Structure and function of verbal conflicts among adults with mental retardation

Abstract

The discourse competence of mentally retarded residents of a group home was studied by examining their arguments. Tape recordings of naturally occurring speech were collected by a participant observer; the arguments therein were transcribed for analysis. Arguments among the residents gave evidence of being an acceptable and sought after discourse genre, and residents were able to participate in them successfully regardless of their linguistic ability. These arguments often exhibited a pragmatically useful assertion/contradiction pattern in relation to an original statement, extending over many turns. The results showed that: (a) the majority of arguments exhibited a constrained discourse pattern; (b) many of the residents’ arguments did not, and were not designed to, resolve conflicts; (c) residents were able to maintain extended interactions during arguments; (d) arguments observed were neither disruptive nor dysfunctional; and (e) augments functioned as a positive source of social interaction.