J Autism Dev Disord (2009) 39:388–393
DOI 10.1007/s10803-008-0618-y
BRIEF REPORT
Brief Report: Pragmatic Language in Autism Spectrum Disorder:
Relationships to Measures of Ability and Disability
Joanne Volden Æ Jamesie Coolican Æ
Nancy Garon Æ Julie White Æ Susan Bryson
Published online: 15 July 2008
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008
Abstract Pragmatic language skill is regarded as an area
of universal deficit in Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD),
but little is known about factors related to its development
and how it in turn might contribute to skills needed to
function in everyday contexts or to the expression of ASD-
related symptoms. This study investigated these relation-
ships in 37 high-functioning children with ASD. Multiple
regression analyses revealed that structural language skills
significantly predicted pragmatic language performance,
but also that a significant portion of variance in pragmatic
scores could not be accounted for by structural language or
nonverbal cognition. Pragmatic language scores, in turn,
accounted for significant variance in ADOS Communica-
tion and Socialization performance, but did not uniquely
predict level of communicative or social adaptive func-
tioning on the Vineland. These findings support the notion
of pragmatic language impairment as integral to ASD but
also highlight the need to measure pragmatic skills in
J. Volden (&)
J. White
Speech Pathology and Audiology,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
e-mail: joanne.volden@ualberta.ca
J. Volden
Autism Research Institute of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
J. Coolican
N. Garon
Department of Psychology, Dalhousie University,
Halifax, NS, Canada
N. Garon
S. Bryson
IWK Health Centre, Halifax, Canada
S. Bryson
Departments of Pediatrics and Psychology,
Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
123
everyday situations, to target adaptive skills in intervention
and to intervene in functional, community-based contexts.
Keywords Pragmatic language
Structural language

Adaptive function
Severity of symptoms
While communicative dysfunction is one of the central
characteristics of ASD, its profile of symptoms varies
widely from person to person. At one extreme, there are
children with ASD whose structural (i.e., lexical and syn-
tactic) language is within normal limits (Landa 2000),
while at the other extreme, some children with autism
remain essentially nonverbal (Bryson et al. 1988; Lord and
Paul 1997). Even when structural language is apparently
intact, difficulties with pragmatic language (i.e., the
appropriate social use of language) persist. Thus, prag-
matics is consistently agreed upon as the domain that is
specifically and universally impaired in ASD (Landa 2000;
Tager-Flusberg et al. 2005; Young et al. 2005).
Pragmatic language impairment may be defined as a
mismatch between language and the situation in which it is
used, so that the language employed is in some way
inappropriate to the situational demands (Volden and Lord
1991). Clinical reports describe language in speakers with
autism as ‘‘peculiar and out of place in ordinary conver-
sation, irrelevant’’ (Kanner 1946, p. 243), ‘‘formal,
demonstrating a lack of ease in the use of words’’ (Rutter
1965, p. 41), ‘‘stereotypic, inappropriate’’ (Bartak et al.
1975), and ‘‘metaphorical’’ (Cantwell et al. 1978, p. 357;
Kanner 1946). Focussed investigations, using either anal-
ysis of conversational samples or structured experimental
tasks, have documented several specific pragmatic diffi-
culties, including identifying the topic initiated by a
speaker and making a relevant comment (Adams 2002;
J Autism Dev Disord (2009) 39:388–393
Paul and Cohen 1984; Tager-Flusberg and Anderson 1991),
knowing how much information is relevant to include in an
utterance (Surian et al. 1996; Volden 2002), and main-
taining the topic of conversation (Baltaxe 1977; Baltaxe
and D’Angiola 1992; Volden 2002). Nevertheless, there are
very few studies that have examined a broad spectrum of
pragmatic language skills.
In contrast to the universal nature of pragmatic com-
munication deficits in ASD, impairments in structural
language (i.e., phonology, vocabulary and syntax) are not
necessarily present. Although, early studies (Bartolucci
et al. 1976, 1980; Boucher 1976, 1988; Tager-Flusberg
1981, 1985; Tager-Flusberg et al. 1990) concluded that
there were no autism-specific deficits in phonology, syntax
or lexical knowledge, more recent work (Kjelgaard and
Tager-Flusberg 2001; Rapin and Dunn 2003; Eigsti et al.
2007) provides evidence of syntactic impairment, but none
have found it to be universal. Unfortunately, none of these
studies included a comprehensive measure of pragmatic
language skills.
Recently, Klin et al. (2007) have argued that because
communicative and social adaptive skills are both central
and defining features of ASD, a better understanding of the
individual factors (e.g., general intelligence, structural
language) that might influence acquisition of these pivotal
skills could be very important in planning more effective
intervention. Clark et al. (2002) took a step in this direction
by examining the contribution of executive function abil-
ities to predictions of adaptive behaviour and
communication scores in children with ADHD or conduct
disorder. They found that executive function skills con-
tributed unique variance to the prediction of adaptive
behaviour, communication, and socialization scores on the
Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scale (VABS) in each
group. Pragmatic language skills may play a similar role,
but very few studies have examined pragmatic profiles.
Recent work (Philofsky et al. 2007) used the Children’s
Communication Checklist—Version 2 (CCC-2; Bishop
2003), a parent report checklist designed to evaluate
communicative competence, to compare detailed prag-
matic profiles of children with ASD and children with
Williams’ Syndrome. They found that there were both
similarities and differences in pragmatic profile between
the groups, but they did not relate these findings to mea-
sured differences in other language domains, or to
differences in adaptive functioning.
One reason for this gap in the literature is the difficulty
in measuring pragmatic skill (Adams 2002; Bishop 1998;
Bishop and Baird 2001). Because pragmatics refers to the
appropriate contextual use of language, it is difficult to
extrapolate from performance measured in a single stan-
dardized situation to a person’s overall pragmatic
competence. Nevertheless, some standardized pragmatic
389
language measures have been developed. One such mea-
sure is the Test of Pragmatic Language (TOPL; Phelps-
Terasaki and Phelps-Gunn 1992). The TOPL samples a
range of typically developing pragmatic behaviours. Pic-
tures depicting common social situations are shown to the
child, briefly described, and the child is asked to generate a
response for one of the pictured characters.
The TOPL successfully distinguished ASD from typical
development in a recent study conducted by Young and her
colleagues (2005). Participants aged 6–14 with ASD, and
with normal cognition and structural language were com-
pared to a group of typically developing matched controls.
As expected, the participants with ASD performed signif-
icantly worse than their typical counterparts, obtaining a
mean TOPL standard score of 78 compared to 97 for the
controls. Thus, even among high-functioning children and
adolescents with ASD, pragmatic language skills, as mea-
sured by the TOPL, were a relative weakness.
The current study extends the work of Young et al.
(2005) by examining factors that might influence, or be
affected by, the acquisition of pragmatic skills. We asked
the following research questions: (1) Is pragmatic language
skill, as indexed by the TOPL, accounted for by nonverbal
cognitive ability and structural language skill?; and (2)
What are the relative contributions of nonverbal cognition,
structural language and pragmatic language skill in pre-
dicting (i) communicative and social adaptive skill in
everyday contexts, and (ii) severity of communicative and
social ASD symptoms. We expected that structural lan-
guage would contribute significantly to variability in
pragmatic language skill. All three factors—nonverbal
cognitive ability, structural language and pragmatics—
were each expected to predict communicative and social
adaptive behavior and severity of corresponding autistic
symptoms.
Methods
Participants
Participants were 37 children, aged 6–13 years, who met
criteria for autism/ASD based on the Autism Diagnostic
Observation Schedule (ADOS; Lord et al. 1999), the
Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (Lord et al. 1994)
and expert clinical opinion using DSM-IV criteria, recrui-
ted from the Hospital for Sick Children (HSC) in Toronto,
Ontario, Canada. Children were excluded from the study if
they had cerebral palsy or another neuromotor disorder that
would interfere with administration of assessment instru-
ments, a known genetic/chromosomal or neurological
disorder, or if English was not the primary language spoken
in the home.
123
390 J Autism Dev Disord (2009) 39:388–393

Procedure Table 2 Predictive relationship of nonverbal cognition, receptive

As part of a larger study, participants were given a battery of
language and cognitive measures, including the Clinical
Evaluation of Language Fundamentals—3rd Edition
(CELF-3; Semel et al. 1995), the Test of Pragmatic Lan-
guage (TOPL; Phelps-Terasaki and Phelps-Gunn 1992), and
the Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale, 4th Edition (SB-IV;
Thorndike et al. 1986). Also, data from the Vineland
Adaptive Behavior Scale (VABS; Sparrow et al. 1984) were
obtained for 33 of 37 participants. These tests were admin-
istered by trained examiners over two sessions, separated by
1–2 weeks, at the Autism Research Unit of HSC.
Results
Cognition and Language Abilities
As shown in Table 1, participant mean Full Scale and Verbal
IQs and standard scores on the Abstract/Visual Reasoning
(Abs/Vis) subtest of the SB-IV, the CELF-3 and the VABS
Communication subscale were all within normal limits,
while the mean TOPL score was low average, and VABS
Socialization score was more than two standard deviations
below the mean. In addition, TOPL scores were, on average,
significantly lower than CELF-3 Total scores on a paired
sample t-test (mean difference = 9.5, t (36) = 4.56,
p \ .001), confirming that social language is less well
developed than structural language in this population.
Data Analysis
The data were analysed using a series of standard multiple
regression analyses. For each regression, the overall R2 had to
be significant in order to interpret the independent variables.
Standard ‘‘b’’ was used as an index of the relative importance
of each independent variable. Alpha was set at .05.
Variance in Pragmatic Language
A regression was run using TOPL standard scores (SSs) as
the dependent variable and SSs on Abs/Vis, CELF-Expres-
sive language and CELF-Receptive language as independent
and expressive structural language to pragmatic language
Pragmatic language (TOPL) b sr2 (unique r2 (total
variance) variance)
Stanford-Binet Abstract/Visual SS .19 .00 .04
CELF-Expressive language SS .49** .09** .64**
CELF-Receptive language SS .41* .05* .59**
Total R2 .70***
* p \ .05, ** p \ .01, *** p \ .001
variables. Table 2 shows that the overall model was highly
significant (p \ .001), accounting for 70% of the variance in
pragmatic language. CELF-Expressive language (b = .49,
p \ .01) followed by CELF-Receptive language (b = .41,
p \ .01) had the largest b weights in predicting pragmatic
language. Non-verbal cognitive scores made no significant
contribution to the prediction. Table 2 shows that CELF-
Expressive language SSs (9%) and CELF-Receptive lan-
guage SSs (5%) uniquely accounted for a small portion of the
overall variance. The remainder of the variance (56%) was
accounted for by the three variables in combination. Thus,
the two CELF variables were accounting for a large amount
of overlapping variance in pragmatic language.
Predicting Vineland Communication Scores
Another regression analysis was run, with VABS Com-
munication SSs as the dependent variable, and SSs on Abs/
Vis, CELF-Expressive and Receptive language and TOPL
as independent variables. As shown in Table 3, the overall
model was significant (p \ .01), accounting for 43% of the
variance in communication skills. Standardized beta
weights were largest for CELF-Expressive language
(b = .51, p \ .1), although none of the predictor variables
accounted for significant unique variance in VABS Com-
munication SSs. Rather, the variance in communication
was accounted for by the combined effect (30%) of all
three language variables.
Predicting Vineland Socialization Scores
An analogous regression analysis was run, with VABS
Socialization SSs as the dependent variable and SSs on

Table 1 Mean standard scores, (SD), and [Range] on assessment measures

CA Stanford-Binet (n = 37) CELF-3 (n = 37) TOPL Vineland (n = 33)
(years;months) (n = 37)
Full Verbal Abs/Vis Total Rec Exp Comm Social

8;6 (1;9) 97.8 92.3 103.1 90.3 94.3 87.9 80.1 91.0 65.8
(18.4) (21.9) (18.8) (22.8) (23.9) (22.4) (19.9) (17.4) (12.1)
[45–140] [55–158] [60–160] [50–142] [50–150] [50–131] [57–125] [58–129] [48–93]

123
J Autism Dev Disord (2009) 39:388–393 391

Table 3 Predictive relationship of nonverbal cognition, structural Table 4 Predictive relationship of nonverbal cognition, structural
language and pragmatic language to adaptive behaviour scores language and pragmatic language to symptom severity
b sr2 (unique r2 (total b sr2 (unique r2 (total
variance) variance) variance) variance)

Vineland Communication ADOS Communication

Stanford-Binet Abstract/Visual SS -.05 .00 .02 Abstract/Visual SS -.14 .02 .04
CELF-Expressive language SS .52
.12
.42** CELF-Exp SS .31 .03 .08

CELF-Receptive language SS .15 .01 .35** CELF-Rec SS -.01 .00 .11*
Pragmatic language (TOPL) SS .02 .00 .30** TOPL -.69* .14* .22**
Total R2 .43** Total R2 .26*
Vineland Socialization ADOS Social
Stanford-Binet Abstract/Visual SS .28 .05 .04 Abstract/Visual SS -.04 .00 .02
CELF-Expressive language SS .16 .00 .00 CELF-Exp SS .64* .11* .02
CELF-Receptive language SS -.32 .02 .00 CELF-Rec SS -.29 .02 .10*
Pragmatic language (TOPL) SS .07 .00 .00 TOPL -.67* .14* .15**
Total R2 .07 Total R2 .27*



p \ .1, * p \ .05, ** p \ .01 p \ .1, * p \ .05, ** p \ .01

Abs/Vis, CELF-Expressive and Receptive language and Discussion

TOPL as independent variables. This overall model failed
to reach significance (see Table 3).
Predicting ADOS Communicative Impairment
A regression analysis was conducted using ADOS Com-
munication algorithm scores as the dependent variable and
SSs on Abs/Vis, CELF-Expressive and Receptive lan-
guage, and TOPL as independent variables (see Table 4).
The overall model was significant (p \ .05), accounting for
26% of the variance in communicative impairment. Stan-
dardized beta weights were largest for pragmatic language
(b = -.69, p \ .05) with better TOPL scores being asso-
ciated with less severe communicative impairment. The
remaining variables made no significant unique contribu-
tion to the prediction of ASD symptoms as measured by the
ADOS.
Predicting ADOS Social Impairment
A similar regression was run, with ADOS Social algorithm
scores as the dependent variable and SSs on Abs/Vis,
CELF-Expressive and Receptive language, and TOPL as
independent variables (see Table 4). The overall model
was significant (p \ .05), accounting for 27% of the vari-
ance in social impairment. Standardized beta weights were
largest for expressive language (b = .64, p \ .05) and
pragmatic language (b = -.67, p \ .05) but the relation-
ships of each to social impairment are in the opposite
direction. Better TOPL scores are associated with less
severe social impairment, while better expressive language
is actually associated with more social impairment.
Pragmatic language should logically be an important factor
in considering a person’s long-term ability to function
effectively in his or her community because it stands at the
intersection of language and social skills, impairments
central to defining features of ASD. This paper examines
the contributions of nonverbal cognitive and structural
language skills to the prediction of pragmatic language
scores, as well as the extent to which each of the three
predicted everyday functional skills and severity of ASD
symptoms in a sample of relatively high-functioning
youngsters with ASD.
Structural language abilities, as measured by the CELF-
3, accounted for a large portion of the variance in prag-
matic language as indexed by the TOPL. Because the
expression of pragmatic competence often requires verbal
skill, this close relationship is not surprising. It is however,
noteworthy that 30% of the variance associated with TOPL
scores is not accounted for by nonverbal cognitive ability
or by structural language skill. Thus, pragmatic language
scores measure additional language/communication skills
that are not captured by standard measures of structural
language competence. This finding highlights the impor-
tance of examining pragmatic language skill in addition to
traditional assessments of syntax, semantics, and vocabu-
lary when evaluating communicative dysfunction in ASD.
In terms of adaptive behaviour, the combined structural
and pragmatic communication measures accounted for
30% of the variance in Vineland Communication scores.
Contrary to expectations, pragmatic language did not
contribute significant unique variance. Also contrary to
expectations, Vineland Socialization scores were not

123
392
significantly predicted by our set of predictor variables.
One possible explanation is the well-documented finding
that children with ASD often do better in structured test
situations than they do spontaneously in unstructured
everyday life (Klin et al. 2007; Young et al. 2005). Perhaps
the structure of the test situation and its requirement for an
isolated response presents fewer processing demands than
the myriad of competing stimuli that demand attention in
real social contexts, leading to an over-estimate of prag-
matic skills on standardized tests (Williams et al. 2006).
In addition, the TOPL measures only the pragmatic
skills that emerge in the course of typical development. It
does not assess the qualitative abnormalities that are fre-
quently reported as characteristic of the conversational
language in speakers with ASD (Bishop 1998; Bishop and
Adams 1989). The CCC-2 (Bishop 2003) includes these
skills but was unavailable at the time our data were col-
lected. In addition, the development of observational
protocols that could document and quantify pragmatic
language behaviours in everyday life, thus serving both to
corroborate parent reports and to enrich our understanding
of the pragmatic challenges of individuals with ASD,
remains a pressing issue for future research. Finally,
pragmatic language skill was the only factor from our set of
predictors that contributed unique variance to predicting
the ADOS Communication scores. As expected, better
pragmatic skills were associated with fewer ASD-linked
communicative symptoms. This finding underscores how
central the connection is between social communication
and ASD-linked communicative symptoms.
Both pragmatic and expressive structural language con-
tributed significant unique variance to the prediction of
ASD-linked social behaviour. Better pragmatic skills were
also linked to fewer symptoms in the social domain, but
expressive structural language was related to greater social
impairment. Further inspection of the data revealed that this
was largely accounted for by a number of cases who dem-
onstrated a large discrepancy favouring expressive over
pragmatic language scores, a discrepancy, which not sur-
prisingly (see Table 4 for negative bs for both receptive and
pragmatic language) is positively correlated with expres-
sive-receptive difference scores (r = .42, p \ .009) . In
other words, among this relatively high-functioning group
with ASD, some children, while fluent, do not use language
to communicate in a meaningful or reciprocal way, and look
particularly socially impaired. One important direction for
future research is to identify the mechanisms underlying
this language/communicative profile. Possible candidates
include particularly good rote memory and a lack of exec-
utive control of attention (cf., Hill 2004).
The extent to which the present findings can be gen-
eralized is limited by a relatively small sample size
comprised of children who, on average, functioned within
123
J Autism Dev Disord (2009) 39:388–393
normal limits on most measures, but were quite heteroge-
neous. The relationships found here may differ in more
homogeneous groups. Additional limitations include using
a single pragmatic composite score as it is unlikely to reveal
specific aspects of pragmatic language that may relate more
directly to either ASD symptoms or to adaptive outcomes.
Similarly, our study is limited by using a global measure of
nonverbal cognition which may not be sensitive enough to
reveal significant relationships between particular nonver-
bal abilities and pragmatic language skill. These detailed
relationships will need to be clarified in future research.
Overall, pragmatic language as measured by the TOPL is
strongly related to, but not dictated by, structural language.
Along with structural language, pragmatics contributes to
everyday communicative functioning, but did not predict
how well the speaker would function socially. This may be
at least partially explained by the difficulties in attempting
to measure a contextually dependent skill in a standardized
formal test. This study suggests the importance of devel-
oping comprehensive assessments of pragmatic language to
help document a person’s level of disability, and of
emphasizing intervention in functional, community based
contexts as the foundation for skill development across
domains.
Acknowledgments These data were collected as part of a larger
study, funded by NIH Grant # HD-01-110, held by Susan Bryson. The
authors thank NIH for their generous support. The first author also
especially thanks Susan Bryson for generously sharing her data. Por-
tions of the data were presented at the International Meeting for Autism
Research 2007, Seattle, Washington, and at the Society for Research in
Child Language Development 2007, Madison, Wisconsin. As always,
the authors wish to acknowledge the generous contribution of time and
energy from the participants and their families.
References
Adams, C. (2002). Practitioner review: The assessment of language
pragmatics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and
Allied Disciplines, 43(8), 973–987. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.
00226.
Baltaxe, C. (1977). Pragmatic deficits in the language of autistic
adolescents. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 2(4), 176–180.
doi:10.1093/jpepsy/2.4.176.
Baltaxe, C., & d’Angiola, N. (1992). Cohesion in the discourse
interaction of autistic specific language impaired, and normal
children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 22,
1–22. doi:10.1007/BF01046399.
Bartak, L., Rutter, M., & Cox, A. (1975). A comparative study of
infantile autism and specific developmental receptive language
disorder: 1: The children. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 126,
127–145.
Bartolucci, G., Pierce, S., & Streiner, D. (1980). Cross sectional
studies of grammatical morphemes in autistic and mentally
retarded children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disor-
ders, 10, 39–50. doi:10.1007/BF02408431.
Bartolucci, G., Pierce, S., Steiner, D., & Tolkin-Eppel, P. (1976).
Phonological investigation of verbal autistic and mentally
J Autism Dev Disord (2009) 39:388–393
retarded subjects. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophre-
nia, 6, 303–315. doi:10.1007/BF01537908.
Bishop, D. (1998). Development of the Children’s Communication
checklist (CCC): A method for assessing qualitative aspects of
communication impairment in children. Journal of Child Psy-
chology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 39(6), 879–891.
doi:10.1017/S0021963098002832.
Bishop, D. (2003). The Children’s Communication Checklist, Second
Edition, CCC-2 Manual. London: The Psychological Corporation.
Bishop, D., & Adams, C. (1989). Conversational characteristics of
children with semantic-pragmatic disorder. II: What features
lead to a judgement of inappropriacy? The British Journal of
Disorders of Communication, 24, 241–263. doi:10.3109/13682
828909019890.
Bishop, D., & Baird, G. (2001). Parent and teacher report of
pragmatic aspects of communication: Use of the Children’s
Communication Checklist in a clinical setting. Developmental
Medicine and Child Neurology, 43, 809–818. doi:10.1017/
S0012162201001475.
Boucher, J. (1976). Articulation in early childhood autism. Journal of
Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia, 6, 297–302. doi:10.1007/
BF01537907.
Boucher, J. (1988). Word fluency in high-functioning autistic children.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18, 637–645.
doi:10.1007/BF02211881.
Bryson, S., Clark, B., & Smith, T. (1988). First report of an Canadian
epidemiological study of autistic syndromes. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 29, 433–445.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1988.tb00735.x.
Cantwell, D., Baker, L., & Rutter, M. (1978). A comparative study of
infantile autism and specific developmental receptive language
disorder—IV: Analysis of syntax and language function. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 19,
351–362. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1978.tb00481.x.
Clark, C., Prior, M., & Kinsella, G. (2002). The relationship between
executive function abilities, adaptive behavior, and academic
achievement in children with externalizing behavior problems.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43(6), 785–796.
Eigsti, I., Bennetto, L., & Dadlani, M. (2007). Beyond pragmatics:
Morphosyntactic development in autism. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 37, 1007–1023. doi:10.1007/s10803-
006-0239-2.
Hill, E. (2004). Evaluating the theory of executive dysfunction in
autism. Developmental Review, 24, 189–233.
Kanner, L. (1946). Irrelevant and metaphorical language. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 103, 242–246.
Kjelgaard, M., & Tager-Flusberg, H. (2001). An investigation of
language impairment in autism: Implications for genetic sub-
groups. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16, 287–308.
Klin, A., Saulnier, C., Sparrow, S., Cicchetti, D., Volkmar, F., &
Lord, C. (2007). Social and communication abilities and
disabilities in higher functioning individuals with autism spec-
trum disorders: The Vineland and the ADOS. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 37, 748–759.
Landa, R. (2000). Social language use in Asperger syndrome and high-
functioning Autism. In A. Klin, F. Volkmar, & S. Sparrow (Eds.),
Asperger syndrome (pp. 125–158). New York: The Guilford Press.
Lord, C., & Paul, R. (1997). Language and communication in Autism.
In F. Volkmar, R. Paul, & A. Klin (Eds.), Handbook on autism and
pervasive developmental disorders (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Lord, C., Rutter, M., diLavore, P., & Risi, S. (1999). Autism
Diagnostic Observation Schedule Manual. Los Angeles, CA:
Western Psychological Services.
393
Lord, C., Rutter, M., & Le Couteur, A. (1994). Autism diagnostic
interview-revised: A revised version of a diagnostic interview for
caregivers of the individuals with possible pervasive develop-
mental disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 24(5), 659–685.
Paul, R., & Cohen, D. J. (1984). Responses to contingent queries in
adults with mental retardation and pervasive developmental
disorders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 5, 349–357.
Phelps-Terasaki, D., & Phelps-Gunn, T. (1992). Test of pragmatic
language. East Moline, IL: Linguisystems.
Philofsky, A., Fidler, D., & Hepburn, S. (2007). Pragmatic language
profiles of school-age children with autism spectrum disorder
and Williams syndrome. American Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology, 16, 368–380.
Rapin, I., & Dunn, M. (2003). Update on the language disorder of
individuals on the autism spectrum. Brain and Development, 25,
166–172.
Rutter, M. (1965). Speech disorders in a series of autistic children. In
A. Franklin (Ed.), Children with communication problems (pp.
39–47). London: Pitman Medical Publishing Co.
Semel, E., Wiig, E., & Secord, W. (1995). Clinical Evaluation of
Language Fundamentals 3 (CELF-3). San Antonio, TX: Psy-
chological Corporation.
Sparrow, S., Balla, D., & Cichetti, D. (1984). Vineland Adaptive
Behaviour Scales. American Guidance Services: Circle Pines, MN.
Surian, L., Baron-Cohen, S., & Van der Lely, H. (1996). Are children
with autism deaf to Gricean maxims? Cognitive Neuropsychia-
try, 1, 55–72.
Tager-Flusberg, H. (1981). On the nature of linguistic functioning in
early infantile autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 11, 45–56.
Tager-Flusberg, H. (1985). The conceptual basis for referential word
meaning in children with autism. Child Development, 56, 1167–
1178.
Tager-Flusberg, H., & Anderson, M. (1991). The development of
contingent discourse ability in autistic children. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 32, 1123–1134.
Tager-Flusberg, H., Calkins, S., Noin, I., Baumberger, T., Anderson,
M., & Chadwick-Denis, A. (1990). A longitudinal study of
language acquisition in autistic and Down syndrome children.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 20(1), 1–21.
Tager-Flusberg, H., Paul, R., & Lord, C. (2005). Language and
communication in autism. In F. Volkmar, R. Paul, & A. Klin
(Eds.), Handbook on autism and pervasive developmental
disorders (3rd ed., pp. 335–364). New York: Wiley.
Thorndike, R. L., Hager, E. P., & Sattler, J. M. (1986). Stanford-Binet
Intelligence Scale (4th ed.). Chicago: Riverside.
Volden, J. (2002). Features leading to judgments of inappropriacy in the
language of speakers with ASD: A preliminary study. Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 26(3), 138–146.
Volden, J., & Lord, C. (1991). Neologisms and idiosyncratic language
in autistic speakers. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 21(2), 109–130.
Williams, D., Goldstein, G., & Minshew, N. (2006). Neuropsycho-
logic functioning in children with autism: Further evidence for
disordered complex information-processing. Child Neuropsy-
chology, 12, 279–298.
Young, E., Diehl, J., Morris, D., Hyman, S., & Bennetto, L. (2005).
The use of two language tests to identify pragmatic language
problems in children with autism spectrum disorders. Language
Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 62–72.
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.