Expression of propositional attitudes in conversation by adults with traumatic brain injury: A relevance theoretic approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Impairments in social communication are ubiquitous after moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Most attempts to quantify these impairments have been descriptive rather than theoretically motivated. We propose that Relevance Theory provides a framework for characterizing social communication limitations after TBI and linking these problems to underlying cognitive impairments. AIMS: This study asked how adult speakers with and without TBI used specific linguistic forms in social communication. We selected three linguistic markers that convey thoughts and feelings of the speaker and which are intended to influence the same in the listener: propositional attitude verbs, the discourse marker like and the quotative like. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Ten adults with moderate to severe TBI and 12 healthy adults completed 5-min casual conversations with student researcher partners as part of a larger research study. Conversations were transcribed and analysed for the frequency of the three linguistic markers, corrected for total words in the transcript. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Participants in the TBI group used discourse marker like significantly less than participants in the healthy comparison group (0.75% and 2.06% of total words, respectively; p = 0.05, d = -0.43) and showed less variety in functions of like. The use of propositional attitude verbs and quotative like was not affected by TBI. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Expression of propositional attitude seems largely preserved after TBI. Relevance Theory may provide a helpful framework (1) to interpret subtle quantitative and qualitative differences that contribute to social conversation problems of adults with TBI; and (2) to elucidate relations among the social communication signs and symptoms and underlying cognitive impairments. What this paper adds What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? More awareness and understanding of how social cognition may look in everyday conversations, may help SLPs who treat patients with such difficulties as a result of TBI.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".