Discourse Analysis in TBI

Question 1

Describe DA

Answer 1

• primarily an approach developed within linguistics
• clinically, data not often spontaneous
• often monologue or dialogic talk with clinician/researcher
• lends well to coding and quantification

Question 2

Describe Togher and Hand’s study (1998)

Answer 2

• looked at politeness in TBI
• used features of systemic functional linguistics (how lang used between ppts and negotiation of social relationships between them)
• data from role played telephone calls comparing typical and TBI

Question 3

What did Togher and Hand (1998) find?

Answer 3

controls used sig more politeness marker per clause than TBI

Question 4

What were the findings of Tougher and Hand (1998) hypothesised to link to?

Answer 4

• People with TBI expressing literal concepts and having difficulty with production and comprehension of abstract or complex language
• People with TBI having neuropsychological impairments relating to planning, monitoring, social cognition and judgement

Question 5

Define cohesion

Answer 5

surface indications of relations within and between sentences; it occurs when the interpretation of an element of the discourse is dependent on another element (e.g. references, ellipsis, conjunctions)

Question 6

Define coherence

Answer 6

the result of appropriate topic maintenence

Question 7

Define local coherence

Answer 7

• topical relation between an utterance and the immediately preceeding utterance

Question 8

Define global coherence

Answer 8

topical relation between utterance and general topic

Question 9

What did Ellis er al (2016) find?

Answer 9

a number of studies suggest TBI do worse in global coherence than typical

Question 10

What did Glosser and Deser (1990) find?

Answer 10

• in coherence,TBI sig impaired compared to controls
• global coherence worse than local coherene

Question 11

What is coherence likely to rely on?

Answer 11

• semantic memory, simultaneous attention and manipulation of several items of info