Abstract
Pragmatic communication refers to the ability to use language and other expressive means, i.e. non-verbal/extralinguistic means such as gestures and facial expressions, in order to convey and interpret meaning in a specific context. Pragmatic abilities are important in everyday life in interpersonal interactions as they affect the way people communicate and behave in social situations. Providing a comprehensive and accurate assessment of pragmatic abilities can be challenging, partially due to the scarcity of valid assessment tools in this area. Culture-related aspects of communication need to be taken into consideration, and the assessment tools need to be specific and sensitive for specific cultural contexts. In this paper, we present the results concerning the administration of the first preliminary translation and adaptation into the Finnish language of the equivalent form A of the Italian Assessment Battery for Communication (ABaCo) to a sample of neurotypical Finnish adults (n=36); we discuss the results, highlighting cultural features and the consequent adaptation requirements. Data regarding performance on each subscale and on each item of the ABaCo are provided, together with a qualitative analysis of the answers. These data indicate good performance on the majority of the subscales used, thus indicating good properties of the preliminary Finnish version of the ABaCo. Compared to the paralinguistic and context scales, where the participants exhibited good performance, slightly lower scores were obtained on the extralinguistic scale. Such results shed light on a number of differences in the way Finnish people interpret pragmatically challenging communicative situations. The present study represents an interesting starting point for further steps in the specific ABaCo adaptation process, as well as for future studies in terms of cross-cultural investigation.
About the authors
Ilaria Gabbatore, Ph.D. is a psychologist and currently a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Psychology, University of Turin (Italy). She got her Ph.D. in Neuroscience – Cognitive Science at the University of Turin. Later, she has worked as postdoctoral researcher at the Child Language Research Center, Research Unit of Logopedics, University of Oulu, Finland. Her research interests lie in the field of pragmatic communication, from both a developmental and a neuropsychological perspective.
Francesca M. Bosco, Ph.D. is a cognitive psychologist and cognitive psychotherapist, associate professor in cognitive psychology at the Department of Psychology, University of Turin, Italy. She is the coordinator of the GIPSI - research Group on Inferential Processes in Social Interaction at the University of Turin. Her research interests concern the cognitive processes that underlie pragmatic communication in healthy and pathological conditions, with a particular attention to developmental aspects and to the rehabilitation of communicative abilities.
Leena Mäkinen, PhD is a researcher and speech-language pathologist at Child Language Research Center in Research Unit of Logopedics in the University of Oulu, Finland. Her research interests are in children’s language development and its disorders. In particular, she has focused on narrative skills in typical development, SLI and ASD.
Hanna Ebeling, MD, PhD is a professor of Child Psychiatry in the University of Oulu, Finland, and a head of the Clinic of Child Psychiatry at Oulu University Hospital, Finland. Her studies are focused on psychosomatics of children. She is the principal investigator in Oulu Autism Research longitudinal study.
Tuula Hurtig, PhD, is a University Lecturer in Medical Psychology and educational psychologist. Her research areas are neuropsychiatric disorders, especially Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Autism Spectrum Disorder in life course, and the psychosocial environment related to these disorders.
Soile Loukusa, PhD, SLT is working as an Academy Research Fellow at the Research Unit of Logopedics in the University of Oulu, Finland. Her research interests focus on the typical and atypical development of pragmatic and social perception skills.
Acknowledgements
This research was financially supported by the Academy of Finland and by the Eudaimonia Institute, Finland. The authors wish to thank Linda Lönnqvist for her help with data collection and Aija Kotila for her contribution with inter-rater reliability analysis.
References
Agliati, Alessia, Antonietta Vescovo & Luigi Anolli. 2005. Conversation patterns in Icelandic and Italian people: Similarities and differences in rhythm and accommodation. In Luigi Anolli, S. Duncan Jr, M. S. Magnusson & G. Riva (eds.), The hidden structure of interaction: From neurons to culture patterns, 2005. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Search in Google Scholar
Agliati, Alessia, Antonietta Vescovo & Luigi Anolli. 2006. A new methodological approach to nonverbal behavior analysis in cultural perspective. Behavior Research Methods 38(3). 364–371.10.3758/BF03192789Search in Google Scholar
Altman, Douglas G. 1991. Practical statistics for medical research. London, UK: Chapman and Hall.10.1201/9780429258589Search in Google Scholar
Angeleri, Romina, Bruno G. Bara, Francesca M. Bosco, Livia Colle & Katiuscia Sacco. 2015. Batteria per l’assessment della comunicazione (ABaCo). Firenze: Giunti OS.Search in Google Scholar
Angeleri, Romina, Francesca M. Bosco, Ilaria Gabbatore, Bruno G. Bara & Katiuscia Sacco. 2012. Assessment battery for communication (ABaCo): Normative data. Journal of Behavior Research Methods 44(3). 845–861.10.3758/s13428-011-0174-9Search in Google Scholar
Angeleri, Romina, Francesca M. Bosco, Marina Zettin, Katiuscia Sacco, Livia Colle & Bruno G. Bara. 2008. Communicative impairment in traumatic brain injury: A complete pragmatic assessment. Brain and Language 107(3). 229–245.10.1016/j.bandl.2008.01.002Search in Google Scholar
Angeleri, Romina, Ilaria Gabbatore, Francesca M. Bosco, Katiuscia Sacco & Livia Colle. 2016. Pragmatic abilities in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: A study with the ABaCo battery. Minerva Psichiatrica 57(3). 93–103.Search in Google Scholar
Arcara, Giorgio & Valentina Bambini. 2016. A test for the assessment of pragmatic abilities and cognitive substrates (APACS): Normative data and psychometric properties. Frontiers in Psychology 7. 70.10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00070Search in Google Scholar
Aukrust, Vibeke G. 2004. Talk about talk with young children: Pragmatic socialization in two communities in Norway and the US. Journal of Child Language 31(1). 177–201.10.1017/S0305000903005907Search in Google Scholar
Austin, John L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bara, Bruno G. 2010. Cognitive pragmatics: The mental processes of communication. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262014113.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Bara, Bruno G. 2011. Cognitive pragmatics: The mental processes of communication. Intercultural Pragmatics 8(3). 443–485.10.7551/mitpress/9780262014113.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Belva, B. C., J. L. Matson, M. Sipes & J. W. Bamburg. 2012. An examination of specific communication deficits in adults with profound intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities 33(2). 525–529.10.1016/j.ridd.2011.10.019Search in Google Scholar
Birdwhistell, Ray L. 1970. It depends on the Point of View. Kinesis and Context, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 65.Search in Google Scholar
Bosco, Francesca M., Romina Angeleri, Livia Colle, Katiuscia Sacco & Bruno G. Bara. 2013. Communicative abilities in children: An assessment through different phenomena and expressive means. Journal of Child Language 40(4). 741–778.10.1017/S0305000913000081Search in Google Scholar
Bosco, Francesca M., Romina Angeleri, Katiuscia Sacco & Bruno G. Bara. 2015. Explaining pragmatic performance in traumatic brain injury: A process perspective on communicative errors. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 50. 63–83.10.1111/1460-6984.12114Search in Google Scholar
Bosco, Francesca M., Romina Angeleri, Marco Zuffranieri, Bruno G. Bara & Katiuscia Sacco. 2012a. Assessment battery for communication: Development of two equivalent forms. Journal of Communication Disorders 45(4). 290–303.10.1016/j.jcomdis.2012.03.002Search in Google Scholar
Bosco, Francesca M. & Monica Bucciarelli. 2008. Simple and complex deceits and ironies. Journal of Pragmatics 40. 583–607.10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.004Search in Google Scholar
Bosco, Francesca M., Monica Bucciarelli & Bruno G. Bara. 2004. The fundamental context categories in understanding communicative intention. Journal of Pragmatics 36. 467–488.10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00055-9Search in Google Scholar
Bosco, Francesca M. & Ilaria Gabbatore. 2017a. Sincere, deceitful, and ironic communicative acts and the role of the theory of mind in childhood. Frontiers in Psychology 8. 21.10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00021Search in Google Scholar
Bosco, Francesca M. & Ilaria Gabbatore. 2017b. Theory of mind in recognizing and recovering communicative failures. Applied Psycholinguistics 38(1). 57–88.10.1017/S0142716416000047Search in Google Scholar
Bosco, Francesca M., Ilaria Gabbatore, Romina Angeleri, Marina Zettin & Alberto Parola. 2018. Do executive function and theory of mind predict pragmatic abilities following traumatic brain injury? An analysis with sincere, deceitful and ironic communicative acts. Journal of Communication Disorders 75. 102–117.10.1016/j.jcomdis.2018.05.002Search in Google Scholar
Bosco, Francesca M., Ilaria Gabbatore, Luigi Gastaldo & Katiuscia Sacco. 2016. Communicative-pragmatic treatment in schizophrenia: A pilot study. Frontiers in Psychology 7. 166.10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00166Search in Google Scholar
Bosco, Francesca M., Alberto Parola, Sacco, K., Zettin, M., & Angeleri, R. 2017. Communicative-pragmatic disorders in traumatic brain injury: The role of theory of mind and executive functions. Brain and language 168. 73–83.10.1016/j.bandl.2017.01.007Search in Google Scholar
Bosco, Francesca M., Alberto Parola, Maria C. Valentini & Rosalba Morese. 2017. Neural correlates underlying the comprehension of deceitful and ironic communicative intentions. Cortex 94. 73–86.10.1016/j.cortex.2017.06.010Search in Google Scholar
Bosco, Francesca M., Marianna Vallana & Monica Bucciarelli. 2012b. The inferential chain makes the difference between familiar and novel figurative expressions. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 24. 525–540.10.1080/20445911.2012.658156Search in Google Scholar
Boxer, Diana. 1993. Complaints as positive strategies: What the learner needs to know. TESOL Quarterly 27(2). 277–299.10.2307/3587147Search in Google Scholar
Bryan, Karen. 1995. The right hemisphere language battery. London: Whurr.Search in Google Scholar
Bucciarelli, Monica, Livia Colle & Bruno G. Bara. 2003. How children comprehend speech acts and communicative gestures. Journal of Pragmatics 35(2). 207–241.10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00099-1Search in Google Scholar
Camarata, Stephen & Terrie Gibson. 1999. Pragmatic language deficits in attention‐deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 5(3). 207–214.10.1002/(SICI)1098-2779(1999)5:3<207::AID-MRDD7>3.0.CO;2-OSearch in Google Scholar
Champagne-Lavau, Maud & Yves Joanette. 2009. Pragmatics, theory of mind and executive functions after a right-hemisphere lesion: Different patterns of deficits. Journal of Neurolinguistics 22(5). 413–426.10.1016/j.jneuroling.2009.02.002Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, Andrew D. & Elite Olshtain. 1993. The production of speech acts by EFL learners. Tesol Quarterly 27(1). 33–56.10.2307/3586950Search in Google Scholar
Colle, Livia, Romina Angeleri, Marianna Vallana, Katiuscia Sacco, Bruno G. Bara & Francesca M. Bosco. 2013. Understanding the communicative impairments in schizophrenia: A preliminary study. Journal of Communication Disorders 46. 294–308.10.1016/j.jcomdis.2013.01.003Search in Google Scholar
Côté, Hélène, Viviane Moix & F. Giroux. 2004. Évaluation des troubles de la communication des cérébrolésés droits. Rééducation Orthophonique 219. 107–122.Search in Google Scholar
Cummings, Louise. 2005. Pragmatics: A multidisciplinary perspective. Edinburgh, Scotland, UK: Edinburgh University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Darrigrand, Bénédicte, Sabine Dutheil, Valerie Michelet, Stephanie Rereau & Jean-Michel Mazaux. 2011. Communication impairment and activity limitation in stroke patients with severe aphasia. Disability and Rehabilitation 33(13). 1169–1178.10.3109/09638288.2010.524271Search in Google Scholar
Davis, Boyd S., Jacqueline Guendouzi, Meghan Savage, William L. Blackburn & Mandy Williams. 2015. Politeness strategies in response to prompted directives in a preliminary English version of the ABaCO battery. Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders 6(2). 115–119.10.1558/jircd.v7i1.26755Search in Google Scholar
Đorđević, Mirjana, Nenad Glumbić & Brojčin Branislav. 2016. Paralinguistic abilities of adults with intellectual disability. Research in Developmental Disabilities 48. 211–219.10.1016/j.ridd.2015.11.001Search in Google Scholar
Fukushima, Saeko & Maria Sifianou. 2017. Conceptualizing politeness in Japanese and Greek. Intercultural Pragmatics 14(4). 525–555.10.1515/ip-2017-0024Search in Google Scholar
Gabbatore, Ilaria, Romina Angeleri, Francesca M. Bosco, Federico M. Cossa, Bruno G. Bara & Katiuscia Sacco. 2014. Assessment of communicative abilities in aphasic patients. Minerva Psichiatrica 55(2). 45–55.Search in Google Scholar
Gabbatore, Ilaria, Katiuscia Sacco, Romina Angeleri, Marina Zettin, Bruno G. Bara & Francesca M. Bosco. 2015. Cognitive pragmatic treatment: A rehabilitative program for traumatic brain injury individuals. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 30(5). E14–E28.10.1097/HTR.0000000000000087Search in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raimond W, Jr & Herbert L. Colston. 2012. Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139168779Search in Google Scholar
Golato, Andrea. 2002. German compliment responses. Journal of pragmatics 34(5). 547–571.10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00040-6Search in Google Scholar
Golato, Andrea. 2003. Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics 24(1). 90–121.10.1093/applin/24.1.90Search in Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hatzithomas, Leonidas, Yorgos Zotos & Christina Boutsouki. 2011. Humor and cultural values in print advertising: A cross-cultural study. International Marketing Review 28(1). 57–80.10.1108/02651331111107107Search in Google Scholar
House, Juliana. 1989. Politeness in English and German: The functions of bitte and please. In Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliana House & Gabrielle Kasper (eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies, 54–71. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.Search in Google Scholar
Huttunen, K. H., Pine, K. J., Thurnham, A. J., & Khan, C. 2013. The changing role of gesture in linguistic development: A developmental trajectory and a cross-cultural comparison between British and Finnish children. Journal of psycholinguistic research 42(1). 81–101.10.1007/s10936-012-9205-7Search in Google Scholar
Isaac, Kim. 2002. Speech pathology in cultural and linguistic diversity. London: Whurr.Search in Google Scholar
Iverson, Jana M., Olga Capirci, Virginia Volterra & Susan Goldin-Meadow. 2008. Learning to talk in a gesture-rich world: Early communication in Italian vs. American children. First Language 28(2). 164–181.10.1177/0142723707087736Search in Google Scholar
Joanette, Yves, Bernadette Ska & Hélène Côté. 2004. Protocole Montréal d’évaluation de la communication (MEC). Isbergues: Ortho Éditi.Search in Google Scholar
Jokinen, Kristiina, & Graham Wilcock. 2006. Contextual inferences in intercultural communication. SKY Journal of Linguistics 19. 291–300.Search in Google Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 1995. Gestures as illocutionary and discourse structure markers in Southern Italian conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 23(3). 247–279.10.1016/0378-2166(94)00037-FSearch in Google Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 2004a. Contrasts in gesticulation: A Neapolitan speaker and a British speaker compared. In Cornelia Muller & Roland Posner (eds.), Semantics and pragmatics of everyday gestures, 173–193. Berlin: Weidler Buchverlag.Search in Google Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 2004b. Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511807572Search in Google Scholar
Küntay, Aylin, Keiko Nakamura & Beyza Ateş Sen. 2014. Crosslinguistic and crosscultural approaches to pragmatic development. In Danielle Matthews (ed.), Pragmatic development in first language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tilar.10.18kunSearch in Google Scholar
Kuusikko, Sanna, Rachel Pollock-Wurman, Hanna Ebeling, Tuula Hurtig, Leena Joskitt, Marja-Leena Mattila, Katja Jussila & Irma Moilanen. 2009. Psychometric evaluation of social phobia and anxiety inventory for children (SPAI-C) and social anxiety scale for children –Revised (SASC-R). Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 18(2). 116–124.10.1007/s00787-008-0712-xSearch in Google Scholar
Kwon, Jihyun. 2004. Expressing refusals in Korean and in American English. Multilingua 23(4). 339–364.10.1515/mult.2004.23.4.339Search in Google Scholar
Lam, Yan Grace & Siu Sze Yeung. 2012. Towards a convergent account of pragmatic language deficits in children with high-functioning autism: Depicting the phenotype using the pragmatic rating scale. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 6(2). 792–797.10.1016/j.rasd.2011.08.004Search in Google Scholar
Lehtonen, Jussi. 1991. The role of national stereotypes in intercultural communication. In Edith Slembeck (ed.), Culture and communication. 175–184. Frankfurt: Verlag fur Interkulturelle Kommunikation.Search in Google Scholar
Lehtonen, Jussi & Kari Sajavaara. 1985. The silent finn. In Deborah Tannen & Muriel Saville-Troike (eds.), Perspectives of silence, 193–201. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Search in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813313Search in Google Scholar
Lewis, Richard D. 2006. When cultures collide: Leading across cultures: A major new edition of the global guide. Boston/London: Nicholas Brealey International.Search in Google Scholar
Linscott, Richard J. 2005. Thought disorder, pragmatic language impairment, and generalized cognitive decline in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research 75(2). 225–232.10.1016/j.schres.2004.10.007Search in Google Scholar
Loukusa, Soile, Leena Mäkinen, Ilaria Gabbatore, Paivi Laukkanen-Nevala & Eeva Leinonen. 2017. Understanding contextual and social meaning in typically developing finnish-speaking four-to eight-year-old children. Psychology of Language and Communication 21(1). 408–428.10.1515/plc-2017-0020Search in Google Scholar
Loukusa, Soile, Leena Mäkinen, Sanna Kuusikko-Gauffin, Hanna Ebeling & Eeva Leinonen. 2018. Assessing social-pragmatic inferencing skills in children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Communication Disorders 73. 91–105.10.1016/j.jcomdis.2018.01.006Search in Google Scholar
Marini, Andrea, Marina Zettin, Erica Bencich, Francesca M. Bosco & Valentina Galetto. 2017. Severity effects on discourse production after TBI. Journal of Neurolinguistics 44. 91–106.10.1016/j.jneuroling.2017.03.005Search in Google Scholar
Matsumura, Shoichi. 2001. Learning the rules for offering advice: A quantitative approach to second language socialization. Language Learning 51(4). 635–679.10.1111/0023-8333.00170Search in Google Scholar
Mattila, Marja-Leena, Marko Kielinen, Sirkka-Liisa Linna, Katja Jussila, Hanna Ebeling & Irma Moilanen. 2011. Autism spectrum disorders according to DSM-IV-TR and comparison with DSM-V draft criteria: An epidemiological study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 50. 583–592.10.1016/j.jaac.2011.04.001Search in Google Scholar
McDonald, Skye & Sharon S. Flanagan. 2004. Social perception deficits after traumatic brain injury: Interaction between emotion recognition, mentalizing ability, and social communication. Neuropsychology 18(3). 572.10.1037/0894-4105.18.3.572Search in Google Scholar
Nishimura, Shoji, Anne Nevgi & Seppo Tella. 2008. Communication style and cultural features in high/low context communication cultures: A case study of Finland, Japan and India. Teoksessa A. Kallioniemi (toim.), Uudistuva ja kehittyvä ainedidaktiikka. Ainedidaktinen symposiumi 8. 783–796.Search in Google Scholar
Nouichi, Fahima. 2014. Cross–Cultural pragmatic failure. Revue Sciences Humaines 41. 37–43.Search in Google Scholar
Nureddeen, Fatima A. 2008. Cross cultural pragmatics: Apology strategies in sudanese arabic. Journal of Pragmatics 40. 279–306.10.1016/j.pragma.2007.11.001Search in Google Scholar
Parola, Alberto, Laura Berardinelli & Francesca M. Bosco. 2018. Cognitive abilities and theory of mind in explaining communicative-pragmatic disorders in patients with schizophrenia. Psychiatry Research 260. 144–151.10.1016/j.psychres.2017.11.051Search in Google Scholar
Parola, Alberto, Ilaria Gabbatore, Francesca M. Bosco, Bruno G. Bara, Federico M. Cossa, Patrizia Gindri & Katiuscia Sacco. 2016. Assessment of pragmatic impairment in right hemisphere damage. Journal of Neurolinguistics 39. 10–25.10.1016/j.jneuroling.2015.12.003Search in Google Scholar
Payne, Kay T. & Orlando L. Taylor. 2002. Multicultural influences on human communication. In George H. Shames & Noma B. Anderson (eds.), Human communication disorders. An Introduction, 6th edn. Allyn & Bacon: Boston.Search in Google Scholar
Peterson, Elizabeth & Johanna Vaattovaara. 2014. Kiitos and pliis: The relationship of native and borrowed politeness markers in Finnish. Journal of Politeness Research 10(2). 247–269.10.1515/pr-2014-0011Search in Google Scholar
Ryder, Nuala & Eeva Leinonen. 2003. Use of context in question answering by 3-, 4-and 5-year-old children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32(4). 397–415.10.1023/A:1024847529077Search in Google Scholar
Sallinen‐Kuparinen, Aino. 1986. Finnish communication reticence. Perceptions and self-reported behavior. Studia Philologica Jyväskyläensia 19. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Search in Google Scholar
Sallinen‐Kuparinen, Aino, James C. McCroskey & Virginia P. Richmond. 1991. Willingness to communicate, communication apprehension, introversion, and self‐reported communication competence: Finnish and American comparisons. Communication Research Reports 8(1). 55–64.10.1080/08824099109359876Search in Google Scholar
Schröder, Ulrike. 2010. Speech styles and functions of speech from a cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 42(2). 466–476.10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.014Search in Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1979. Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511609213Search in Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. 2nd edn. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Thomas, Jenny. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied linguistics 4(2). 91–112.10.1093/applin/4.2.91Search in Google Scholar
Turkstra, Lyn S., Skye McDonald & Marc P. Kaufmann. 1996. Assessment of pragmatic communication skills in adolescents after traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury 10(5). 329–346.10.1080/026990596124359Search in Google Scholar
Väisänen, Raija, Soile Loukusa, Irma Moilanen & Anneli Yliherva. 2014. Language and pragmatic profile in children with ADHD measured by Children’s communication checklist 2nd edition. Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology 39(4). 179–187.10.3109/14015439.2013.784802Search in Google Scholar
Weiss, Lauren A. & Dan Arking The Gene Discovery Project of John Hopkins, the Autism Consortium. 2009. A genomwide linkage and association scan reveals novel loci for autism. Nature 461. 802–808.10.1038/nature08490Search in Google Scholar
Xu, Jiang, Patrick J. Gannon, Karen Emmorey, Jason F. Smith & Allen Braun. 2009. Symbolic gestures and spoken language are processed by a common neural system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(49). 20664–20669.10.1073/pnas.0909197106Search in Google Scholar
Xu, Zhen. 2014. Contextual dimensions in interactional humour: How humour is practiced in selected American and Chinese situation comedies. Journal of Pragmatics 60. 24–35.10.1016/j.pragma.2013.10.009Search in Google Scholar
Zanini, Sergio, Karen Bryan, Guido De Luca & Antonio Bava. 2005. Italian right hemisphere language battery: The normative study. Neurological Sciences 26(1). 13–25.10.1007/s10072-005-0377-xSearch in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
