Document Type : Original Articles


Assistant Professor of Linguistics, University of Gonabad, Gonabad, Iran


Background: Although discourse properties of aphasic patients have been
investigated utilizing microlinguistic as well as macrolinguistic approaches, there
have been only a few studies in the Persian setting which have tried to investigate
discourse properties of these brain-damaged patients. Previous researchers have
concentrated mainly on the two most notorious types of aphasia, namely Broca
and Wernicke. Thus, the coherence properties of transcortical motor patients
have never been given serious consideration by scientists. The current study
aimed to investigate whether and how transcortical aphasia patients differ from
their healthy counterparts in the cohesive properties of their discourse with the
aim of presenting an exhaustive account of the issue and filling the gap existing
in the literature.
Methods: In doing so, via mixed-methods approach, cohesive devices in the
discourse of six transcortical motor aphasics (3 participants of each gender,
mean age, 56.9 years) and 6 healthy non-aphasic controls (3 participants of each
gender, mean age=57.4 years) were compared.
Results: The results corroborate our hypotheses that the discourse of
transcortical aphasics is less cohesive than that of healthy individuals, and they
have lots of challenges in constructing grammatically cohesive devices.
Conclusion: The findings further demonstrate that discourse could be differently
disrupted in diverse forms of aphasia. It is recommended that more research be
conducted on different languages so as to shed more light on the issue, enriching
our understanding of the nature of this disease.


1. Libben G. Morphological representations and morphological deficits in aphasia. In Morphology, phonology, and aphasia 1990 (pp. 20-31). Springer, New York, NY.
2. Sung JE, DeDe G, Lee SE. Cross-linguistic differences in a picture-description task between Korean-and English-speaking individuals with aphasia. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2016; 25(4S): 813-22.
3. Shapiro K, Shelton J, Caramazza A. Grammatical class in lexical production and morphological processing: Evidence from a case of fluent aphasia. Cogn Neuropsychol. 2000; 17(8):665-82.
4. Ardila A. Grammar in the brain: Two grammar subsystems and two agrammatic types of aphasia. J Neurolinguistics. 2021; 1: 58-70.
5. Piazza G, Calabria M, Semenza C, Poletto C. Processing of semantic and grammatical gender in Spanish speakers with aphasia. Aphasiology. 2021; 30:1-22.
6. Salis C, Martin N, Reinert L. Sentence Recall in Latent and Anomic Aphasia: An Exploratory Study of Semantics and Syntax. Brain Sci. 2021;11(2):230-242.
7. Koukoulioti V, Stavrakaki S, Konstantinopoulou E, Ioannidis P. Time reference, morphology and prototypicality: tense production in stroke aphasia and semantic dementia in Greek. Clin Linguist Phon. 2020. 34(9):791-825
8. Edwards S, Garman M, Knott R. The grammatical characterization of aphasic language. Aphasiology. 1993;7(2):217-20.
9. Boye K, Bastiaanse R. Grammatical versus lexical words in theory and aphasia: Integrating linguistics and neurolinguistics. Glossa. 2018;3(1): 1-12.
10. Pritchard M, Hilari K, Cocks N, Dipper L. Reviewing the quality of discourse information measures in aphasia. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2017;52(6):689-732.
11. Dietz A, Boyle M. Discourse measurement in aphasia: Consensus and caveats. Aphasiology. 2018;32(4):487-92.
12. Martínez-Ferreiro S, Ishkhanyan B, Rosell-Clarí V, Boye K. Prepositions and pronouns in connected discourse of individuals with aphasia. Clin Linguist Phon. 2019;33(6):497-517.
13. Rider JD, Wright HH, Marshall RC, Page JL. Using semantic feature analysis to improve contextual discourse in adults with aphasia. Age (in years). 2008;73(55):62.
14. Gorno‐Tempini ML, Dronkers NF, Rankin KP, Ogar JM, Phengrasamy L, Rosen HJ, Johnson JK, Weiner MW, Miller BL. Cognition and anatomy in three variants of primary progressive aphasia. Annals of Neurology: Ann Neurol. 2004;55(3):335-46.
15. Harris Wright H, Capilouto GJ. Considering a multi-level approach to understanding maintenance of global coherence in adults with aphasia. Aphasiology. 2012;26(5):656-72.
16. Beeke S, Johnson F, Beckley F, Heilemann C, Edwards S, Maxim J, Best W. Enabling better conversations between a man with aphasia and his conversation partner: Incorporating writing into turn taking. Res Lang Soc Interact. 2014;47(3):292-305.
17. Korpijaakko-Huuhka AM, Lind M. The impact of aphasia on textual coherence: Evidence from two typologically different languages. J Interact Res Commun Disord. 2012;3(1):47
18. Zhang M, Geng L, Yang Y, Ding H. Cohesion in the discourse of people with post-stroke aphasia. Clin Linguist Phon. 2021;35(1):2-18.
19. Armstrong E. Aphasic discourse analysis: The story so far. Aphasiology. 2000;14(9):875-92.
20. Cummings L. On making a sandwich: Procedural discourse in adults with right-hemisphere damage. In Further Advances in Pragmatics and Philosophy: Part 2 Theories and Applications 2019 (pp. 331-355). Springer, Cham.
21. Jaecks P, Hielscher-Fastabend M, Stenneken P. Diagnosing residual aphasia using spontaneous speech analysis. Aphasiology. 2012; 26(7):953-70.
22. Andreetta S, Marini A. The effect of lexical deficits on narrative disturbances in fluent aphasia. Aphasiology. 2015; 29(6):705-23.
23. Cummings L. Narrating the Cinderella story in adults with primary progressive aphasia. InFurther Advances in Pragmatics and Philosophy: Part 2 Theories and Applications 2019 (pp. 301-329). Springer, Cham.
24. Behrns I, Ahlsén E. Cohesion in narratives written by participants with aphasia. In Presentation at the ICPLA conference, Cork, Ireland 2012.
25. Linnik A, Bastiaanse R, Höhle B. Discourse production in aphasia: A current review of theoretical and methodological challenges. Aphasiology. 2016; 30(7):765-800.
26. Elman RJ. Multimethod research: A search for understanding. Clinical Aphasiology. 1995;23:77-81.
27. Halliday MA, Hasan R. Cohesion in English. Routledge; 2014.
28. Young R. Conversational styles in language proficiency interviews. Language Learning. 1995;45(1):3-42.
29. Glaser BG. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Soc Probl. 1965;12(4):436-45.
30. Sherratt S, Bryan K. Discourse production after right brain damage: Gaining a comprehensive picture using a multi-level processing model. J Neurolinguistics. 2012;25(4):213-39.
31. Leiwo M, Klippi A. Lexical repetition as a communicative strategy in Broca's aphasia. Aphasiology. 2000;14(2):203-24
32. Rogalski Y, Altmann LJ, Plummer-D’Amato P, Behrman AL, Marsiske M. Discourse coherence and cognition after stroke: A dual task study. J Commun Disord. 2010;43(3):212-24.
33. Martínez-Ferreiro S, Ishkhanyan B, Rosell-Clarí V, Boye K. Prepositions and pronouns in connected discourse of individuals with aphasia. Clin Linguist Phon. 2019;33(6):497-517.