I don't think I have any language pragmatics deficits.
The only thing even partially related is when I try to speak and others cut me off mid-sentence or try to shout over me. This can happen over the phone quite a lot and may just be a lack of manners on their part though.
The so-called 'rules' of social engagement in conversation are all spurious and misleading anyway. There may be a few discrepencies and alleged shortcomings (getting to the point, rather than rambling on about trivia, not saying something simply because it is quiet and no-one else is speaking, etc), but apart from that, there are no problems.
Monopolising conversation and dominating the topic is a function of 'hidden persuasion', which is usually based on predictable qualifers, eg size, for example. Problems only seem to arise if it is not possible to discern the 'pecking order' that has arbitrarily been decided by others.
I have found that usually, the accusations of interruption are strictly one-sided, it comes from those who tried to interrupt me first, when I was halfway through a sentence.
Some of the headings, eg 'speech functions', 'speech pleasantries' or 'peer language skills' sound like market-speak for subordinating oneself either to a structured interview technique (in which the 'conversation' is designed to prevent you from truly expressing yourself), or as a social convenience so that one is pressured into conforming to an image that others wish to create.
_________________
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw (Taken from someone on comp.programming)