Abstract This study used linear regression to define relationship between pragmatic performance and communication by 27 individuals with aphasia, including 14 with fluent aphasia and 13 with non-fluent aphasia. Pragmatic performance was measured with Pragmatic Protocol. Functional communication was measured using ASHA Functional Assessment of Communication Skills (ASHA FACS). Results provide support for relationship between these variables and for their underlying link to linguistic competence. Nonetheless, standard language assessment (Western Aphasia Battery) appears insufficient for describing overall communicative competencies and for explaining differences between some participants' communication abilities. Implications for assessment and treatment of communicative effectiveness are discussed. Keywords: Aphasia Pragmatics Functional Communication. Introduction With any type of disorder, different assessment measures can be, and have been, constructed to assess different aspects of behavior. For example, numerous assessments for aphasia currently exist. Some assessments, such as Western Aphasia Battery (WAB) (Kertesz, 1982) or Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (Goodglass & Kaplan, 1983) purport to assess type and severity of aphasia. Other assessment tools focus on different aspects of The Pragmatic Protocol (Prutting & Kirchner, 1983), for example, examines communication from an entirely different perspective. Pragmatics is study of relationship between language behavior and contexts in which language is used (Prutting & Kirchner, 1983). It involves acquisition and use of conversational knowledge and semantic rules necessary to communicate intent. In addition, pragmatics involves interactional aspects of including sensitivity to social contexts (Chapey, 1992). Specific pragmatic aspects investigated in adults with aphasia include communication acts (Gurland, Chwat, & Wollner, 1982; Wambaugh, Thompson, Doyle, & Camarata, 1991), speech acts (Doyle, Thompson, Oleyar, Wambaugh, & Jackson, 1994; Prinz, 1980; Wilcox & Davis, 1977), discourse analysis (Armstrong, 1987, 1991; Bottenberg & Lemme, 1991; Guilford & O'Connor, 1982; Mentis & Prutting, 1987) and use of nonverbal communication (Behrmann & Penn, 1984; Cicone, Wapner, Foldi, Zurif, & Gardner, 1979; Glosser, Weiner, & Kaplan, 1986; May, David, & Thomas, 1988). Researchers have investigated pragmatic performance in individuals with aphasia (Avent & Wertz, 1996; Holland, 1982; Prutting & Kirchner, 1987; Wilcox & Davis, 1977), and data suggest that individuals with aphasia maintain a high level of pragmatic appropriateness despite their linguistic impairments (Avent & Wertz, 1996; Prutting & Kirchner, 1987). Another area of assessment for aphasia has been referred to as functional communication. Functional communication is defined as the ability to receive or convey a message, regardless of mode, to communicate effectively and independently in a given [natural] environment (p.2)(ASHA, 1990). While profiling specific pragmatic strengths and weaknesses may assist in identifying nature and processes involved in communication, a communication assessment should help to outline consequences of communication deficit in an individuals' daily interactions. For example, when assessing pragmatic ability with an instrument such as Pragmatic Protocol (Prutting & Kirchner, 1987), speech act usage, turn-taking ability, and lexical selection categories may be rated as appropriate or inappropriate. Using a communication measure, such as American Speech Language-Hearing Association Functional Assessment of Communication Skills for Adults (ASHA FACS) (Frattali, Thompson, Holland, Wohl, & Ferketic, 1995), rather than profiling specific deficits, overall quality of communication in real-life activities can be established, as well as amount of assistance needed during these activities. …
Read full abstract