A Comparison of Request-Response Sequences in the Discourse of Normal and Language-Disordered Children This study compared several discourse characteristics of linguistically normal and language-disordered children. In order to examine interactive skills, several types of request-response sequences were considered. These included choice questions, product questions, requests for clarification, and the responses elicited by these speech acts. While neither the linguistically normal nor the language-disordered ... Reports
Reports  |   February 01, 1982
A Comparison of Request-Response Sequences in the Discourse of Normal and Language-Disordered Children
 
Author Notes
Article Information
Reports   |   February 01, 1982
A Comparison of Request-Response Sequences in the Discourse of Normal and Language-Disordered Children
Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, February 1982, Vol. 47, 57-62. doi:10.1044/jshd.4701.57
History: Received August 11, 1980 , Accepted March 5, 1981
 
Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, February 1982, Vol. 47, 57-62. doi:10.1044/jshd.4701.57
History: Received August 11, 1980; Accepted March 5, 1981

This study compared several discourse characteristics of linguistically normal and language-disordered children. In order to examine interactive skills, several types of request-response sequences were considered. These included choice questions, product questions, requests for clarification, and the responses elicited by these speech acts. While neither the linguistically normal nor the language-disordered groups had achieved an adult level of competence, normal children were much more aware of the interactive nature of discourse than language-disordered children. Normals most often responded within the boundaries of an acceptable adult response. Language-disordered children frequently ignored and responded inappropriately to requests. Their responses were occasionally contrary to fact or totally unrelated to the expected information. Some language-disordered subjects also demonstrated linguistic strategies that facilitated the flow of conversation, but showed no understanding of the content of the communicative interchange. The clinical implications of these findings and the need for further research are discussed.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access