CoDAS
https://codas.org.br/article/doi/10.1590/2317-1782/e20250028en
CoDAS
Original Article

Impact of ageing on discourse types: a comparative study

Deepak Puttanna; Darshan Hosaholalu Sarvajna; Melemane Kalappa Niharika; Anisha Michel Sequeira; Jenin Dsouza

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/e20250028en CoDAS, vol.38, n2, e20250028, 2026
PDF
SciELO
Downloads: 0
Views: 4

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Purpose: Ageing is associated with a decline in physical, physiological, and cognitive-linguistic abilities, impacting language and social participation. Discourse, a critical aspect of language, involves the integration of phonology, lexicon, syntax, cohesion, and coherence. Examining variations in discourse types is essential for understanding age-related changes and improving language assessment and treatment strategies. Therefore, the present study investigated the effect of ageing on discourse production across different discourse types.

Methods: This study recruited 120 neurotypical, Konkani-Kannada bilingual participants. Participants were divided into three age groups: young adults (18–35 years), middle-aged adults (35.1–55 years), and older adults (55.1–70 years). Discourse tasks included picture description, narration, and conversation, conducted in Konkani, their native language. Responses were digitally recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the Discourse Analysis Scale. Discourse Quotient was calculated for each task through qualitative analysis.

Results: Significant differences in discourse performance were observed across all three types among the three groups. Additionally, significant differences were noted across discourse types within young, middle, and older adults. However, older adults exhibited a different pattern of performance, performing poorer on picture description compared to the other two types and their counterpart groups.

Conclusion: The study highlights the influence of ageing and task type on discourse production, with older adults facing greater challenges in narrative tasks. These findings emphasize the need for speech-language pathologists to consider the linguistic and cognitive demands of older adults in clinical interventions, enabling the development of more effective language assessment and therapy programs.

Keywords

Narration, Ageing, Language Production, Conversation, Discourse, Bilingualism, Discourse Analysis Scale

Referências

1 Ska B, Scherer LC, Flôres OC, Oliveira CR, Maria T No, Fonseca RP. Theoretical, behavioral and neuroimage evidence on discourse processing aging. Psychol Neurosci. 2009;2(2):101-9. https://doi.org/10.3922/j.psns.2009.2.002.

2 Kent RD. The MIT encyclopedia of communication disorders. Cambridge: A Bradford Book; 2003. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4658.001.0001.

3 Joanette Y, Brownell H, editors. Discourse ability and brain damage: theoretical and empirical perspectives. USA: Springer; 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3262-9.

4 Ulatowska HK, Olness GS. Discourse. The MIT Encyclopedia of Communication Disorders. Cambridge: The MIT Press; 2004.

5 Albert ML, Spiro A 3rd, Sayers KJ, Cohen JA, Brady CB, Goral M, et al. Effects of health status on word finding in aging: word finding, aging, and health. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57(12):2300-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02559.x. PMid:20121990.

6 Marini A, Boewe A, Caltagirone C, Carlomagno S. Age-related differences in the production of textual descriptions. J Psycholinguist Res. 2005;34(5):439-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-005-6203-z. PMid:16177935.

7 Wright HH, Koutsoftas AD, Capilouto GJ, Fergadiotis G. Global coherence in younger and older adults: influence of cognitive processes and discourse type. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 2014;21(2):174-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2013.794894. PMid:23656430.

8 Fergadiotis G, Wright HH. Lexical diversity for adults with and without aphasia across discourse elicitation tasks. Aphasiology. 2011;25(11):1414-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2011.603898. PMid:23125474.

9 Wright HH, Capilouto GJ. Manipulating task instructions to change narrative discourse performance. Aphasiology. 2009;23(10):1295-308. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030902826844.

10 Sherratt S. Multi‐level discourse analysis: a feasible approach. Aphasiology. 2007;21(3-4):375-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030600911435.

11 Whitworth A, Claessen M, Leitão S, Webster J. Beyond narrative: is there an implicit structure to the way in which adults organise their discourse? Clin Linguist Phon. 2015;29(6):455-81. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2015.1020450. PMid:25774761.

12 Pereira N, Gonçalves APB, Goulart M, Tarrasconi MA, Kochhann R, Fonseca RP. Age-related differences in conversational discourse abilities A comparative study. Dement Neuropsychol. 2019;13(1):53-71. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-57642018dn13-010006. PMid:31073380.

13 Wright HH, editor. Cognition, language and aging. John Benjamins Publishing; 2016. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.200.

14 Mackenzie C. Adult spoken discourse: the influences of age and education. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2000;35(2):269-85. https://doi.org/10.1080/136828200247188. PMid:10912255.

15 Malcorra BLC, Wilson MA, Schilling LP, Hübner LC. Lower education and reading and writing habits are associated with poorer oral discourse production in typical adults and older adults. Front Psychol. 2022;13:740337. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.740337. PMid:35369132.

16 Babaei Z, Ghayoumi-Anaraki Z, Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari B. Discourse in aging: narrative and persuasive. Dement Neuropsychol. 2019;13(4):444-9. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-57642018dn13-040012. PMid:31844499.

17 Malik C, Khanna S, Jain Y, Jain R. Geriatric population in India: demography, vulnerabilities, and healthcare challenges: demography, vulnerabilities, and healthcare challenges. J Family Med Prim Care. 2021;10(1):72-6. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1794_20. PMid:34017706.

18 John S, Veena KD, George A, Rajashekhar B. Spoken discourse in elderly malayalam speakers: influence of age, gender and education. Gender and Education Indian Journal of Gerontology. 2012;26(3):321.

19 Deepa MS, Shyamala KC. Complex discourse production in persons with mild dementia: measures of richness of vocabulary. J All India Inst Speech Hear. 2010;29(1):12-9.

20 Pliatsikas C. Multilingualism and brain plasticity. In: Schwieter JW, Paradis M, editors. The handbook of the neuroscience of multilingualism. United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 2019. p. 230-51.

21 Amruthavarshini B, Yathiraj A. Comparison of performance on SPIN-K between non-native Kannada speakers having Malayalam as native language and native Kannada speakers (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Mysuru, India: University of Mysuru; 2018

22 Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x. PMid:15817019.

23 Singhi P, Kumar M, Malhi P, Kumar R. Utility of the WHO Ten Questions screen for disability detection in a rural community-the north Indian experience. J Trop Pediatr. 2007;53(6):383-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/tropej/fmm047. PMid:17556487.

24 Nicholas LE, Brookshire RH. A system for quantifying the informativeness and efficiency of the connected speech of adults with aphasia. J Speech Hear Res. 1993;36(2):338-50. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3602.338. PMid:8487525.

25 Hema N, Shyamala KC. Macrolinguistic analysis of discourse in TBI: right vs left hemisphere insult. Journal of All India Institute of Speech and Hearing. 2013;32:139-53.

26 Pallickal M, Discourse NH. in Wernicke’s aphasia. Aphasiology. 2020;34(9):1138-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2020.1739616.

27 Rosenthal R. Effect sizes: pearson’s correlation, its display via the BESD, and alternative indices. Am Psychol. 1991;46(10):1086-7. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.10.1086.

28 Capilouto G, Wright HH, Wagovich SA. CIU and main event analyses of the structured discourse of older and younger adults. J Commun Disord. 2005;38(6):431-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2005.03.005. PMid:16199238.

29 Wright HH, Capilouto G, Wagovich S, Cranfill T, Davis J. Development and reliability of a quantitative measure of adults’ narratives. Aphasiology. 2005;19(3-5):263-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030444000732.

30 Glosser G, Deser T. A comparison of changes in macrolinguistic and microlinguistic aspects of discourse production in normal aging. J Gerontol. 1992;47(4):266-72. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/47.4.P266. PMid:1624704.

31 Trabasso T, Sperry LL. Causal relatedness and importance of story events. J Mem Lang. 1985;24(5):595-611. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(85)90048-8.

32 Saling LL, Laroo N, Saling MM. When more is less: failure to compress discourse with re-telling in normal ageing. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2012;139(1):220-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.10.005. PMid:22074895.

33 Connor L. Memory in old age: patterns of decline and preservation. Semin Speech Lang. 2001;22(2):117-25. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2001-13936. PMid:11373066.

34 Van Dijk TA. Discourse studies: a multidisciplinary introduction. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2011. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446289068.

35 Douglas JM. Relation of executive functioning to pragmatic outcome following severe traumatic brain injury. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2010;53(2):365-82. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0205). PMid:20360462.

36 Deepak P, Goswami SP. Effectiveness of semantic-based treatment in persons with aphasia. Ann Indian Acad Neurol. 2020;23(Suppl 2):S123-9. https://doi.org/10.4103/aian.AIAN_558_20. PMid:33343136.

37 Puttanna D, Harbi MA, Fernandes FL, Dsilva YS. Understanding discourse genre and its effects in persons with fluent aphasia: a preliminary investigation. Audiology and Speech Research. 2025;21(1):39-50. https://doi.org/10.21848/asr.240166.

38 Davis BH, Guendouzi J, editors. Pragmatics in dementia discourse. United Kingdom: Cambridge Scholars Publishing; 2014.

39 Dijkstra K, Bourgeois MS, Allen RS, Burgio LD. Conversational coherence: discourse analysis of older adults with and without dementia. J Neurolinguist. 2004;17(4):263-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0911-6044(03)00048-4.

40 Gold BT, Kim C, Johnson NF, Kryscio RJ, Smith CD. Lifelong bilingualism maintains neural efficiency for cognitive control in aging. J Neurosci. 2013;33(2):387-96. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3837-12.2013. PMid:23303919.

41 Ware AT, Kirkovski M, Lum JAG. Meta-analysis reveals a bilingual advantage that is dependent on task and age. Front Psychol. 2020;11:1458. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01458. PMid:32793026.

42 Sullivan MD, Poarch GJ, Bialystok E. Why is lexical retrieval slower for bilinguals? Evidence from picture naming. Biling Lang Cogn. 2018;21(3):479-88. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728917000694. PMid:29910667.

43 Wainwright B. Gender differences in the narrative productions of African American adults. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2019;28(2):623-38. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-18-0153. PMid:31136228.

44 Schulkind M, Schoppel K, Scheiderer E. Gender differences in autobiographical narratives: he shoots and scores; she evaluates and interprets. Mem Cognit. 2012;40(6):958-65. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0197-1. PMid:22382648.

45 Cannizzaro MS, Coelho CA. Analysis of narrative discourse structure as an ecologically relevant measure of executive function in adults. J Psycholinguist Res. 2013;42(6):527-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-012-9231-5. PMid:23192423.

46 Shewan CM, Henderson VL. Analysis of spontaneous language in the older normal population. J Commun Disord. 1988;21(2):139-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9924(88)90002-0. PMid:3360976.
 

Submetido em:
28/01/2025

Aceito em:
15/08/2025

69e69b0ba953950ef853aa15 codas Articles
2317-1782 (Eletrônico)
CoDAS ©2026 Todos os direitos reservados.

CoDAS

Share this page
Page Sections