Abstract
Purpose
Discourse analysis is commonly used to assess language ability and to evaluate language change following intervention in aphasia. The purpose of this study was to identify differences in language produced during different discourse tasks in a large aphasia group and an age- and education-matched control group.
Method
Four structured discourse tasks across 3 discourse types (expositional, narrative, and procedural) were evaluated in a group of adults with aphasia (n = 90) and an age-matched control group (n = 84) drawn from AphasiaBank. CLAN software was used to extract primary linguistic variables (mean length of utterance, propositional density, type–token ratio, words per minute, open–closed class word ratio, noun–verb ratio, and tokens), which served as proxies for various language abilities. Using a series of repeated-measures analyses of covariance, with significantly correlated demographic and descriptive variables as covariates, main effects of discourse type were evaluated.
Results
Despite an impoverished output from the aphasia group (i.e., the control group produced significantly more overall output), there was a main effect of discourse type on most primary linguistic variables in both groups, suggesting that, in adults with and without language impairments, each discourse type taxed components of the spoken language system to varying extents. Post hoc tests fleshed out these results, demonstrating that, for example, narrative discourse produced speech highest in propositional density.
Conclusion
Each discourse type taxes the language system in different ways, verifying the importance of using several discourse tasks and selecting the most sensitive discourse tasks when evaluating specific language abilities and outcomes.
References
-
Boles, L. (1998). Conversational discourse analysis as a method for evaluating progress in aphasia: A case report.Journal of Communication Disorders, 31, 261–274. -
Bond, S., Ulatowska, H., Macaluso-Haynes, S., & May, E. (1983). Discourse production in aphasia: Relationship to severity of impairment. InProceedings of the Clinical Aphasiology Conference (pp. 202–210). Minneapolis, MN: BRK Publishers. -
Boyle, M. (2015). Stability of word-retrieval errors with the AphasiaBank stimuli.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 24(4), S953–S960. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_AJSLP-14-0152 -
Brookshire, R., & Nicholas, L. (1994). Speech sample-size and test–retest stability of connected speech measures for adults with aphasia.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37(2), 399–407. -
Bryant, L., Ferguson, A., & Spencer, E. (2016). Linguistic analysis of discourse in aphasia: A review of the literature.Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 30(7), 489–518. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2016.1145740 -
Doyles, P. J., Mcneil, M. R., Spencer, K. A., Goda, A. J., Cottrell, K., & Lustig, A. P. (1998). The effects of concurrent picture presentations on retelling of orally presented stories by adults with aphasia.Aphasiology, 12(8), 561–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687039808249558 -
Fergadiotis, G., & Wright, H. H. (2011). Lexical diversity for adults with and without aphasia across discourse elicitation tasks.Aphasiology, 25(11), 1414–1430. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2011.603898 -
Fergadiotis, G., Wright, H. H., & Capilouto, G. J. (2011). Productive vocabulary across discourse types.Aphasiology, 25(10), 1261–1278. -
Fromm, D., Greenhouse, J., Hou, K., Russel, G., Cai, X., Forbes, M., … MacWhinney, B. (2016). Automated proposition density analysis for discourse in aphasia.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 59, 1123–1132. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_JSLHR-L-15-0401 -
Galetto, V., Kintz, S., West, T., Mrini, A., & Wright, H. (2013). Measuring global coherence in aphasia.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 94, 198–199. -
Kearns, K. (1985). Response elaboration training for patient initiated utterances.Clinical Aphasiology, 15, 15–25. Retrieved from http://eprints-prod-05.library.pitt.edu/854/1/15-25.pdf -
Kertesz, A. (2007). Western Aphasia Battery–Revised. San Antonio, TX: Pearson Corporation. -
Kintz, S., & Wright, H. H. (2017). Discourse measurement in aphasia research.Aphasiology, 32(4), 472–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2017.1398807 -
Levene, H. (1960). InI. Olkin et al. (Eds.), Contributions to probability and statistics: Essays in honor of Harold Hotelling (pp. 278–292). Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. -
Lowell, S., Beeson, P. M., & Holland, A. L. (1995). The efficacy of a semantic cueing procedure on naming performance of adults with aphasia.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 4, 109–114. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360.0404.109 -
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analysing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. -
MacWhinney, B., Forbes, M., & Holland, A. (2011). AphasiaBank: Methods for studying discourse.Aphasiology, 25(11), 1286–1307. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2011.589893 -
MacWhinney, B., Fromm, D., Holland, A., Forbes, M., & Wright, H. (2010). Automated analysis of the Cinderella story.Aphasiology, 24(6–8), 856–868. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030903452632 -
Nicholas, L., & Brookshire, R. (1995). Presence, completeness, and accuracy of main concepts in the connected speech of non–brain-damaged adults and adults with aphasia.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 145–156. -
Prins, R., & Bastiaanse, R. (2004). Review: Analysing the spontaneous speech of aphasic speakers.Aphasiology, 18(12), 1075–1091. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030444000534 -
Pritchard, M., Dipper, L., Morgan, G., & Cocks, N. (2015). Language and iconic gesture use in procedural discourse by speakers with aphasia.Aphasiology, 29(7), 826–844. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2014.993912 -
Richardson, J. D., & Dalton, S. G. (2015). Main concepts for three different discourse tasks in a large non-clinical sample.Aphasiology, 7038(June), 45–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2015.1057891 -
Rogalski, Y., Altmann, L., Plummer-D'Amato, P., Behrman, A., & Marsiske, M. (2010). Discourse coherence and cognition after stroke: A dual task study.Journal of Communication Disorders, 43(3), 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2010.02.001 -
Roth, F., & Spekman, N. (1986). Narrative discourse: Spontaneously generated stories of learning-disabled and normally achieving students.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 51, 8–23. -
Swinburn, K., Porter, G., & Howard, D. (2004). Comprehensive Aphasia Test. East Sussex, United Kingdom: Psychology Press. -
Thompson, C. K., Cho, S., Hsu, C., Wieneke, C., Weitner, B. B., Mesulam, M. M., … Weintraub, S. (2012). Dissociations between fluency and agrammatism in primary progressive aphasia.Aphasiology, 26, 20–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2011.584691 -
Van Leer, E., & Turkstra, L. (1999). The effect of elicitation on discourse coherence and cohesion in adolescents with brain injury.Journal of Communication Disorders, 32(5), 327–349. -
Wright, H. H., Koutsoftas, A. D., Capilouto, G. J., & Fergadiotis, G. (2014). Global coherence in younger and older adults: Influence of cognitive processes and discourse type.Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 21(2), 174–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2013.794894 -
Ylvisaker, M., & Szekeres, S. (1985). Cognitive-language intervention with brain-injured adolescents and adults.Paper presented at Annual Convention of the Illinois Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Chicago, Illinois .
Add to your Mendeley library