CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 35Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismLanguage Development and Disorders

Pragmatics and figurative language in individuals with traumatic brain injury: fine-grained assessment and relevance-theoretic considerations

Arcara, Giorgio, Tonini, Elisabetta, Muriago, Giulia, Mondin, Elisabetta, Sgarabottolo, Edda, Bertagnoni, Gianettore, Semenza, Carlo, Bambini, Valentina·2020·Aphasiology
DOI 10.1080/02687038.2019.1615033
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Difficulties in the pragmatic aspects of language are considered a hallmark of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). However, this claim is mostly based on assessments of discourse production, neglecting another relevant pragmatic aspect, namely the comprehension of figurative expressions such as idioms, metaphors, and proverbs. Accounts developed in the framework of Relevance Theory might help framing an investigation in this domain, by describing a continuum of loose uses for idioms and metaphors and the echoing of general wisdom in proverbs.Aims First, we aimed at sketching a detailed pragmatic profile of individuals with TBI, by using the Assessment of Pragmatic Abilities and Cognitive Substrates (APACS) test, a standardized tool evaluating both production and comprehension. Second, we aimed at doing a fine-grained investigation of figurative language comprehension skills, by taking into account different figurative types and task-related issues.Methods and Procedures Thirty-nine individuals with TBI were administered the APACS test and compared to a sample of matched controls. Six subtasks considering three figurative types (idioms, metaphors, and proverbs) in two response-formats (multiple-choice and verbal explanation) were derived from the APACS test and analyzed with a mixed model approach.Outcomes and Results Results showed a diffuse pragmatic language disorder both in the expressive and receptive modality, with 56% of individuals with TBI performing below normative cut-off in the APACS Total score. The analysis of the figurative language subtasks confirmed the difficulties of the TBI group with figurative expressions compared to controls. A further model restricted to the TBI group showed that verbal explanation was more difficult than the multiple-choice format. However, we did not observe robust differences between figurative types. The only noticeable effect was related to proverbs in the verbal explanation format, which were more difficult than all other subtasks.Conclusions This study shows two main aspects. First, the pragmatic language disorder of people with TBI encompasses not only the well-known difficulties in discourse production but also a disruption of figurative language understanding. Second, such a disruption affects different figurative types, indicating a general problem in inferring the speaker’s meaning from non-literal language. Relevance-theoretic considerations helped us highlighting the commonalities across figurative types, rather than the differences, and the enhanced meta-representational efforts linked to proverbs in open response formats. Intervention could capitalize on these findings and implement training programs that target pragmatic inferences across different types of expressions to promote the most successful return to communication in its variety of situations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02687038.2019.1615033

Cites

92 of 92 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 95 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. 10.1111/rssb.1995.57.issue-1 · DOI
  2. 10.1002/dys.v24.3 · DOI
  3. Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2011). An R companion to applied regression (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
  4. Mondini, S., Mapelli, D., Vestri, A., Arcara, G., & Bisiacchi, P. S. (2011). Esame neuropsicologico breve 2 (ENB-2): Una batteria di test per lo screening neuropsicologico. Milano: Raffaello Cortina Editore.
  5. Norrick, N. R. (1994). Proverbial perlocutions: How to do things with proverbs. In W. Mieder (Ed.), Wise words: Essays on proverbs (pp. 143–157). New York, N.Y.: Garland Publishing Inc.
  6. 10.1017/CB09781139173865 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Arcara, G., Tonini, E., Muriago, G., Mondin, E., Sgarabottolo, E., Bertagnoni, G., Semenza, C., & Bambini, V.
Affiliations
  • IRCCS San Camillo Hospital (IT)
  • Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia (IT)
  • University of Padua (IT)
  • Cooperativa Sogno e Vita
  • Ospedale San Bortolo (IT)
Corresponding author
Bambini, Valentina
ORCID
Venue
Aphasiology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2019-05-26
Volume
34
Issue
8
Pages
1070-1100
ISSN
  • 0268-7038 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5041
DOI
10.1080/02687038.2019.1615033
OpenAlex
W2954665317
Semantic Scholar
3dfaf8af014eda5dd7ef912efc85b961cb75a54b
Cited by
35
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
FWCI
3.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Aphasiology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
traumatic brain injury, pragmatic language impairment, figurative language comprehension, idioms, metaphor, proverbs, relevance theory, metarepresentation, pragmatic inference

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review