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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Myers presented her paper in May 1979 at the Clinical Aphasiology Conference (CAC) held in Phoenix, Arizona. It is a sign of the significance of this paper that it was published again in 2005 as a CAC classic in the journal Aphasiology. The reader is referred to Myers (2005).
- 2.
Confabulations are false or erroneous memories that occur involuntarily in individuals with a neurological amnesia. As well as completely or largely erroneous memories, the patient may report real memories which are jumbled up and retrieved out of context. Confabulated memories are often autobiographical. In general, the patient is unaware of his or her condition.
- 3.
In hemispatial neglect, patients fail to be aware of or acknowledge items on their contralesional side (the left side in patients with RHD). They may be unaware of large objects and people in extrapersonal space and even their own body parts. Contralesional limbs may not be used even when they have little or no weakness (known as motor neglect). Patients with neglect may be unaware that they have these problems (so-called anosognosia) (Parton et al. 2004).
- 4.
Ecological validity describes the extent to which tasks used in a language evaluation resemble everyday communication. In general, formal language assessments such as commercially available tests have poorer ecological validity than informal language assessments such as a recording of spontaneous conversation.
Bibliography
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.
Barker, M. S., Young, B., & Robinson, G. A. (2017). Cohesive and coherent speech deficits in mild stroke. Brain and Language, 168, 23–36.
Bartels-Tobin, L. R., & Hinckley, J. J. (2005). Cognition and discourse production in right hemisphere disorder. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 18, 461–477.
Blake, M. L. (2006). Clinical relevance of discourse characteristics after right hemisphere brain damage. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15, 255–267.
Blake, M. L. (2017). Right-hemisphere pragmatic disorders. In L. Cummings (Ed.), Research in clinical pragmatics (pp. 243–266). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cummings, L. (2015). Theory of mind in utterance interpretation: The case from clinical pragmatics. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1286.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Łojek-Osiejuk, E. (1996). Knowledge of scripts reflected in discourse of aphasics and right-brain-damaged patients. Brain and Language, 53, 58–80.
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.
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.
MacWhinney, B., Fromm, D., Forbes, M., & Holland, A. (2011). AphasiaBank: Methods for studying discourse. Aphasiology, 25, 1286–1307.
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.
Martin, I., & McDonald, S. (2006). That can’t be right! What causes pragmatic language impairment following right hemisphere damage? Brain Impairment, 7, 202–211.
McDonald, S. (1993). Viewing the brain sideways? Frontal versus right hemisphere explanations of non-aphasic language disorders. Aphasiology, 7, 535–549.
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.
Myers, P. S. (2005). Profiles of communication deficits in patients with right cerebral hemisphere damage: Implications for diagnosis and treatment. Aphasiology, 19, 1147–1160.
Parton, A., Malhotra, P., & Husain, M. (2004). Hemispatial neglect. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 75, 13–21.
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.
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.
Saldert, C., & Ahlsén, E. (2007). Inference in right hemisphere damaged individuals’ comprehension: The role of sustained attention. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 21, 637–655.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cummings, L. (2019). On Making a Sandwich: Procedural Discourse in Adults with Right-Hemisphere Damage. In: Capone, A., Carapezza, M., Lo Piparo, F. (eds) Further Advances in Pragmatics and Philosophy: Part 2 Theories and Applications. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 20. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00973-1_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00973-1_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00972-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-00973-1
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)