Semantics, Pragmatics and Speech pathology

 

                                                  Essay

1.      Semantics and pragmatics are theoretical fields. However, they may have practical applications. Discuss which areas of semantics and pragmatics you think are particularly relevant for speech pathology and explain why you think so. Your discussion need not be limited to areas of semantics/pragmatics discussed in class. Note that if you choose to discuss lexical semantics, you should not discuss access to lexemes or their meanings, but rather relations between and among lexemes.
 

 

Semantics is a theoretical field which deals with the study of denotative meanings. Which means that meaning of certain lexical entities in their literal sense.  Like: Yule has described certain features of semantics which inculcate conceptual, denotative or literal meanings. According to Yule: "Conceptual meaning covers those basic, essential components of meaning which are conveyed by the literal meanings of the word”.  Various types of social meanings are being described by Leech. Like: Stylistic meanings, which covers the social circumstances of its usage. Similarly, there are “affective meanings” which deal with a person’s attitude or feeling towards certain thing or person. Moreover, there are “reflexive meanings” which incorporate multiple meanings associated with single expressions. Another type of meaning mentioned by Leech was collocative meanings, which are the meanings in certain environments of certain terms. So, meanings can be classified on a spectrum of different levels within the study of semantics. However, focus of lexical semantics remain largely relevant to relationship between words like “Synonymy, hyponymy and antonymy” within the lexicons of a language.

 

Hyponyms are the subordinate categories of their superordinate term. Like: chair and table are the hyponyms of superordinate terms “furniture”.  In cases of language pathology it is notable that people might be using superordinate terms but could not use the subordinate terms. And, in cases where patient may be asked to recognize the referent they may use any term like: “the animal which bark”. So, they would not be able to use the term like: “dog” to identify the referent. Thus, there may be a breakdown of conventional hierarchy of the lexicons. Which shall entail both superordinate and subordinate terms. Synonymy, in comparison is a relationship between meaning conveying similar sense. However, the nature of relationship between synonyms can be diverse. As, some synonyms can be replaced with the other lexicon in a speech context. While, other may show a partial resemblance. And, some other may be “plesionyms” which can-not take place of the other. Like: murder cannot be replaced with executed, although both share the sense of “death”. So, speakers of a language effectively know the relationships between the lexical entities. As, they would be aware of the relation between words to be either “sharing” common meanings or sense relationship, and they may be sharing opposite sense or relations like in cases of antonyms. And, they may also be in a general to specific nature of relationship. As, there is case of hypernym-hyponym relationship.

 

 

 

Erdeljac, V.et al (2008) have conducted a study over twenty aphasic patients. The assumption of the study was that the patient with aphasia will face problems in lexical-semantic relations as compared to normal individuals. The result of the study has exhibited that aphasic patient had faced problems in identifying lexical semantic relationship between the words like: Synonymy, antonymy and hyponymic relationship. The results have notified that patients with aphasia have faced these problems in identifying co-hyponyms, using hyponyms more often than normal individuals which were treated under control group.

Ketteler, D.et al (2012) has conducted a study on schizophrenic patients. High Order Linguistic tests were being designed which should be able to detect subtle linguistic performance deficits in schizophrenic patients. Total of 40 subjects were selected and a controlled group was also formulated. The focus of the study was on ambiguity, synonyms, hyponyms, antinomy and adage. And the patients with schizophrenia have shown a tendency of inability to perform higher level linguistic functional task in comparison with control group. Which, performed well in the tasks that were being provided. Thus, the study has shown that schizophrenic patients have faced problems in performing various linguistic operations including lexico-semantic operations. Previously, Schneider, K. (1950) had drew attention to the significance of “core” or “first rank” symptoms which were related to disorders in thoughts. But, latter those disorders were properly named after as being linguistic deficiencies. Those deficiencies can be variously attributed under the study of semantics and pragmatics.

 

The pragmatics in contrast with semantics does not focus over literal, descriptive or collocated meanings. Rather, it tries to locate the connection between language and language user. Thus, it studies extra-linguistic factors, besides linguistic factors. Since both semantics and pragmatics deal with the study of meanings, however only difference is that pragmatics deals with contextual meanings while semantics deals with non-contextual, rather, textual meanings.

 

As, meanings are essential part of linguistic competence of an individual. Ability to understand meanings at different levels like collocations, reflexive meanings, affective meanings formulate a person’s competence in a language. And, people with linguistic disorder may have problems in understanding the meanings. Like: in deducing hyponymic relationships, or understanding whether two words have a relation of synonymy or not. This is being backed by various studies that people with aphasia and schizophrenia have shown certain linguistic deficiencies alongside too. Erdeljac, V.et al (2008) had find that people with aphasia have shown remarkable differences in identifying lexico-semantic relationships. While, people with schizophrenia have also troubles in processing certain linguistic tasks like: understanding hypernym and hyponymic relationship, or relationship between synonyms etc.  

 

However, linguistic pathology is not only relevant to semantic deficiencies, instead, they have an overtone in pragmatics too. Pragmatic Language impairment (PLI) has been a focus of study for a long period of time. It is often also called as “social communication disorder”. The major symptoms of PLI includes “deficit in communicating for social purposes”. An inability to match the communicating context, needs of the listeners and even rules of the conversation. The patients with PLI might also face problems in storytelling and difficulty in understanding what is not explicitly stated. It is still being largely controversial whether Pragmatic Language Impairment is a separate disorder from autism spectrum or not.

 

 

Ketelaars, M. P. et al (2010) have conducted a study which tries to locate relationship between PLI (Pragmatic Language Impairment) with the behavior of individuals, with such impairments. Prognosis design in mainstream education is being used for testing. And, the results have shown that participants with “Pragmatic language Impairment” have shown a vulnerability to non-pro-social behavior. Children with impairments have shown certain behavioral problems which were largely external in nature. Among the most notable problem was hyperactivity and lack of pro-social behavior. Thus, these problems are somewhat elevated in the group to the levels of clinical consideration in comparison with normal children. Autism and Attention deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) may also be the resulted from pragmatic impairment. Thus, researcher has suggested that early diagnosis to pragmatic impairment can help in treatment of such children.

 

So, pragmatic impairment in linguistic competence can be seen to have correlation with other sorts of behavioral and psycho-social problems. Whitehouse, A. J. et al (2009) have conducted a study over adult psycho-social outcomes over children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI), Pragmatic Language Impairment (PLI) and ASD (Autism spectrum Disorder). The study took total of 19 participants with different kinds of impairments. The results of the study have shown that children with SLI were more likely to have vocational training and do certain jobs with lesser literacy required. While, children with pragmatic linguistic impairments were more likely to do jobs requiring higher levels of literacy. While, people with ASD had more dependence and lesser exposure to job environment. Moreover, all the groups had faced the problems in establishing social relationships. However, PLI and SLI group had faced most of the problems in establishing social relationships. As far as autistic symptomology was concerned PLI and SLI group had shown little symptoms in comparison with ASD group. Thus, the study has shown that people with pragmatic language deficiencies were more likely to face problem in establishing social relationship despite of the fact that they would be able to gain higher levels of literacy.  The results of the study thus indicate that Pragmatic language disabilities can lead to a hindrances in the social functioning of an individual.

 

Botting, N. et al (1999) have studied 10 children who shown early signs of language impairment. The group was classified by their teachers as pragmatic language impaired group as their test scores had suggested in Children Communication Checklists (CCCs). These children were studied for whether their impairment could be described using already present autism spectrum disorder terminology or not. The children with PLI were noted to develop first world earlier than SLI group. But, they have more problems in developing stereotypical language, context and rapport in comparison with their peers. The comparison with “autistic symptomatology” had suggested that four out of the 10 had difficulties in this area and might be better described as suffering “autism” or Asperger’s disorder.

 

 

Laws, G. et al (2004) had aimed to study the children and adults with William syndromes and compared it with Down syndrome. 17 children with specific language impairment were being selected. While, 32 typically developing children were being selected. The group with William syndrome has shown higher levels of pragmatic language impairment and problems in establishing social relationships. So, the study has found that children with William syndrome are more likely to have pragmatic linguistic impairment alongside with poor social skills. So, William syndrome also share certain characteristics of autistic disorder vis. a vis. language impairment.

 

Ryder, N.et al (2008) had come up with assessment techniques for pragmatic linguistic impairment among children. Since, the children with such impairment cannot be assessed through any natural module. So, the study has aimed at discovering a cognitive module for assessments of such children. Pragmatics demanding implicature questions were being used to assess the impairment. 32 children with age (5-7) were being selected and 40 children age ranging (7-11) were selected. When inferring referents, or semantic meanings or the inferring implicature was the goal children with specific language impairment performed similarly. While, children who were impaired and 5-6 years age children both were not competent at utilizing the verbal context. However, children with pragmatic language impairment performed poorest over pragmatically demanding questions, which were targeting implicatures. So, children with pragmatic language impairment had perform worse among the specific language impairment children. Thus, implicature based questions can be used to distinguish between children and others who are pragmatically impaired. So, children who were pragmatically impaired were unable to utilize the contextual information in contrast with other children to infer right answers.

 

 

Thus, language related pathology can be casted as significantly impacted by pragmatics too. Thus, it has practical implications too alongside with theoretical implication. As, language pathology, psychosocial problems can be found to be correlated with the discipline of pragmatics too. As, children with autism have shown that they may also be showing certain specific language deficiencies and pragmatic language deficiencies too. Children with certain psychological, behavioral and psycho-social problems have also indicated linguistic pathology as described in the studies by Ketelaars, M. P., Cuperus, J., Jansonius, K., & Verhoeven, L. (2010), Whitehouse, A. J., Watt, H. J., Line, E. A., & Bishop, D. V. (2009), Botting, N., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (1999), Ryder, N., Leinonen, E., & Schulz, J. (2008) etc.

 

So, the studies indicate that semantics and pragmatics have scope beyond theoretical discussion and deliberation. Rather, they are more relevant to certain practical field too especially psycho-social pathology and human behavior study. Erdeljac, V., & Sekulić, M. (2008) had found that mental lexicons can be a problemetic aspect with patients with aphasia. As, they might not be able to draw lexico-semantic relationship like: hyponym or hypernym or nature of relationships between synonyms etc. Similarly, Ketteler, D., Theodoridou, A., Ketteler, S., & Jäger, M. (2012) had found that schizophrenia patient had faced problem in performing higher levels of linguistic tasks. Like: ambiguity, hyponym- hypernym relationships, sense relationships among synonyms etc. Besides semantics, pragmatic knowledge is also significant in determining socio-psychological pathology alongside with speech disorder. As, people with autism are more likely to develop “pragmatic language deficiencies”. Children with pragmatic language deficiencies are more likely to develop behavioral problems too. Like: Autism and Attention deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) may also be the resulted from pragmatic impairment and lack of pro-social behavior. Moreover, children with pragmatic language disorder may also face trouble in identifying contextual cues and implicature. Thus, Semantics and pragmatics can be used to understand pathology beyond linguistic deformities. And, speech pathology can also be seen in relationship with other psycho-social pathologies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References:

 

 

1-      Erdeljac, V., & Sekulić, M. (2008). Syntactic‐semantic relationships in the mental lexicon of aphasic patients. Clinical linguistics & phonetics, 22(10-11), 795-803.

 

2-      Ketteler, D., Theodoridou, A., Ketteler, S., & Jäger, M. (2012). High order linguistic features such as ambiguity processing as relevant diagnostic markers for schizophrenia. Schizophrenia research and treatment, 2012.

 

3-      Ketelaars, M. P., Cuperus, J., Jansonius, K., & Verhoeven, L. (2010). Pragmatic language impairment and associated behavioural problems. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 45(2), 204-214.

 

4-      Whitehouse, A. J., Watt, H. J., Line, E. A., & Bishop, D. V. (2009). Adult psychosocial outcomes of children with specific language impairment, pragmatic language impairment and autism. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 44(4), 511-528.

 

5-      Botting, N., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (1999). Pragmatic language impairment without autism: The children in question. autism, 3(4), 371-396.

 

6-      Laws, G., & Bishop, D. V. (2004). Pragmatic language impairment and social deficits in Williams syndrome: a comparison with Down's syndrome and specific language impairment. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 39(1), 45-64.

 

7-      Ryder, N., Leinonen, E., & Schulz, J. (2008). Cognitive approach to assessing pragmatic language comprehension in children with specific language impairment. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 43(4), 427-447.