dis is such a Linguistic class assignment
Can Social Pragmatic Skills Be
Tested?
By definition individuals with an
autism spectrum disorder have difficulty with what is called the pragmatic
aspect of language. Parents and speech language pathologists often ask, “What
test will demonstrate that my child (or student) has difficulties with
pragmatics?” This question reflects the assumption that there is such an
instrument. There isn’t one AND there may never be a singular effective
standardized test of pragmatic ability. While this response may come as a
shock, it may be more understandable if one knows more about the nature of
pragmatics and knows how one can assess pragmatic function.
What is
pragmatics and what does it involve?
If one has good pragmatic skills, he
or she is able to communicate an appropriate message in an effective manner
within a reasonable time frame in a real life situation. Pragmatics is like a
cake. The cake is the whole or gestalt that represents the combination of many
ingredients. No one ingredient is representative of the edible item, that we
call a “cake.” In a somewhat related fashion, as one continues the cake
analogy, no singular standardized test of ingredients can effectively capture
the essence of the whole or gestalt called “pragmatics.” In order to
communicate an appropriate message in a given situation, many ingredients have
to mesh in an instantaneous fashion. Within a few seconds or less, the
typical communicator must:
- Note the current social situation in which the
communication interaction is occurring, including the nonverbal cues.
- Pay attention and receive the complete verbal
message delivered by the speaker.
- Analyze the meaning of the verbal and nonverbal
messages within the context of the conversational situation.
- Check the tentative interpretation of the
messages against one’s bank of social knowledge.
- Formulate a response inside one’s head based on
the above, after considering several possible options.
- Draw upon one’s knowledge of vocabulary and
grammar.
- Speak or generate the message in a manner that is
understandable to others.
- Be prepared to receive and analyze the new
incoming message response, complete with its nonverbal and hidden
messages.
- Begin the cycle all over again.
This sounds like quite a task, but
typical speakers do it all the time with little effort. For the person with an
autism spectrum disorder, such situations often represent a serious challenge.
What can
contribute to poor social pragmatic skills in a given situation?
The potential for difficulty or lack
of effectiveness in any given situation is ample. A person may have difficulty
because of one or more of the following reasons. He or she may have:
- Limited awareness that a message is being
directed to him or her.
- Difficulty distilling the auditory message amid
competing incoming sensory stimuli.
- Difficulty processing the message of the
communication partner because the communication partner:
- Spoke rapidly;
- Used vocabulary that was unfamiliar to the
listener;
- Spoke about events that were of no interest to
the listener;
- Spoke about unfamiliar events, ideas, or
experiences;
- Used grammar that was too complex for the
listener;
- Used figurative language that made
interpretation difficult; or
- Used gestures that were distracting and
meaningless for the listener.
Limited knowledge about the social world, including understanding the
mental state/perspective of the communication partner.
- Difficulty sifting through all the confusing
information and meshing it with stored knowledge/social skills training in
a rapid fashion.
One may or may not have had the
appropriate social skill knowledge. One may have misread the social
setting or been oblivious to certain cues. The important issue, however,
is whether one can access that social knowledge on the spot and use it in
a real situation to guide a response, even though one might feel confused,
anxious, over-stimulated, or rushed.
- Difficulty planning the response in terms of
message intent, vocabulary and syntax.
Some individuals may experience
word-finding problems and have considerable difficulty using mature and
complex language forms to express their ideas. Individuals often have
difficulty understanding that they must consider the other person’s
background and perspective. Too often, the listener furnishes too little
information to facilitate meaningful understanding.
- Delivery of the message may be too rapid or too
choppy to be intelligible or understandable.
Even speakers without ASD “ flub
up” in various situations because they are nervous or anxious. The message
may be very clear inside the head of the speaker but getting the
communication partner to understand the message intent can be a challenge.
A smooth and effective delivery style is not always easy.
So much effort may have gone into formulating the first response that the
person with ASD isn’t prepared to begin the process again without more of
a break. Other individuals with ASD may be very used to one-turn
conversations and not have any expectation that a second response will be
expected.
How does one
assess pragmatics?
When one considers the complexity of
the process listed above, it is understandable why a singular formal test would
not accurately identify something as complex and context based as pragmatic
problems. Pragmatics represents the whole act of communication and is not
simply a sum of the parts.
One might, however, initially
identify that an individual has a problem with pragmatics (the whole) and
particular situations that present problems by:
- Observing the person with ASD.
- Interviewing numerous people about what
communication situations are challenging and identification of particular
difficulties.
- Completing inventories or checklists.
- Using informal situations to sample the person’s
ability to deal with specific communication challenges.
For an elementary school age
student, this might translate into an observation in the classroom during group
instruction and small group sessions, at recess, and in the lunchroom. Parents,
teachers, aides and peers might contribute useful information during an
interview or through a checklist. The student him or herself also might
be able to identify situations that represent a challenge by completing a
checklist. Challenging situations could be embedded within the daily routine so
that the student might demonstrate how he manages situations such as being
overlooked as papers are passed out, someone teasing him, or needing to ask for
assistance with a difficult task. This type of data is called qualitative data.
This data collection method is used to analyze complex behaviors such as social
interaction. Qualitative data can be as legitimate as quantitative data (test
scores) for decision-making about programming needs if it has been collected in
an appropriate manner.
Does formal
testing have a place in the assessment of pragmatic skills?
The Test of Pragmatic Language,
for example, attempts to look at the application of social knowledge. The test
involves pictured situations and requires responding to static, non-emotional, decontextualized
situations. The examiner provides information about the situation and asks what
the person might say in that situation. The test can provide some information
about social knowledge but one has to understand the limitations. If one has
been taught about certain social situations and has good associational recall,
one might be able to pass the test. This same person may have significant
problems with natural pragmatic situations, however, when he or she is in a
real life situation. He or she may have great difficulty coping with emotions
and/or may be in sensory overload. He or she might be clueless about the
subtleties of the situation. He or she may be unable to manage the demand for a
rapid processing of information. And, he or she may be unable to deal with the
rapid need for formulation and delivery of an appropriate response. In other
words, the test produces false negative data for some children because it
cannot capture enough of the holistic demands of real life situations.
Emotional state, not measured by the test, can play an important role in how
well one can use what he or she knows. The degree of challenge emanating from
the demands will differ by individual and by specific situation.
Other types of formal testing might
be used if the purpose is clearly defined and the results reviewed within the
holistic context that pragmatics represent. For example, if it is suspected
that the student has trouble with understanding complex grammar, this could be
probed. Intervention focused on only this one underpinning element, however,
may or may not improve pragmatic abilities unless coupled with increasing
social knowledge. The reverse is also true. If one learns more about social
knowledge, one may still be ineffective in real situations because other
significant components collectively also impact performance. It may be very
important to screen or evaluate selective contributing elements such as
vocabulary, word retrieval, event representation skills, and so forth and
consider these as one attempts to improve pragmatic skills for a specific
individual.
Summary
By definition, individuals with an
autism spectrum disorder will have difficulty with social pragmatic function.
It does not take formal testing to identify that a social pragmatic problem
exists. No singular test can evaluate the complexity of situational pragmatic
skills. Passing a test such as the Test of Pragmatic Language can
represent a false negative and exclude someone from needed support and
intervention. Sometimes information from selective tests or subtests that probe
specific elements that contribute to pragmatic competency, however, might be
helpful for program design. Scoring within normal limits, however, on any of
these tests does not mean that there is no pragmatic disorder but rather that
one of the components, under specific conditions, does not seem to be a major
problem.
Qualitative data is legitimate and
can be gathered through various means. Individuals will differ in terms of how
effective they are in specific situations, with specific partners, and as the
mental and emotional demands of situations change. The complexity of pragmatics
must be considered as intervention programs are designed.
