
tion
I
n this article, we consider what is known about the pragmatic
development of children, adolescents, and adults with mental
retardation. Pragmatics refers to the use of language in
interpersonal situations [Levinson, 1983; McTear and Conti-
Ramsden, 1992; Ninio and Snow, 1996]. These interpersonal
situations include informal encounters with friends and family as
well as more formal, task-oriented encounters, such as those in
r 1997 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
school and on the job. Not surprisingly, pragmatics has figured
prominently in work on mental retardation. Pragmatic problems
are included among the adaptive behavior deficits that define
mental retardation [American Association on Mental Retarda-
tion, 1992]. Most intelligence tests used to diagnose mental
retardation require pragmatic skills because they involve
problems that are presented and responded to through spoken
language in an interpersonal situation involving the tester and the
individual being diagnosed [Abbeduto, 1991]. Moreover,
pragmatic development is intimately related not only to other
facets of language (e.g., lexical) acquisition but also to social and
cognitive development [Curtiss, 1988; Ninio and Snow, 1996],
each of which is significantly delayed by mental retardation
[Zigler and Hodapp, 1986]. In fact, pragmatics poses serious
challenges for individuals with mental retardation.
PRAGMATICS AND THE COMPETENCIES
INVOLVED
Pragmatics is more than the transmission of information to
others through language. When we talk, we may transmit
information about our level of education by the lexical items we
select or about the region of the country in which we were raised
by our pronunciation, but we do not typically intend to transmit
such information. In contrast, when we say to a friend, Can you
close the window? we do so because we intend to influence our
friends behavior in a particular way [Bach and Harnish, 1979]. It
is this intentional use of language to achieve interpersonal goals
that is the essence of pragmatics [Whitehurst and Sonnenschein,
1985]. (This definition of pragmatics emphasizes the role of
language in interpersonal communication. In fact, language is
not our only means of communication. We often use nonverbal
behavior (e.g., facial expressions, gestures) instead of, or in
addition to, language [Clark, 1996]. Research on mental
retardation [Rosenberg and Abbeduto, 1993] and on typical
Grant sponsor: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Grant
numbers: R01 HD24356 and P30 HD03352; Grant Sponsor: National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development; Grant number: T32 HD07489.
*Correspondence to: L. Abbeduto, Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin-
Madison, 1500 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI 53705-2280. E-mail:
Abbeduto@Waisman.Wisc.edu
development [McTear and Conti-Rams-
den, 1992], however, has focused almost
exclusively on the use of language in
communication and, thus, we have
adopted this focus as well. Note, how-
ever, that a complete understanding of
the communication of individuals with
mental retardation requires that eventu-
ally we examine both the verbal and the
nonverbal aspects of the process.)
Using language to achieve the
interpersonal goals we intend requires
expertise in a number of domains of
psychological and behavioral functioning
[Rosenberg and Abbeduto, 1993]. It
requires knowledge of the rules govern-
ing communication in social interaction,
or pragmatic competence [Ninio and Snow,
1996]. Included in pragmatic compe-
tence is knowledge of the rules for
turn-taking [Sacks et al., 1974], knowl-
edge of the linguistic markers of polite-
ness [Brown and Levinson, 1987], and
knowledge of the linguistic forms appro-
priate for requesting, asserting, and the
like [Searle, 1975]. But the acquisition
and use of this pragmatic competence in
interpersonal interactions also requires a
number of supporting competencies, includ-
ing mastery of the linguistic system (e.g.,
morphosyntax), an intact information
processing system with access to a rich
knowledge base, and an ability to under-
stand and reason about other peoples
minds and actions [Abbeduto and Rosen-
berg, 1987].
In this article, we examine the
pragmatic competence of persons with
mental retardation and the ways in which
their linguistic, cognitive, and social-
emotional limitations impact their acqui-
sition and use of pragmatic competence.
Because the foundations of pragmatics are
built long before the child acquires his or
her first words [Bates and Thal, 1991], we
also consider developments during the
prelinguistic period. It is important to
note at the outset, however, that there is
considerable variability across individuals
with mental retardation with respect to
the severity of their cognitive impair-
ments. We have focused largely on
individuals with mild to moderate mental
retardation. Consequently, our conclu-
sions may not be generalizable to those
with severe to profound retardation.
PRAGMATIC DEVELOPMENT
IN INDIVIDUALS WITH
MENTAL RETARDATION
Research on the pragmatic develop-
ment of individuals with mental retarda-
tion has been motivated largely by
concerns about their ability to meet the
demands of important daily life tasks that
324
require language and interpersonal inter-
action [Abbeduto, 1991]. This has led
researchers to examine those components
of pragmatics that are thought to be
critical for success in a wide range of
interpersonal encounters. In investigating
these components, researchers typically
have paid little attention to etiological
differences. In most studies, the samples
have been heterogeneous with respect to
etiology, although studies of Down
syndrome have been conducted with
some frequency. In part, this lack of
interest in etiology reflects the fact that
etiology simply is not known for most
individuals with mental retardation
[McLaren and Bryson, 1987]. It also
reflects, however, the belief that the
cognitive limitations that define mental
retardation ensure that pragmatics will be
impaired regardless of etiology. Advances
in molecular genetics, however, have
increased the number of cases for which
etiology of mental retardation is known.
Moreover, evidence is accumulating of
significant variation in the linguistic,
cognitive, and social-emotional limita-
tions associated with mental retardation
across different genetic syndromes [see
Abbeduto and Hagerman, this volume;
Bellugi, this volume; Chapman, this
volume; Mervis, 1997]. Future research
on pragmatics, therefore, will need to be
more attentive to the variability across
syndromes. In the present article, we
have included information about etiologi-
cal differences where possible, but the
reader should be aware that unless stated
otherwise our conclusions about the
pragmatic development of individuals
with mental retardation are based on
research with heterogeneous samples and,
thus, may not generalize across all etiolo-
gies.
Prelinguistic Communication
Questions about communication
prior to the onset of verbal language have
been of interest to researchers studying
typical development for more than 20
years. Observational scales were devel-
oped in the mid 1970s to describe the
communicative behavior of prelinguistic
infants and toddlers [Bates, 1976; Dore,
1975; Halliday, 1975]. These scales dem-
onstrated that prior to the onset of
language, typically developing children
use gesture, vocalization, and eye gaze to
convey communicative intentions, such
as requesting (e.g., pointing to an object
and then looking pleadingly at an adult),
commenting (e.g., pointing and vocaliz-
ing to get an adult to attend to an object
or event), and protesting (e.g., pushing
away an offered object). Researchers
MRDD RESEARCH REVIEWS PRAGMATIC DEVELOPMENT ABBEDUTO & HESKETH
studying mental retardation have been
interested in the prelinguistic period
because of the possibility that later
problems in language and communica-
tion may have their origins there.
Prelinguistic Communication and Cognition
Early research on the prelinguistic
period focused primarily on the relation-
ship between intentional communication
and cognitive achievements. The impetus
for this research was Piagets theory of
cognitive development [Piaget, 1952]
and the finding of a positive association
between performance on particular scales
of sensorimotor functioning (e.g., means
ends relations) and intentional communi-
cative behaviors [Bates et al., 1979].
Researchers have asked whether similar
relationships between sensorimotor cog-
nition and intentional communication
exist for prelinguistic children with men-
tal retardation [Greenwald and Leonard,
1979; Mundy et al., 1984; Smith and von
Tetzchner, 1986]. In this research, semi-
structured tasks were used to elicit
particular types of communicative acts
(e.g., requests) from the child, and the
child was assigned to a stage of communi-
cative development based on whether
and how he or she responded. Cognitive
functioning was assessed via the Uzgiris-
Hunt Scales [1975], which are a set of
problems based on Piagetian views about
the nature of cognitive development
during the first two years of mental life.
This research has uncovered both
similarities and differences in children
with mental retardation compared to
typically developing children matched to
them on sensorimotor ability. On the one
hand, Mundy et al. [1984] found that two
Uzgiris-Hunt subscales [1975], means
ends behavior and relating to objects,
correlated positively with performance
on tasks designed to elicit requests and
comments for a group of children with
retardation who were heterogeneous
with respect to etiology and who were
functioning at a developmental level of 8
to 13 months. On the other hand, both
Greenwald and Leonard [1975] and
Smith and von Tetzchner [1986] found
that children with Down syndrome, who
were functioning at stage 4 or 5 on the
Uzgiris-Hunt Scales (equivalent to a
mental age of approximately 1218
months), were equally skilled at request-
ing but less skilled at commenting than
were typically developing children
matched to them on sensorimotor func-
tioning. Together, these results suggest
that sensorimotor advances are associated
with improvements in intentional com-
munication for prelinguistic children who
have mental retardation and for those
who are developing typically, but that the
formerat least those whose retardation
is due to Down syndromemay experi-
ence especially long delays between
achievements in the two domains.
Nonverbal Communication as a Predictor
of Language Skills
Several theorists have argued that
language development has its foundations
in the nonverbal communication of the
prelinguistic period [cf. Bates and Thal,
1991]. This continuity hypothesis has impor-
tant implications for predicting language
disorders and the need for early interven-
tion. Findings from studies that have
addressed the relationship between non-
verbal communication and later language
skills have converged in suggesting a
positive relationship for children with
Down Syndrome [Mundy et al., 1988,
1995; Smith and von Tetzchner, 1986].
Using different tools and scoring systems
to measure nonverbal communication in
children with Down syndrome, both
Mundy et al. [1995] and Smith and von
Tetzchner [1986] found that when initial
language level was controlled statistically,
nonverbal requests for objects predicted
scores on the expressive language portion
of the Reynell Developmental Language
Scales [1977] (which measures primarily
single-word vocabulary [Mundy et al.,
1995]). This relationship might reflect the
fact that object requests and comments
provide an opportunity for caregivers to
label objects at a time when children are
most interested in acquiring those labels
and, thus, fewer attempts at nonverbal
communication mean fewer opportuni-
ties for word learning. It also seems
reasonable that individual differences in
nonverbal communication could be asso-
ciated with expressive syntax, although
this relationship has not been addressed
for children with mental retardation.
Prelinguistic Communication in Subgroups
of Individuals With Mental Retardation
In recent years, researchers have
observed differences in the types and
frequencies of intentional nonverbal com-
municative acts produced within and
between various subgroups of children
with mental retardation. Greenwald and
Leonard [1979] found that older children
with Down Syndrome (mean chrono-
logical age 40 months) produced signifi-
cantly more comments than did younger
children with Down syndrome (mean
chronological age 21 months) who were
matched to them in terms of IQ and stage
MRDD RESEARCH REVIEWS PRAGMATIC DEVELOPMENT ABBEDUTO & HESKETH
of sensorimotor functioning according to
the Uzgiris-Hunt Scales. Mundy and
colleagues found that significantly fewer
requests for objects were produced by
children with Down syndrome than by a
cognitively matched group of children
with mental retardation of organic or
unknown origin [Mundy et al., 1988] or
by a cognitively matched group of
typically developing children [Mundy et
al., 1995]. And, finally, McLean et al.
[1991] found that adults with profound
mental retardation who regularly commu-
nicated by gesture were more likely to
produce comments in an elicitation task
than were adults with profound mental
retardation who communicated primarily
by touching people. In fact, the latter
group produced no comments at all.
Together these studies demonstrate
that, as a group, individuals with mental
retardation, regardless of age, etiology, or
level of intentional communicative func-
tioning, are able to request desired objects
and actions. Commenting is more diffi-
cult on average than is requesting,
however, and differences between sub-
groups of persons with mental retardation
are most often seen in commenting.
Additional studies with clearly defined
participant groups, especially those based
on etiology (e.g., Down syndrome,
fragile X syndrome), are needed to
increase our understanding of the unique
characteristics and developmental trajec-
tories of subgroups of prelinguistic indi-
viduals with mental retardation.
Linguistic Communication
It is useful to conceive of the
process of linguistic communication as
consisting of several component activi-
ties, each of which draws on different
pragmatic and supporting competencies
[Abbeduto and Rosenberg, 1987]. In this
section, we consider research on the
development of these components in
persons with mental retardation. Al-
though we treat the components sepa-
rately, it is important to recognize that
they are highly interrelated during com-
munication and in their development.
Taking Turns at Talking
Under ideal circumstances, conver-
sation is a highly organized activity
[Rosenberg and Abbeduto, 1993]. It is
usually the case that only one person talks
at a time. Only about 5% of the trans-
itions between speakers in the conversa-
tions of intellectually normal adults in-
volve noticeable overlaps or interruptions
of one speaker by another [Levinson,
1983]. At the same time, pauses between
the contributions of different speakers are
usually negligible [Levinson, 1983]. This
seamless transition from one speaker to
the next is the result of the participants
adherence to rules for determining when
speaker change is possible, who can claim
a turn as speaker, how to claim a turn, and
what to do to correct errors in turn-
taking [Sacks et al., 1974]. The applica-
tion of these rules is dependent on
linguistic ability because points at which a
change in speaker is possiblewhat Sacks
et al. referred to as transition relevance points
(TRPs)are largely linguistically defined
[McTear and Conti-Ramsden, 1992].
Their application also requires knowl-
edge of the social world because the rules
operate differently in different contexts
[Sacks et al., 1974]as illustrated by the
dramatically different ways in which turns
are claimed in a conversation and in a
classroomor with listeners varying in
social standing, power, and the like
[Levinson, 1983].
In examining the turn-taking of
children with mental retardation, re-
searchers have focused largely on dyadic
interactions with parents (usually the
mother) during free play [Davis and
Oliver, 1980; Davis et al., 1988; Tan-
nock, 1988]. In this context, the rate of
turn-taking errors (e.g., both members of
the dyad speaking simultaneously) is
higher for children with mild to moder-
ate mental retardation than expected for
their chronological age, but it is neverthe-
less quite low even for children as young
as age 2 years. It is important to
recognize, however, that this low rate of
errors may be more reflective of parental
accommodations to the childrens lim-
itations than of the childrens skill at
taking turns [Abbeduto, 1991]. A differ-
ent picture of the childrens skills might
emerge from an analysis of their interac-
tions with developmentally matched
peers, the latter being less able and less
motivated than parents to accommodate
to the childrens limitations [Rosenberg
and Abbeduto, 1993].
Unfortunately, data on turn-taking
in peer interactions are not available for
children with mental retardation, al-
though they are for adults [Rosenberg
and Abbeduto, 1993]. In a study of adults
with moderate to borderline mental
retardation, Abbeduto and Rosenberg
[1980] found a rate of turn-taking errors
in mealtime conversation similar to that
reported for the conversations of intellec-
tually normal adults [Levinson, 1983].
Abbeduto and Rosenberg also found that
the nature and location of the errors that
did occur and the ways in which the
325
adults with mental retardation repaired
those errors were similar to those de-
scribed for intellectually normal speakers
[Sacks et al., 1974]. These results suggest
that adults with mental retardation adhere
to the same rules of turn-taking as do
other adults and do so quite effec-
tivelyat least in familiar contexts associ-
ated with minimal cognitive, linguistic,
and social demands.
Although turn-taking does not
appear to be especially problematic for
persons with mental retardation, there are
many aspects of turn-taking that have yet
to be investigated. Studies of typically
developing children suggest that by age
five they have achieved a level of
precision in the timing of speaker change
that rivals that of adults [Garvey and
Berninger, 1981]. The timing of speaker
change has not been investigated for
individuals with mental retardation. We
also lack data on their ability to deal with
the full range of contexts that they face in
their daily lives (e.g., contexts that are
highly constrained and less egalitarian
than conversation, as is the case in school
or on the job). In short, studies to date
have examined only gross aspects of
turn-taking in individuals with mental
retardation and only in those contexts
that are likely to be associated with
optimal performancethe real depth of
their skill in turn taking remains to be
determined.
Establishing Referents
Successful communication requires
that the participants establish the persons,
places, objects, and events to which they
are referring [Whitehurst and Sonnen-
schein, 1985]. Speakers must select words
that will make their intended referents
clear to the listener in the current context
[Clark and Wilkes-Gibbs, 1990]. Listen-
ers must select referents that are consis-
tent with the speakers words and the
context in which they were spoken
[Clark et al., 1983]. Establishing a refer-
ent may require only a single exchange
between speaker and listener or it may
require many [Clark, 1996].
Persons with mental retardation
have difficulty producing messages that
make their intended referents clear to
others [Rosenberg and Abbeduto, 1993].
In an investigation by Longhurst [1974],
for example, adolescents with mental
retardation participated in a dyadic non-
face-to-face task in which they described
a novel design to a partner who had to
select it from among several similar
designs. Longhurst found that although
message adequacy was positively corre-
lated with IQ, not even adolescents with
326
mild to moderate mental retardation
achieved the level of success observed
previously for typically developing 10-
year-olds [Glucksberg et al., 1975]. More
recently, Brownell and Whiteley [1992]
found that children and adolescents with
mental retardation were less likely to
produce fully informative referential de-
scriptions in non-face-to-face tasks than
were typically developing children
matched to them on nonverbal mental
age, which suggests that establishing
referents is especially problematic for this
population. The inadequate messages of
persons with mental retardation do not
result solely from limitations in vocabu-
lary or other language domains [Bever-
idge and Tatham, 1976]. Instead, these
messages result from a failure to attend to,
or encode, the dimension(s) that distin-
guish the referent from the nonreferents
[Rueda and Chan, 1980]. Interestingly,
many individuals with mental retardation
have the skills needed to produce ad-
equate referential descriptions in non-face-
to-face tasks, but fail to use those skills
without prompting [Brownell and White-
ley, 1992].
These results suggest that
adults with mental
retardation adhere to the
same rules of turn-taking
as do other adults and do
so quite effectivelyat
least in familiar contexts
associated with minimal
cognitive, linguistic, and
social demands.
Problems in producing adequate
referential descriptions also emerge in
other tasks, including in narration [Rosen-
berg and Abbeduto, 1993]. In retelling
the story depicted in a wordless picture
book, for example, children with mild
mental retardation are less likely to
introduce referents appropriately (e.g.,
through the use of definite and indefinite
articles) than are language-age- and men-
tal-age-matched typically developing chil-
dren [Hemphill et al., 1991]. These
problems in marking intended referents
in stories continue into adulthood [Ker-
nan and Sabsay, 1987], but only for tasks
associated with high demands on memory
[Abbeduto, 1991]narration of highly
MRDD RESEARCH REVIEWS PRAGMATIC DEVELOPMENT ABBEDUTO & HESKETH
familiar events is less problematic for
adults with mental retardation [Rosen-
berg and Abbeduto, 1987].
Persons with mental retardation
also have problems establishing referents
when in the listeners role, although
development here is largely mental-age
commensurate [Rosenberg and Ab-
beduto, 1993]. Children and adolescents
with mild to moderate mental retardation
use contextual information to disam-
biguate another persons referential de-
scriptions as effectively as do typically
developing children matched to them on
nonverbal mental age [Abbeduto et al.,
1991]. Moreover, the pattern of use of
various types of contextual information is
similar in individuals with mental retarda-
tion and in typically developing children,
which suggests that the development of
referential listening skills in the former is
characterized by delay rather than devi-
ance [Abbeduto et al., 1996].
Despite decades of research on the
process of establishing referents, there
remains much we do not know. Most
investigations into the speakers role have
focused on non-face-to-face tasks. Are
face-to-face-tasks equally problematic?
There is some evidence to suggest that
they are not [Rosenberg and Abbeduto,
1987; Loveland et al., 1989], but direct
comparisons between these two types of
tasks have not been conducted. We also
know little about the developmental
course of referential skill, especially its
early period (i.e., prior to the elementary
school years).
Expressing and Understanding Speech Acts
Speakers do more with their utter-
ances than simply refer. They talk to share
beliefs about the world (e.g., Hes a
great president), obtain information
(e.g., What time do you close?),
convince others to do their bidding (e.g.,
Could you help me move on Satur-
day?), and make social contracts (e.g., I
promise Ill do it this time). These
interpersonal functions of utterances are
known as speech acts [Levinson, 1983].
Expressing and understanding speech acts
requires attention not only to the utter-
ance, but also to its context [Clark, 1996].
Speakers must ensure that their speech
acts are recognizable in context and that
their form is appropriate to various social
dimensions of the context, such as the
degree of formality or politeness war-
ranted [Brown and Levinson, 1987].
Listeners must decide which of the
several speech acts that an utterance could
perform is actually intended in the
current context [Milosky, 1992]. A speech
act may be performed with only a single
utterance or it may require several
exchanges between the speaker and
listener to determine whether various
prerequisites for the speech act have been
met [Levinson, 1983].
Early research in this area was
designed to determine whether children
with mental retardation express the same
speech acts (e.g., question, answer, decla-
ration, command) and at the same relative
rates as do younger typically developing
children who have achieved similar levels
of cognitive and linguistic development
[Rosenberg and Abbeduto, 1993]. For
the most part, few differences in the use
of speech acts emerged between children
with mental retardation and language-
matched typically developing children
[Coggins et al., 1983; Owens and Mac-
Donald, 1982]. So, for example, both
preschoolers with Down syndrome and
language-matched typically developing
2- to 3-year-olds make the greatest use of
the speech act of answering when interact-
ing with their mothers [Owens and
MacDonald, 1982]. Such findings suggest
that children with Down syndrome come
to see language as a vehicle for perform-
ing the same interpersonal functions as do
typically developing children, albeit at a
considerably later age. Unfortunately,
this research has focused exclusively on
children with Down syndrome as they
interact with their parents. It remains to
be determined whether similar patterns of
speech act usage characterize children
with other forms of mental retardation or
interactions involving partners who are
less skilled or controlling than parents
[Rosenberg and Abbeduto, 1993].
Research on speech act expression
beyond childhood has demonstrated that
adolescents and adults with moderate to
borderline mental retardation use the
same basic categories of speech acts when
conversing with peers and other familiar
adults as do intellectually normal adults
[Abbeduto and Rosenberg, 1980; Ow-
ings and McManus, 1980; Owings et al.,
1981; Zetlin and Sabsay, 1980]. These
studies did not include typically develop-
ing comparison groups, however. As a
result, it remains to be determined
whether adolescents and adults with
mental retardation use the various catego-
ries of speech acts at rates appropriate for
their chronological ages or even their
mental ages [Rosenberg and Abbeduto,
1993].
Investigations of speech act expres-
sion also have focused on the linguistic
forms that individuals with mental retar-
dation choose for their speech acts and on
MRDD RESEARCH REVIEWS PRAGMATIC DEVELOPMENT ABBEDUTO & HESKETH
the factors that determine those choices.
This research has demonstrated that
children and adolescents with moderate
to mild mental retardation are delayed
(relative to chronological age expecta-
tions) in learning to use linguistic forms
that are appropriate for various social
dimensions of the context, although their
performance here is commensurate with
their mental ages [Abbeduto, 1984; Bliss,
1985; Nuccio and Abbeduto, 1993].
When formulating requests in response to
descriptions of hypothetical events, for
example, school-age children with mild
mental retardation select fairly polite
forms for their requests (e.g., Could you
please get my doll?) when they seek a
favor but rather impolite forms (e.g.,
You better gimme my doll) when tive development rather than chronologi-
seeking to end a violation of their rights.
Other dimensions of the context to
which children and adolescents with
. . . although tied closely
to cognitive development,
the level of comprehension
of speech acts achieved by
children and adolescents
with mental retardation
sometimes exceeds their
level of development in
other areas of language,
such as receptive syntax
and expressive syntax.
mental retardation attend when request-
ing include the age, familiarity, and
affective state of the listener [Abbeduto,
1984; Bliss, 1985; Nuccio and Abbeduto,
1993] and the degree to which compli-
ance with the request imposes on the
listener [Nuccio and Abbeduto, 1993].
Interestingly, Nuccio and Abbeduto
[1993] found that although children and
adolescents with mental retardation vary
the politeness of their requests across
contexts, they tend to use impolite forms
more often than their typically develop-
ing mental-age-matched peers in all
contexts. This does not reflect an inability
to produce more polite forms, but rather
their conception of the need for polite-
ness. Further research on this problem is
warranted in light of the importance of
linguistic politeness to the judgments of
social competence made by adults [Becker
and Hall, 1989].
Children with mental retardation
are delayed not only in the expression of
speech acts, but also in their comprehen-
sion [Rosenberg and Abbeduto, 1993].
In the context of naturally occurring
dyadic play, children with mild to
moderate mental retardationincluding
those with Down syndromerespond
appropriately to parental requests for
action (e.g., Can you bring it here?) at
rates more commensurate with their
mental ages than with their chronological
ages [Hanzlik and Stevenson, 1986;
Leifer and Lewis, 1984; Sigman et al.,
1986]. The ability to use contextual
information to decide which of several
possible speech acts an utterance is
performing also keeps pace with cogni-
cal age [Abbeduto et al., 1988]. It is
interesting to note that although tied
closely to cognitive development, the
level of comprehension of speech acts
achieved by children and adolescents
with mental retardation sometimes ex-
ceeds their level of development in other
areas of language, such as receptive syntax
[Abbeduto et al., 1988] and expressive
syntax [Leifer and Lewis, 1984]. Such
findings are consistent with claims [Ab-
beduto and Rosenberg, 1992; Curtiss,
1988; Rondal, 1995] that pragmatics and
syntax are dissociable components of
language.
Despite the delays of childhood,
individuals with mental retardation be-
come quite proficient at understanding
speech actsat least in highly familiar
contexts associated with minimal cogni-
tive and social demands [Rosenberg and
Abbeduto, 1993]. This is suggested by the
finding that adolescents and adults with
moderate to borderline mental retarda-
tion respond appropriately to the vast
majority of speech acts directed to them,
including those that do not obligate a
response (e.g., assertions) when convers-
ing with peers and familiar care providers
during mealtimes and other informal
activities [Abbeduto and Rosenberg,
1980; Zetlin and Sabsay, 1980]. It re-
mains to be determined whether these
adolescents and adults are as successful in
less familiar contexts, which often require
more detailed linguistic and contextual
analysis [Abbeduto, 1991].
Although we know a good deal
about the speech act expression and
comprehension of persons with mental
retardation, there are two areas (in
addition to those already noted) in which
more work is needed. First, there have
been few studies of the course of
development in persons with mental
retardation [but see Abbeduto et al.,
327
1988]. Consequently, we do not know
whether problems in dealing with speech
acts become more or less severe with age.
Second, little research has been devoted
to describing individual differences in
speech act expression and comprehension
or in determining the correlates of such
differences [but see Abbeduto, 1984].
Evaluating Understanding
The goal of any communicative
exchange is for the participants to trans-
mit information about their beliefs, atti-
tudes, and desires to each other [Levin-
son, 1983]. Achieving this goal requires
collaboration among participants [Clark,
1996]. Speakers must do more than just
produce linguistic utterances that encode
their intended meanings. They must also
ensure that their utterances have been
understood as intendeda process known
as grounding [Clark, 1996]. This involves
monitoring the listeners behavior (e.g.,
looking for nods of the head that signal
comprehension) and soliciting informa-
tion about his or her understanding (e.g.,
by asking Do you know who I mean?). 1993]. Instead, they reflect, at least in
It also involves responding to signs of
noncomprehension from the listener by
clarifying the original problematic utter-
ance. For their part, listeners must do
more than simply arrive at a representa-
tion of the intended meaning of an
utterance. They too must participate in
the grounding process [Clark, 1996].
They do this through their subsequent
contributions to the exchange, through
verbal and nonverbal forms of acknowl-
edgment (e.g., an approving nod of the
head), and through various signals of
noncomprehension (e.g., by asking Jim
who?).
Considerable research has been
conducted on the signaling of noncom-
prehension by listeners with mental
retardation [Rosenberg and Abbeduto,
1993]. Observations of naturally occur-
ring interactions have demonstrated that
adults and adolescents with moderate to
mild mental retardation frequently signal
noncomprehensionat least in familiar
situations associated with fairly minimal
cognitive demands [Abbeduto and Rosen-
berg, 1980; Bedrosian and Prutting,
1978; Zetlin and Sabsay, 1980]. Interpret-
ing the results of these observational
studies is difficult, however, without an
objective measure of the comprehensibil-
ity of the messages occurring within the
interaction [Abbeduto et al., 1997; Rosen-
berg and Abbeduto, 1993]. Participants
in these studies may have failed to signal
noncomprehension of many utterances
that they did not understand or they may
have signaled noncomprehension in ways
328
that were not appropriate for soliciting
the information needed to clarify the
problematic message.
Experimental studies have avoided
these interpretive difficulties by directly
manipulating the comprehensibility of
the messages heard and thereby the need
to signal noncomprehension [Rosenberg
and Abbeduto, 1993]. These studies
suggest that noncomprehension signaling
is especially problematic for individuals
with mental retardation. Neither children
with mental retardation [Ezell and Gold-
stein, 1991] nor adults with mental
retardation [Fujiki and Brinton, 1993]
signal noncomprehension of incompre-
hensible messages at chronological-age
appropriate rates. In fact, children with
mental retardation have been observed in
at least one investigation [i.e., Abbeduto
et al., 1991] to signal noncomprehension
less often than cognitively matched typi-
cally developing children. These prob-
lems in signaling noncomprehension are
not the result of limitations in expressive
language [Rosenberg and Abbeduto,
(e.g., mealtime). In both studies, the
part, an inability to determine whether
noncomprehension has arisen from inad-
equacies in the message or in their
processing of the message [Abbeduto et
al., 1997].
Although noncomprehension sig-
naling is a problem area for persons with
mental retardation, it is important to
recognize that there is considerable
within- and between-individual variabil-
ity [Abbeduto et al., 1997]. Within-
individual variability is related to the
nature of the problematic message and
the task. For example, persons with
mental retardation signal noncomprehen-
sion less frequently for ambiguous referen-
tial descriptions than for descriptions that
are incompatible with any of the poten-
tial referents [Abbeduto et al., 1997;
Fujiki and Brinton, 1993]. It has also been
suggested that they signal noncomprehen-
sion more often in non-face-to-face
contexts that highlight the need for
referential accuracy than in face-to-face
contexts in which referential errors are
associated with minimal cost [Abbeduto
et al., 1997], although a direct compari-
son between these contexts has yet to be
conducted.
Between-individual variability in
noncomprehension signaling has been
observed in both observational and experi-
mental studies [Abbeduto et al., 1997]
and can be quite dramatic [see Ezell and
Goldstein, 1991]. In a study by Abbeduto
et al. [1997], individual differences in the
rate of noncomprehension signaling were
related to receptive language ability
MRDD RESEARCH REVIEWS PRAGMATIC DEVELOPMENT ABBEDUTO & HESKETH
especially the ability to analyze the match
between an utterance and a nonverbal
stimulusfor a group of school age-
individuals with moderate to mild mental
retardation. Interestingly, a different pat-
tern of predictors emerged for cognitively
matched typically developing children in
this study, which suggests that the devel-
opment of persons with mental retarda-
tion may not only be delayed but also
different in character in this domain of
communication.
Researchers have also investigated
the ways in which speakers with mental
retardation respond to signals of noncom-
prehension from others [Rosenberg and
Abbeduto, 1993]. Observational and con-
trolled studies are consistent in suggesting
that persons with mental retardation have
significant problems in this domain.
Coggins and Stoel-Gammon [1982] and
Scherer and Owings [1984] examined the
responses of preschoolers with Down
syndrome to signals of noncomprehen-
sion from adults within the context of
various naturally occurring daily activities
children responded to nearly all of the
adults signals, although their responses
were less mature than expected for their
chronological ages. In a study involving
children who were heterogeneous in
terms of etiology, Scudder and Tremain
[1992] found below-mental-age perfor-
mance in a non-face-to-face task as
regards how responsive 10- to 13-year-
olds with mild mental retardation were to
an adults signals of noncomprehension
and in the nature of the responses that
they did produce. Further, although
adults with moderate to borderline men-
tal retardation respond successfully to a
wide range of signals of noncomprehen-
sion [Abbeduto and Rosenberg, 1980;
Paul and Cohen, 1984] they do not reach
the level of competence displayed by
7- to 11-year-old typically developing
children [Brinton and Fujiki, 1996, 1997].
There is, however, continued develop-
ment in this domain throughout the adult
years [Brinton and Fujiki, 1996].
As is the case for the signaling of
noncomprehension, there is considerable
within- and between-individual variabil-
ity in responding to such signals [Rosen-
berg and Abbeduto, 1993]. Within-
individual variability is related to the
nature of the signal and its location in the
exchange. For example, Longhurst and
Berry [1975] found that children and
adolescents with moderate to borderline
mental retardation were more successful
in responding to explicit verbal signals of
noncomprehension (e.g., Tell me some-
thing else about the picture) than either
nonverbal signals (e.g., a puzzled facial
expression) or implicit verbal signals (e.g.,
I dont understand). In addition, inves- that we are able to provide information
tigations of stacked signals (i.e., cases in
which a speakers response to a signal of
noncomprehension is met with yet an-
other signal of noncomprehension from
the listener) have demonstrated that
speakers with mental retardation use less
successful strategies for responding as the
sequence progresses [Fujiki and Brinton,
1996, 1997; Scudder and Tremain, 1992].
Between-individual variability in
responding to signals of noncomprehen-
sion is related to IQ [Longhurst and
Berry, 1975] and age [Brinton and Fujiki,
1996]. It is also related to experience in
different living arrangements, with com-
munity-raised adults with mental retarda-
tion being able to respond more effectively
to stacked sequences of noncomprehen-
sion signals than are age- and cognitively
matched institutionalized adults [Brinton
and Fujiki, 1997].
In contrast to the considerable
research devoted to noncomprehension,
virtually no work has been conducted on
how persons with mental retardation
solicit (as speakers) or produce (as listen-
ers) signals of comprehension, even
though such signals are important for
grounding, as are signals of noncompre-
hension [Clark, 1996]. There are data
demonstrating that adults with moderate
to borderline mental retardation respond
verbally to the vast majority of the
contributions they hear in face-to-face
conversation and often with acknowledg-
ments and other utterance types that
signal comprehension of the prior turn
[Abbeduto and Rosenberg, 1980]. What
the developmental course is of such
grounding behaviors, and whether these
behaviors are used appropriately, remains
to be determined.
Contributing to the Topic
When we take a turn at speaking
whether in a conversation with friends or
in a classroom or other formal con-
textwe do so for the purpose of
addressing the topic at hand [Keenan and
Schieffelin, 1983]. Moreover, we design
what we say so that it is sensible in light of
what has been said already and helps the
topic progress [Levinson, 1983]. Contrib-
uting to the topic places heavy demands
on cognitive ability because it requires
keeping track of the progression of the
topic as well as knowledge of the objects
and events that define the topic [Ninio
and Snow, 1996]. It also requires knowl-
edge of the linguistic forms used to
introduce and close topics and to establish
topical relations across utterances [Brinton
MRDD RESEARCH REVIEWS PRAGMATIC DEVELOPMENT ABBEDUTO & HESKETH
and Fujiki, 1989]. Contributing to the
topic also requires interpersonal skills so
tion is added to the topic along the way
that is new yet comprehensible to the
other participants [Ninio and Snow,
1996].
Little is known about the topic-
related skills of children with mental
retardation. It has been reported that
children with Down syndrome are less
likely to introduce new topics in dyadic
conversation with their mothers than are
younger typically developing children
matched to them on measures of congi-
tive and linguistic ability [Tannock,
1988]. Interpreting this finding is diffi-
cult, however. It may reflect especially
serious impairments in the topic-contrib-
uting skills of children with Down
syndrome or greater control of the
conversation by their mothers [Mahoney
et al., 1990]. In either case, children with
Down syndrome and their mothers stay
on the same topic as long (i.e., for as
many turns) as do developmentally
matched typically developing children
and their mothers [Tannock, 1988].
However, it is not clear whether this tells
us more about the childrens skill or
about their mothers (e.g., their ability to
accommodate their childrens communi-
cative limitations). It also remains to be
determined whether these results (what-
ever their interpretation) are generaliz-
able to children with mental retardation
due to causes other than Down syn-
drome.
. . . investigations of
stacked signals have
demonstrated that
speakers with mental
retardation use less
successful strategies for
responding as the
sequence progresses.
The picture is not much more
complete in the case of adults with mental
retardation. In a study by Abbeduto and
Rosenberg [1980], it was found that
adults with moderate to borderline men-
tal retardation often stay on the same
topic for a considerable number of
conversational turns. Measures of topic
length, however, may not accurately
reflect topic-related skills. They do not,
for example, distinguish sequences in
which the topic moves forward from
sequences in which little new informa-
[Brinton and Fujiki, 1989]. In fact, there
is evidence to suggest that adults with
moderate mental retardation often make
semantically empty contributions (e.g.,
oh), which nonetheless add to the
length of the topic [Warne and Bedro-
sian, cited in Bedrosian, 1988]. More-
over, it is difficult to interpret measures of
topic length in the conversations of adults
with mental retardation without similar
data from appropriately matched typically
developing comparison groups, and such
data have yet to be provided [Abbeduto,
1991].
There is much that remains to be
learned about the ability of individuals
with mental retardation to contribute to
the topic, but this will require expansion
of our methods and samples. Dependent
measures must reflect the quality and not
just the quantity of contributions to the
topic. Such measures have already been
developed in work on typical develop-
ment [see Brinton and Fujiki, 1989;
Ninio and Snow, 1996]. Attempts must
be made to disentangle the roles of
knowledge of the topic and knowledge of
the means for making linguistic contribu-
tions to the topic [Rosenberg and Ab-
beduto, 1993]. There also is a need to
examine topic contributions in tasks and
contexts other than conversation with
parents or friends, including, for example,
story telling and academic discourse.
Finally, data are needed on the develop-
ment of topic-related skills across various
mental retardation syndromes, especially
in light of the finding that a tendency
toward perseveration interferes with the
topic contributions of males with fragile
X syndrome compared to cognitively
matched males with Down syndrome
[Abbeduto and Hagerman, this volume].
Parental Input to Communicative
Development
The linguistic environment pro-
vided by parents has been found to
influence the development of many
domains of language in typically develop-
ing children, including the pragmatic
domain [Snow, 1995]. This has led
researchers to examine the behavior of
parents as they interact with their chil-
dren with mental retardation so as to
determine whether parents contribute to
the childrens developmental delays
[Rosenberg and Abbeduto, 1993]. In
these studies, the behavior of parents
(usually mothers) engaged in dyadic
interaction with their children is com-
329
pared in children with and without
mental retardation who are matched
either on chronological age or on some
measure of development (e.g., language
age) [cf. Conti-Ramsden, 1997]. Differ-
ences between the two groups of parents
are usually interpreted as reflecting some
failure on the part of the parents of the
children with mental retardation. The
possibility that such differences might
reflect optimal parental adjustments to
the unique characteristics of the children
with mental retardation is seldom consid-
ered [Conti-Ramsden, 1997; Rosenberg
and Abbeduto, 1993].
This research has demonstrated that
the linguistic environments of children
with mental retardation are not substan-
tially different from those of typically
developing children at the same level of
development [Rosenberg and Abbeduto,
1993]. Parents of children with mental
retardation talk as often as do the parents
of language-matched typically develop-
ing children [Davis et al., 1988; Rondal,
1978]. They also direct the same speech
acts and at the same relative rates as do
parents of language-matched typically
developing children [Leifer and Lewis,
1984; Tannock, 1988]. Although the
parents of prelinguistic children with
Down syndrome are more directive (e.g.,
more likely to use imperatives) than
expected for the childrens developmen-
tal levels [Cardoso-Martins and Mervis,
1985; Jones, 1980], they are not unusu-
ally directive when their children become
more linguistically capable [Cardoso-
Martins and Mervis, 1990; Fischer, 1987;
Maurer and Sherrod, 1987; Rondal,
1978]. And, finally, the parents of chil-
dren with mental retardation are as likely
to respond linguistically to their chil-
drens verbal and nonverbal attempts at
communication as are the parents of
language-matched typically developing
children [Petersen and Sherrod, 1982;
Velleman et al., 1989], although there are
differences across groups in the types of
responses madeat least for parents of
prelinguistic or newly linguistic children
with Down syndrome [Velleman et al.,
1989].
In summary, there is little reason to
suppose that the language-learning envi-
ronment provided by parents is the cause
of the pragmatic difficulties observed in
individuals with mental retardation. Par-
ents provide an environment closely
matched to their childrens language
capabilities. Although differences do exist
between the behavior of parents of
prelinguistic children with Down syn-
drome and prelinguistic typically develop-
ing children, a causal relationship has not
330
been established between those parental
behaviors and the subsequent pragmatic
(or other) delays of children with Down
syndrome. Longitudinal analyses would
be required to establish such a relation-
ship, and such analyses have yet to be
conducted. We know, however, that
substantial individual differences in paren-
tal directiveness, attentiveness, and respon-
siveness to infants and children exist,
independent of mental retardation [cf.
Hart and Risley, 1992; Mahoney, 1988].
It would be fruitful to supplement group
comparisons with within-group longitu-
dinal analyses designed to discover paren-
tal behavioral profiles that are more or less
facilitative of the pragmatic development
of individuals with mental retardation.
There also is a need for data on fathers,
who do play a role in language and
communicative development [Gleason,
1987]. Finally, it is important to note that
most studies in this area have focused on
very young children, especially those
who are prelinguistic or at the one-word
stage, and their parents. Pragmatic devel-
opment, however, continues well into
adolescence and perhaps into adulthood
[Brinton and Fujiki, 1996] for persons
with mental retardation. There is a need,
therefore, to examine the linguistic envi-
ronments of older children, adolescents,
and adults with mental retardation, and
this will likely require attention not only
to the environments provided by parents
but also those provided by teachers,
siblings, and peers.
In summary, there is
little reason to suppose
that the
language-learning
environment provided by
parents is the cause of the
pragmatic difficulties
observed in individuals
with mental retardation.
FUTURE RESEARCH
As we have indicated throughout
this review, there are many gaps in our
understanding of the pragmatic develop-
ment of children, adolescents, and adults
with mental retardation. Here we summa-
rize our suggestions for future research.
1. In most studies of prelinguistic
communication, the pragmatic
MRDD RESEARCH REVIEWS PRAGMATIC DEVELOPMENT ABBEDUTO & HESKETH
and cognitive skills of the partici-
pants were assessed using a
single measure at a single time
period. There is evidence to
suggest that this may not be
adequate. Wishart and Duffy
[1990] reported test-retest re-
sults for children with Down
syndrome on two measures, the
object permanence scale of Uz-
giris-Hunt [1975] and the Bay-
ley Test of Infant Development
[1969], each of which has been
used in matching young typi-
cally developing children to
children with mental retarda-
tion on the basis of developmen-
tal level. On both measures,
similar overall scores were re-
ported between initial adminis-
tration of the test and a retest
two weeks later. However, large
variability was observed in test-
retest item comparison. Parent
reports of early lexical develop-
ment also reveal substantial vari-
ability in the test-retest reliabil-
ity of individual lexical items
[Yoder et al., 1997]. These
findings of item variability in
children with developmental de-
lays suggest at least two direc-
tions for future research. First,
research is needed to determine
the basis for the instability. For
example, are subgroups of chil-
dren with mental retardation
failing to maintain skills? Is
instability a consequence of us-
ing measures that were devel-
oped for children who are
younger and have less world
experience? Second, making in-
ferences about a childs compe-
tence from performance data
requires multiple measures and
multiple occasions of testing. If
converging results are obtained
across measures and time, we
can be more confident that we
have adequately characterized
their competence.
2. In large measure, research on
pragmatics in persons with men-
tal retardation has focused on
their performance in conversa-
tional contexts. Pragmatic skills,
however, are required in other
language tasks, including narra-
tion, collaborative problem solv-
ing in school, and gaining entry
to the ongoing activities of
others, as well as in a variety of
routine or scripted activities,
such as ordering food in a
 restaurant and riding on a bus.
All of these tasks pose consider-
able challenges to typically de-
veloping children [Berman and
Slobin, 1993; Hazen and Black,
1989; Short-Meyerson and Ab-
beduto, in press] and are likely
to be problematic for individu-
als with mental retardation as
well. These tasks have been all
but ignored by researchers study-
ing mental retardation, despite
the fact that behavioral differ-
ences between different mental
retardation syndromes may be
especially pronounced on tasks
such as narration [Bellugi, this
volume].
3. Little is known about the devel-
opmental trajectory of prag-
matic competence in individu-
als with mental retardation.
Particularly important issues that
have not been adequately ad-
dressed include the extent to
which problems in the prelin-
guistic period are predictive of
later pragmatic problems and
whether the course of pragmatic
development is affected by ma-
jor life transitions (e.g., gradua-
tion from high school to the
work place) or biological events
(e.g., puberty). In fact, there is
evidence of declines in prag-
matic functioning with the on-
set of adolescence for males
with fragile X syndrome, al-
though its cause remains to be
determined [Abbeduto and
Hagerman, this volume]. Data
on such issues will be important
for planning appropriate inter-
ventions as well as for under-
standing the causal factors in-
volved in pragmatic development.
4. Acquisition and use of pragmatic
competence depend critically on
achievements in other areas of
language as well as in cognition
and social-emotional functioning
[Abbeduto and Rosenberg, 1987].
Unfortunately, we know very
little about how the linguistic,
cognitive, and social-emotional
impairments that define mental
retardation constrain pragmatic de-
velopment, although research on
fragile X syndrome [see Abbeduto
and Hagerman, this volume] and
Williams syndrome [Bellugi, this
volume] are beginning to uncover
some interesting relations here.
MRDD RESEARCH REVIEWS PRAGMATIC DEVELOPMENT ABBEDUTO & HESKETH
5. Although the impact of indi-
viduals (most notably, mothers)
on the pragmatic development
of persons with mental retarda-
tion has received considerable
attention, the impact of more
inclusive environmental systems
[Bronfenbrenner, 1989] has been
all but ignored. As a result, we
do not know whether the acqui-
sition and use of pragmatic
competencies by persons with
mental retardation are affected
by inclusive educational prac-
tices, the support systems avail-
able to parents, or the attitudes
of the wider community, al-
though there is some evidence
that community living has a
positive impact over institution-
alization [Brinton and Fujiki,
1997].
6. Studies to date have focused
almost exclusively on the lin-
guistic dimensions of communi-
cation. Clark [1996], however,
has pointed out that gestures,
facial expressions, and other
nonverbal behaviors also play an
important role in the creation of
messages. A complete picture of
the communication problems of
individuals with mental retarda-
tion, therefore, will require that
we expand our perspective to
include the nonverbal dimen-
sions of intentional communica-
tion.
7. There is a need for more
research comparing the prag-
matic development of different
syndromes of mental retarda-
tion. Such research is clinically
important because it will indi-
cate the extent to which differ-
ent types of language interven-
tions are needed for individuals
with different syndromes. Such
research is theoretically impor-
tant because it has the potential
to clarify the contributions that
the genes underlying these syn-
dromes make to brain and
behavioral development [Karmi-
loff-Smith et al., 1995]. In
fact recent evidence of uni-
que profiles of linguistic,
cognitive, and social-emotional
development across Down syn-
drome, fragile X, and Williams
syndrome make it likely that
important variations in prag-
matic development will emerge
across syndromes. j
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by Na-
tional Institute of Child Health and
Human Development grants R01
HD24356 and P30 HD03352 to L.
Abbeduto and grant T32 HD07489 to
L. J. Hesketh.
REFERENCES
Abbeduto L. Situational influences on mentally
retarded and nonretarded childrens produc-
tion of directives. Appl Psycholinguistics
1984;5:147166.
Abbeduto L. The development of verbal communi-
cation in persons with mild to moderate
mental retardation. In: Bray N, ed, Interna-
tional review of research in mental retarda-
tion. New York: Academic Press, 1991:91
115.
Abbeduto L, Rosenberg S. The communicative
competence of mildly retarded adults. Appl
Psycholinguistics 1980;1:405426.
Abbeduto L, Rosenberg S. Linguistic communica-
tion and mental retardation. In: Rosenberg S,
ed. Advances in applied psycholinguistics, vol.
1: disorders of first language development.
Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press,
1987:76125.
Abbeduto L, Rosenberg S. The development of
linguistic communication in persons with
mental retardation. In: Warren S, Reichle J,
eds. Causes and effects in communication and
language intervention. Baltimore: Brookes,
1992:331359.
Abbeduto L, Davies B, Furman, L. The develop-
ment of speech act comprehension in men-
tally retarded individuals and nonretarded
children. Child Dev 1988;59:14601472.
Abbeduto L, Davies B, Solesby S, et al. Identifying
the referents of spoken messages: the use of
context and clarification requests by children
with and without mental retardation. Am J
Mental Retard 1991;95:551562.
Abbeduto L, Short-Meyerson K, Benson G, et al.
Understanding ambiguous messages: use of
common ground by children with mental
retardation. Paper presented at the 10th World
Congress of the International Association for
the Scientific Study of Intellectual Disability,
Helsinki, Finland, 1996.
Abbeduto L, Short-Meyerson K, Benson G, et al.
Signaling of noncomprehension by children
and adolescents with mental retardation.
Effects of problem type and speaker identity. J
Speech Hear Res 1997;40:2032.
Ackerman BP, Szymanski J, Silver D. Childrens
use of the common ground in interpreting
ambiguous referential utterances. Dev. Psy-
chol 1990;26:234245.
American Association on Mental Retardation.
Mental retardation: definition, classification,
and systems of support, 9th ed. Washington,
DC: American Association on Mental Retar-
dation, 1992.
Bach K, Harnish RM. Linguistic communication
and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 1979.
Bates E. Language and context. New York:
Academic Press, 1976.
Bates E, Thal D. Associations and dissociations in
language development. In: Miller J, ed.
Research on child language disorders: a
decade of progress. Austin: Pro-Ed, 1991:145
168.
Bates E, Benigni L, Bretherton I, et al. The
emergence of symbols: cognition and commu-
331
 nication in infancy. New York: Academic
Press, 1979.
Bayley N. Bayley scales of infant development.
New York: Psychological Corp, 1969.
Beattie GW. The role of language production
processes in the organization of behavior in
face-to-face interaction. In: Butterworth B,
ed. Language production, vol. 1: speech and
talk. New York: Academic Press, 1980:69
107.
Becker JA, Hall MS. Adult beliefs about pragmatic
development. J Appl Dev Psychol 1989;10:
117.
Bedrosian JL. Adults who are mildly to moderately
mentally retarded: communicative perfor-
mance, assessment and intervention. In: Calcu-
lator SN, Bedrosian JL, eds. Communication
assessment and intervention for adults with
mental retardation. Boston: College-Hill Press,
1988:265307.
Bedrosian JL, Prutting CA. Communicative perfor-
mance of mentally retarded adults in four
conversational settings. J Speech Hear Res
1978;21:7995.
Berko-Gleason J. Sex differences in parent-child
interaction. In: Phillips SU, Steele S, Tanz C,
eds. Language, gender & sex in comparative
perspective. Cambridge UK: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1987:189199.
Berman RA, Slobin DI. Relating events in
narrative: a crosslinguistic developmental study.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1993.
Beveridge MC, Tatham A. Communication in
retarded adolescents: utilization of known
language skills. Am J Ment Defic 1976;81:96
99.
Bliss LS. The development of persuasive strategies
by mentally retarded children. Appl Res Ment
Retard 1985;6:437447.
Brinton B, Fujiki M. Conversational management
with language-impaired children: pragmatic
assessment and intervention. Rockville, MD:
Aspen Publishers, 1989.
Brinton B, Fujiki M. Responses to requests for
clarification by older and younger adults with
mental retardation. Res Dev Disabil 1996;17:
335347.
Brinton B, Fujiki M. Responses to requests for
conversational repair by adults with mental
retardation. J Speech Hear Res 1997;34:1087
1095.
Bronfenbrenner U. Ecological systems theory. In:
Vasta R, ed. Annals of child development,
vol. 6. Greenwich, CT: Jai Press 1989:187
251.
Brown P, Levinson S. Politeness: some universals in
language usage. Cambridge UK: Cambridge
University Press, 1987.
Brownell MD, Whiteley JH. Development and
training of referential communication in
children with mental retardation. Am J Ment
Retard 1992;97:161171.
Cardoso-Martins C, Mervis CB. Maternal speech to
prelinguistic children with Down syndrome.
Am J Ment Defic 1985;89:451458.
Cardoso-Martins C, Mervis CB. Mothers use of
substantive deixis and nouns with their
children with Down syndrome: some discrep-
ant findings. Am J Ment Retard 1990;94:633
637.
Clark HH. Using language. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1996.
Clark HH, Wilkes-Gibbs D. Referring as a
collaborative process. In: Cohen PR, Morgan
J, Pollack ME, eds. Intentions in communica-
tion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990:463
493.
Clark HH, Schreuder R, Buttrick S. Common
ground and the understanding of demonstra-
332
tive reference. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav
1983;22:245258.
Coggins TE, Stoel-Gammon C. Clarification strat-
egies used by four Downs syndrome children
for maintaining normal conversational interac-
tion. Educ Train Ment Retard 1982;16:
6567.
Coggins TE, Carpenter RL, Owings NO. Examin-
ing early intentional communication Downs
syndrome and nonretarded children. Br J
Disord Commun 1983;18:99107.
Conti-Ramsden G. Parent-child interaction in
mental handicap: a commentary. In: Bever-
idge M, Conti-Ramsden G, Leudar I, eds.
Language and communication in people with
learning disabilities. London: Routledge, 1997:
218225.
Curtiss S. Abnormal language acquisition and the
modularity of language. In: Newmeyer FE,
ed. Linguistics. The cambridge survey. Vol.
II. Linguistic theory: extensions and implica-
tions. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University
Press, 1988:96116.
Davis H, Oliver B. A comparison of aspects of the
maternal speech environment of retarded and
nonretarded children. Child Care Health Dev
1980;6:135145.
Davis H, Stroud A, Green L. Maternal language
environment of children with mental retarda-
tion. Am J Ment Retard 1988;93:144153.
Dore J. Holophrases, speech acts, and language
universals. J Child Lang 1975;2:2140.
Duncan S Jr, Fiske DW. Face-to-face interaction:
research methods and theory. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum, 1977.
Ezell HK, Goldstein H. Observational learning of
comprehension monitoring skills in children
who exhibit mental retardation. J Speech
Hear Res 1991;34:141154.
Fischer MA. Mother-child interaction in preverbal
children with Down syndrome. J Speech Hear
Disord 1987;52:179190.
Fujiki M, Brinton B. Comprehension monitoring
skills of adults with mental retardation. Res
Dev Disabil 1993;14:409421.
Garvey C, Berninger G. Timing and turn-taking in
childrens conversation. Discourse Process
1981;4:2758.
Glucksberg S, Krauss R, Higgins ET. The develop-
ment of referential communication skills. In:
Horowitz FD, ed. Review of child develop-
ment research, vol. 4. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1975:305345.
Greenwald CA, Leonard LB. Communicative and
sensorimotor development of Downs syn-
drome children. Am J Ment Defic 1979;84:
296303.
Halliday MAK. Learning how to mean. London:
Edward Arnold, 1975.
Hanzlik JR, Stevenson, MB. Interaction of mothers
with their infants who are mentally retarded,
retarded with cerebral palsy, or nonretarded.
Am J Ment Defic 1986;90:513520.
Hart BM, Risley TR. American parenting of
language-learning children: Persisting differ-
ences in family-child interactions in natural
home environments. Dev Psychol 1992;28:
10961105.
Hazen N, Black B. Preschool peer communicative
skills: the role of social status and interaction
context. Child Dev 1989;60:867876.
Hemphill L, Picardi N, Tager-Flusberg H. Narra-
tive as an index of communicative compe-
tence in mildly mentally retarded children.
Appl Psycholing 1991;12:263279.
Jones OHM. Prelinguistic communication skills in
Downs syndrome and normal infants. In:
Field T, Goldberg S, Stern D et al., eds.
High-risk infants and children: adult and peer
MRDD RESEARCH REVIEWS PRAGMATIC DEVELOPMENT ABBEDUTO & HESKETH
interactions. New York: Academic Press,
1980:205225.
Karmiloff-Smith A, Klima E, Bellugi U, et al. Is
there a social module? Language, face process-
ing, and theory of mind in individuals with
Williams syndrome. J Cogn Neurosci 1995;7:
196208.
Keenan EO Schieffelin BB. Topic as a discourse
notion: a study of topic in the conversation of
children and adults. In: Ochs E, Schieffelin
BB, eds. Acquiring conversational compe-
tence. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul,
1983.
Kernan KT, Sabsay S. Referential first mention in
narratives by mildly mentally retarded adults.
Res Dev Disabil 1987;8:361369.
Leifer JS, Lewis M. Acquisition of conversational
response skills by young Down syndrome and
nonretarded young children. Am J Ment
Defic 1984;88:610618.
Levinson SC. Pragmatics. Cambridge UK: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1983.
Longhurst TM. Communication in retarded adoles-
cents: sex and intelligence level. Am J Ment
Defic 1974;78:607618.
Longhurst TM, Berry GW. Communication in
retarded adolescents: response to listener
feedback. Am J Ment Defic 1975;80:158164.
Loveland KA, Tunali B, McEvoy RE, et al.
Referential communication and response ad-
equacy in autism and Downs syndrome. Appl
Psycholing 1989;10:301313.
Mahoney G. Communication patterns between
mothers and mentally retarded infants. First
Lang 1988;8:157172.
Mahoney G, Fors S, Woods S. Maternal directive
behavior revisited. Am J Ment Retard 1990;94:
398406.
Maurer H, Sherrod KB. Context of directives given
to young children with Down syndrome and
nonretarded children: development over two
years. Am J Ment Defic 1987;91:579590.
McLaren J, Bryson SE. Review of recent epidemio-
logical studies of mental retardation: preva-
lence, associated disorders and etiology. Am J
Ment Retard 1987;92:243254.
McLean JE, McLean LKS, Brady NC, et al.
Communication profiles of two types of
gesture using nonverbal persons with severe to
profound mental retardation. J Speech Hear
Res 1991;34:294308.
McTear MF, Conti-Ramsden G. Pragmatic disabil-
ity in children. London: Whurr Publishing,
1992.
Mervis CB. Relations between language develop-
ment and cognitive development: evidence
from Williams syndrome. Presented at the
18th annual Symposium for Research in
Child Language Disorders, Madison, WI,
1997.
Milosky L. Children listening: the role of world
knowledge in language comprehension. In:
Chapman R, ed. Processes in language
acquisition and disorders. St. Louis: Mosby-
Year Book, 1992:2044.
Mundy P, Seibert JM, Hogan AE. Relationship
between sensorimotor and early communica-
tion abilities in developmentally delayed
children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 1984;30:
3348.
Mundy P, Sigman M, Kasari C, et al. Nonverbal
communication skills in Down syndrome
children. Child Dev 1988;59:235249.
Mundy P, Kasari C, Sigman M, et al. Nonverbal
communication and early language acquisi-
tion in children with Down syndrome and
normally developing children. J Speech Hear
Res 1995;38:157167.
Ninio A, Snow CE. Pragmatic development.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996.
Nuccio J, Abbeduto L. Dynamic contextual vari-
ables and the directives of persons with mental
retardation. Am J Ment Retard 1993;97:547
558.
Owens RE Jr, MacDonald JD. Communicative
uses of the early speech of nondelayed and
Down syndrome children. Am J Ment Defic
1982;86:503510.
Owings NO, McManus MD. An analysis of
communication functions in the speech of a
deinstitutionalized adult mentally retarded
client. Ment Retard 1980;18:309314.
Owings NO, McManus MD, Scherer N. A
deinstitutionalized retarded adults use of
communication functions in a natural setting.
Br J Disord Commun 1981;16:119128.
Paul R, Cohen DJ. Responses to contingent queries
in adults with mental retardation and perva-
sive developmental disorders. Appl Psychol-
ing 1984;5:349357.
Petersen GA, Sherrod KB. Relationship of maternal
language to development and language delay
of children. Am J Ment Defic 1982;86:391
398.
Piaget J. The origins of intelligence in children (M.
Cook, Trans). New York: International
Universities Press, 1952.
Reynell J. Reynell developmental language scales
(revised). Windsor UK: NFER, 1977.
Rondal JA. Maternal speech to normal and Downs
syndrome children matched for mean length
of utterance. In: Meyers CE ed. Quality of life
in severely and profoundly mentally retarded
people: Research foundations for improve-
ments. Washington DC: American Associa-
tion on Mental Deficiency, 1978:193265.
Rondal JA. Exceptional language development in
Down syndrome: implications for the cogni-
MRDD RESEARCH REVIEWS PRAGMATIC DEVELOPMENT ABBEDUTO & HESKETH
tion-language relationship. Cambridge UK:
Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Rosenberg S, Abbeduto, L. Indicators of linguistic
competence in the peer group conversational
behavior of mildly retarded adults. Appl
Psycholing 1987;8:1932.
Rosenberg S, Abbeduto L. Language and commu-
nication in mental retardation: development,
processes, and intervention. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum, 1993.
Rueda R, Chan KS. Referential communication
skill levels of moderately mentally retarded
adolescents. Am J Ment Defic 1980;85:4552.
Sacks H, Schegloff E, Jefferson G. A simplest
systematics for the organization of turn-taking
in conversation. Language 1974;50:696735.
Scherer NJ, Olswang LB. Role of mothers
expansions in stimulating childrens language
production. J Speech Hear Res 1984;27:387
396.
Scherer NJ, Owings, NO. Learning to be contin-
gent: retarded childrens responses to their
mothers requests. Lang Speech 1984;27:255
267.
Scudder R, Tremain DH. Repair behaviors of
children with and without mental retardation.
Ment Retard 1992;30:277282.
Searle JR. Indirect speech acts. In: Cole P, Morgan
JL, eds. Syntax and semantics, vol. 3. New
York: Academic Press, 1975:5982.
Short-Meyerson K, Abbeduto L. Preschoolers
communication during scripted interactions. J
Child Lang, 1997;24:469493.
Sigman M, Mundy P, Sherman T, et al. Social
interactions of autistic, mentally retarded and
normal children and their caregivers. J Child
Psychol Psychiatry 1986;27:647656.
Smith L, von Tetzchner S. Communicative,
sensorimotor, and language skills of young
children with Down syndrome. Am J Ment
Defic 1986;91:5766.
Snow CE. Issues in the study of input: finetuning,
universality, individual and developmental
differences, and necessary causes. In: Fletcher
P, MacWhinney B, eds. The handbook of
child language. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers,
1995:180193.
Tannock R. Mother directiveness in their interac-
tions with their children with and without
Down syndrome. Am J Ment Retard 1988;93:
154165.
Uzgiris IC, Hunt JM. Assessment in infancy: ordinal
scales of psychological development. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 1975.
Velleman SL, Mangipudi L, Locke JL. Prelinguistic
phonetic contingency: data from Down syn-
drome. First Lang 1989;9:159174.
Whitehurst GJ, Sonnenschein S. The development
of communication: a functional analysis. In
Whitehurst GJ, ed. Annals of child develop-
ment. Greenwich, CT: JAI, 1985:148.
Wishart JG, Duffy L. Instability of performance on
cognitive tests in infants and young children
with Downs syndrome. Br J Educ Psychol
1990;60:1022.
Yoder PJ, Warren SF, Biggar HA. Stability of
maternal reports of lexical comprehension in
very young children with developmental delays.
Am J Speech Lang Pathol 1997;6:5964.
Zetlin AG, Sabsay S. Characteristics of verbal
interaction among moderately retarded peers.
Paper presented at Gatlinburg Conference on
Research in Mental Retardation, Gatlinburg,
TN, March 1980.
Zigler E, Hodapp RM. Understanding mental
retardation. Cambridge UK: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1986.
333