Advertisement

On Making a Sandwich: Procedural Discourse in Adults with Right-Hemisphere Damage

  • Louise CummingsEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology book series (PEPRPHPS, volume 20)

Abstract

In a clinical language evaluation, procedural discourse is often afforded less emphasis than either narrative or expository discourse. Yet, the generation of procedural discourse is a highly complex task that demands the integration of a range of cognitive-linguistic skills. The aim of this paper will be to investigate those skills with a view to demonstrating the potential diagnostic significance of procedural discourse in a clinical language evaluation. The context for these remarks will be the study of seven adults with right-hemisphere damage who were studied at two clinical facilities in the United States. These adults were recorded as they attempted to explain to an examiner how they would make a peanut butter and jelly (jam) sandwich. An analysis of the discourse produced by these adults reveals a complex and highly variable profile of skills and deficits. It will be argued that this profile is a consequence of cognitive and linguistic heterogeneity in the RHD population, with language impairment manifesting itself in different ways across a range of clients.

Keywords

Clinical language evaluation Egocentrism Information management Pragmatics Procedural discourse Right-hemisphere damage Stroke Tangential language Verbosity 

Bibliography

  1. Agis, D., Goggins, M. B., Oishi, K., Oishi, K., Davis, C., Wright, A., Kim, E. H., Sebastian, R., Tippett, D. C., Faria, A., & Hillis, A. E. (2016). Picturing the size and site of stroke with an expanded National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale. Stroke, 47, 1459–1465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker, M. S., Young, B., & Robinson, G. A. (2017). Cohesive and coherent speech deficits in mild stroke. Brain and Language, 168, 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartels-Tobin, L. R., & Hinckley, J. J. (2005). Cognition and discourse production in right hemisphere disorder. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 18, 461–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blake, M. L. (2006). Clinical relevance of discourse characteristics after right hemisphere brain damage. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15, 255–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blake, M. L. (2017). Right-hemisphere pragmatic disorders. In L. Cummings (Ed.), Research in clinical pragmatics (pp. 243–266). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brady, M. C., Armstrong, L., & Mackenzie, C. (2005). Further evidence on topic use following right hemisphere brain damage: Procedural and descriptive discourse. Aphasiology, 19, 731–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carter, A. R., McAvoy, M. P., Siegel, J. S., Hong, X., Astafiev, S. V., Rengachary, J., Zinn, K., Metcalf, N. V., Shulman, G. L., & Corbetta, M. (2017). Differential white matter involvement associated with distinct visuospatial deficits after right hemisphere stroke. Cortex, 88, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cummings, L. (2013). Clinical pragmatics and theory of mind. In A. Capone, F. Lo Piparo, & M. Carapezza (Eds.), Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics (Series: Perspectives in pragmatics, philosophy & psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 23–56). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG.Google Scholar
  9. Cummings, L. (2014). Pragmatic disorders and theory of mind. In L. Cummings (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of communication disorders (pp. 559–577). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cummings, L. (2015). Theory of mind in utterance interpretation: The case from clinical pragmatics. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cummings, L. (2017). Cognitive aspects of pragmatic disorders. In L. Cummings (Ed.), Research in clinical pragmatics (Series: Perspectives in pragmatics, philosophy & psychology, Vol. 11, pp. 587–616). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG.Google Scholar
  12. Hamilton, J., Radlak, B., Morris, P. G., & Phillips, L. H. (2017). Theory of mind and executive functioning following stroke. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 32, 507–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Joanette, Y., Ferré, P., & Wilson, M. A. (2014). Right hemisphere damage and communication. In L. Cummings (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of communication disorders (pp. 247–265). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Johns, C. L., Tooley, K. M., & Traxler, M. J. (2008). Discourse impairments following right hemisphere brain damage: A critical review. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2, 1038–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kato, H., Seki, M., Shindo, J., Yamazaki, T., Sato, Y., Utsumi, H., & Nagata, K. (2012). The relationship between visuospatial ability and cognitive function in patients with right-hemisphere infarction. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 322, 129–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kopp, B., Rösser, N., Tabeling, S., Stürenburg, H. J., de Haan, B., Karnath, H. O., & Wessel, K. (2014). Disorganized behavior on Link’s cube test is sensitive to right hemispheric frontal lobe damage in stroke patients. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Łojek-Osiejuk, E. (1996). Knowledge of scripts reflected in discourse of aphasics and right-brain-damaged patients. Brain and Language, 53, 58–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mackenzie, C., Begg, T., Lees, K. R., & Brady, M. (1999). The communication effects of right brain damage on the very old and the not so old. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 12, 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mackenzie, C., & Brady, M. C. (2008). Communication difficulties following right-hemisphere stroke: Applying evidence to clinical management. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 2, 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. MacWhinney, B., Fromm, D., Forbes, M., & Holland, A. (2011). AphasiaBank: Methods for studying discourse. Aphasiology, 25, 1286–1307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marini, A., Carlomagno, S., Caltagirone, C., & Nocentini, U. (2005). The role played by the right hemisphere in the organization of complex textual structures. Brain and Language, 93, 46–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Martin, I., & McDonald, S. (2006). That can’t be right! What causes pragmatic language impairment following right hemisphere damage? Brain Impairment, 7, 202–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McDonald, S. (1993). Viewing the brain sideways? Frontal versus right hemisphere explanations of non-aphasic language disorders. Aphasiology, 7, 535–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Myers, P. S. (1979). Profiles of communication deficits in patients with right cerebral hemisphere damage: Implications for diagnosis and treatment. In Clinical aphasiology conference (pp. 38–46). Phoenix, AZ: BRK Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Myers, P. S. (2005). Profiles of communication deficits in patients with right cerebral hemisphere damage: Implications for diagnosis and treatment. Aphasiology, 19, 1147–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Parton, A., Malhotra, P., & Husain, M. (2004). Hemispatial neglect. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 75, 13–21.Google Scholar
  27. Rainville, C., Giroire, J. M., Periot, M., Cuny, E., & Mazaux, J. M. (2003). The impact of right subcortical lesions on executive functions and spatio-cognitive abilities: A case study. Neurocase, 9, 356–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roman, M., Brownell, H. H., Potter, H. H., Seibold, M. S., & Gardner, H. (1987). Script knowledge in right hemisphere-damaged and in normal elderly adults. Brain and Language, 31, 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saldert, C., & Ahlsén, E. (2007). Inference in right hemisphere damaged individuals’ comprehension: The role of sustained attention. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 21, 637–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tompkins, C. A. (2012). Rehabilitation for cognitive-communication disorders in right hemisphere brain damage. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 93 (Suppl 1), S61-S69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Weed, E. (2008). Theory of mind impairment in right hemisphere damage: A review of the evidence. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 414–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Weed, E., McGregor, W., Feldbaek Nielsen, J., Roepstorff, A., & Frith, U. (2010). Theory of mind in adults with right hemisphere damage: What’s the story? Brain and Language, 113, 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yeh, Z. T., & Tsai, C. F. (2014). Impairment on theory of mind and empathy in patients with stroke. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 68, 612–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zimmermann, N., Gindri, G., de Oliveira, C. R., & Fonseca, R. P. (2011). Pragmatic and executive functions in traumatic brain injury and right brain damage: An exploratory comparative study. Dementia e Neuropsychologia, 5, 337–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of English, The Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHung Hom, KowloonHong Kong

Personalised recommendations