Discourse Disorder in Right Hemisphere Brain Damaged Patients: Evidence from Relative Clause Processing

Arianpour, Mahla

doi:10.22059/jolr.2023.352485.666818

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Mahla Arianpour

Ph.D. in linguistics. Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, Encyclopedia Compiling Research Center, Tehran. Iran.

https://doi.org/10.22059/jolr.2023.352485.666818

Abstract

Based on clinical observations, it has been determined that damage to the right hemisphere may cause some communication disorders. These non-aphasic communication disorders lead to impairments in the pragmatic, prosodic, lexical-semantic and discourse aspects of language that affect social participation. In right hemisphere damaged patients (RHD), discourse may be affected at both the perceptual and expressive levels. Right hemisphere damage can affect language-related skills. The present study aimed to investigate discourse disorder in adults with right hemisphere brain damage through the processing of relative clauses. The research is descriptive-analytical and quantitative. The statistical population included 10 healthy adults and 10 Persian-speaking adults with right hemisphere damage, who were selected in a convenience sampling way. The research tests included screening tests and tests for measuring the processing speed of relative constructions, which were done through DMDX software. Data analysis was done by the statistical methods such as variance analysis, independent t-test of two independent groups, and paired sample t-test. In subject relative constructions, the difference in processing speed of categories, relative clauses and relative sentences between the two experimental and control groups was not significant (P>0.05); However, in the object relative constructions, this difference in processing speed between the two experimental and control groups was significant (P<0.05). In subject and object constructions preceded by an initial context, the difference in processing speed of categories, clauses and sentences between the two experimental and control groups was significant (P<0.05). In the experimental group, the difference in processing speed of subject and object relative clauses and sentences with and without an initial context was significant (P<0.05). The research findings provide evidence for the negative effect of right hemisphere brain damage on discourse skills. Likewise, people with right hemisphere brain damage have more difficulty in processing complex language constructions referential items such as relative constructions compared to healthy peers.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Click subject name to see related articles.

References

Metuki, N., and Lavidor, M. Applying advancements in neurolinguistic research to enhance semantic processing via cognitive training. Journal of Neurolinguistics. 2013; 26, 662–690. http: //dx. doi. org/10. 1016/ j. jneuroling.

LaPointe, L. Aphasia and Related Neurogenic Language Disorders, Fourth Edition. Publisher: Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc; 2011.

Davis, G. A., O’Neil-Pirozzi, T. M., and Coon, M. Referential Cohesion and Logical Coherence of Narration after Right Hemisphere Stroke. Brain and Language, 1997, 56 (2), 183–210. doi:10.1006/brln.1997.1741.

Marini, A., Carlomagno, S., Caltagirone, C., and Nocentini, U. The role played by the right hemisphere in the organization of complex textual structures. Brain and Language, 2005, 93 (1), 46–54. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2004.08.002.

Lehman Blake, M. Clinical Relevance of Discourse Characteristics after Right Hemisphere Brain Damage. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 2006, 15 (3), 255-267. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360 (2006/024). PMID: 16896175.

Davis, G., and Coelho, C. Referential cohesion and logical coherence of narration after closed head injury. Brain and Language, 2004, 89 (3), 508-523.

Mackenzie, C., Brady, M., Begg, T., and Lees, K. R. Communication ability following right hemisphere brain damage: The family perspective. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 2001, 3 (2). 81-95.

Andreetta, S., Cantagallo, A., and Marini, A. Narrative discourse in anomia aphasia. Neruopsychologia, 2012, 50 (8):1787-93. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.04.003.

Sherratt, S., and Bryan K. Discourse production after right brain damage: Gaining a comprehensive picture using a multi-level processing model. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 2012, 25, 213–239.

Jerônimo, G. M., Carlos, L., Marrone, P., and Scherer, L. C. Narrative Discourse Comprehension in Right Hemisphere Brain Damage: A Single Case Study. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2011, 23, 203–204. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.09.239.

Barker, M. S., Young, B., and Robinson, G. A. Cohesive and coherent connected Speech deficits in mild stroke. Brain and Language, 2017, 168, 23–36. http://dx.doi.org /10.1016 /j. bandl. 2017.01.004.

Barnesa, S., Toocaram, S., Nickels, L., Beeke, S., Best, W., and Bloch, S. Everyday conversation after right hemisphere damage: A methodological demonstration and some preliminary findings. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 2019, 52 (1), 1-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.jneuroling. 2019. 100850.

Marini, A. Characteristics of Narrative Discourse Processing after Damage to the Right Hemisphere. Semin Speech Lang. 2012; 33(1):68-78. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1301164.

Engle, R. W., Conway, A. R. A., Tuholsky, S. W., and Shisler, R. J. A resource account of inhibition. Psychological Science, 2006, 6, 122–125.

Tompkins, C. A., Lehman-Blake, M. T., Baumgaertner, A., and Fassbinder, W. Mechanisms of discourse comprehension impairment after right hemisphere brain damage; Suppression in inferential ambiguity resolution. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 2001, 44, 400–415. https://doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4301.62.

Coelho, C. A., Youse, K. M., and Le, K. N. Conversational discourse in closed-head injured and non-brain-injured adults. Aphasiology, 2002, 16(4-6), 659-672.

Cocks, N., Hird, K., and Kirsner, K. The relationship between right hemisphere damage and gesture in spontaneous discourse. Aphasiology, 2007, 21(3-4), 299–319. doi:10.1080/ 02 687030600911393.

Beeman, M., and Chiarello, C. Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1998.

Tompkins, C. A. Theoretical considerations for understanding “understanding” by adults with RHBD. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 2008, 22(5), 629–629. doi: 10.1016/j .bbi. 2008. 05.010.

Ronald, D., Mauner, G., O’Meara, C. and Yun, H. Discourse expectations and relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 2012, 66, 479-508.

Fox, B. A., and Thompson, S. A. A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language, 1990, 66, 297–316.

Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., and Schriefers, H. Discourse structure and relative clause processing. Memory and Cognition, 2008, 36, 170–181.

Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, H., Johnson, M., & Lee, Y. Similarity- based interference during language comprehension: Evidence from eye tracking during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2006, 32, 1304–21.

Gibson, E. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Y. Miyashita, A. Marantz, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain, 2000, pp. 95–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Levy, R. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 2008, 106, 1126–77.

Futrell, R. Processing effects of the expectation of informativity (M.A. thesis). Stanford University, Stanford, United States; 2012.

Language Research

Discourse Disorder in Right Hemisphere Brain Damaged Patients: Evidence from Relative Clause Processing

References

References

Volume 13, Issue 2 - Serial Number 25
May 2023
Pages 1-22

Discourse Disorder in Right Hemisphere Brain Damaged Patients: Evidence from Relative Clause Processing

References

References

Volume 13, Issue 2 - Serial Number 25May 2023Pages 1-22

Volume 13, Issue 2 - Serial Number 25
May 2023
Pages 1-22