This paper examines three studies that Danks and Schwenk interpreted as supporting the pragmatic communication rule of adjective ordering. It is argued that the preference for an inverted order that is predicted by the rule was obtained only under extremely limiting conditions and that the effect on comprehension that is predicted by the rule was entirely artifactual. Indeed, when all limiting conditions were not met, normal order was preferred, frequently in violation of the rule. Normal order cannot, therefore, be simply a special case of the rule. Among other difficulties, the confounding of adjective order with intonation is a flaw in the design of all three studies.