Social-legal discourse in adults with and without traumatic brain injury.

OBJECTIVE

To characterise social-legal discourse in adults with and without traumatic brain injury (TBI).

METHODS

Participants, 19 adults with TBI and 21 uninjured comparison peers, completed a legal knowledge interview to discuss knowledge of laws and legal systems. Dependent variables were microlinguistic and macrolinguistic features of participants' spoken discourse.

RESULTS

Participants in the TBI group produced more microlinguistic errors, t(38) = -3.07, adjusted P < 0.05, ηp2 = 0.20, and a higher rate of errors, t(38) = -3.08, adjusted P < 0.05, ηp2 = 0.20, than participants in the comparison group. Participants in the TBI group also produced more macrolinguistic errors, t(38) = -2.86, adjusted P < 0.05, ηp2 = 0.18, and a higher rate of errors t(38) = -3.94, adjusted P < 0.05, ηp2 = 0.29, than participants in the comparison group. Two cognitive-communication mechanisms, working memory and processing speed, partially explained micro- and macrolinguistic discourse features.

CONCLUSION

Adults with moderate-to-severe TBI produced social-legal discourse of poorer micro- and macrolinguistic quality than their uninjured peers. Discourse quality was explained in part by working memory and processing speed. Results identify risks of TBI-related communication deficits in legal contexts and support further study of effects of TBI on intersections with legal systems.