280 likes | 419 Views
RIGHT BRAIN DAMAGE AND EMOTIONAL EXPRESSION IN DISCOURSE. Sue Sherratt. “Verbal communication is ordinarily and normally imbued with affective and attitudinal nuances” (Van Lancker & Pachana, 1998, p. 311). Why is evaluation important?.
E N D
RIGHT BRAIN DAMAGE AND EMOTIONAL EXPRESSION IN DISCOURSE Sue Sherratt
“Verbal communication is ordinarily and normally imbued with affective and attitudinal nuances”(Van Lancker & Pachana, 1998, p. 311)
Why is evaluation important? • Expresses speaker’s opinion about something (and thereby values) • Constructs and maintains relations between speaker and hearer • Organises the discourse
The role of evaluation in narratives • wards off the question “so what?”. • makes part of narrative prominent. • distinguishes narratives from other stretches of talk • allows the speaker to occupy the floor for longer
Right hemisphere & emotion – 2 hypotheses • RH hypothesis – RH is dominant for emotional processing • Valence hypothesis – RH is dominant for unpleasant/negative emotions.
RBD and emotional expression • Emotional expression may be verbal, nonverbal or extralinguistic • RBD investigations focused mostly on nonverbal and extralinguistic expression of emotion • Limited research into RBD and verbal expression of emotion
Verbal expression of emotion and RBD • Most studies have used rating scales. • Rated as less emotionally intense, reduced in emotionality, less accurate in emotions expressed. • 2 studies of lexical emotional expression – reduction in emotional content and lower rate of affect words.
Assessment of verbal emotion • Complex – can be explicit or implicit, subjective, value-laden. • Tends to have been sidelined in linguistics (Martin 2004) • Few relevant analysis procedures
Appraisal (Martin and colleagues) • “semantic resources used to negotiate emotions, judgement and valuations, alongside resources for amplifying and engaging with these evaluations” (Martin, 2000, p. 145). • Forms a “prosody of attitude” (Martin & Rose, 2003, p. 54) through the sample.
Appraisal resources • 3 categories/dimensions • Appreciation • Affect • Judgement • Amplification – for grading the attitudes
Appraisal Categories • Appreciation • how speakers evaluate a text or a process • “What do you think of that?” • Affect • how something makes them feel • “How do you feel about it?”
Appraisal Categories contd • Judgement • evaluation of the ethics, morality or social values of people’s behaviour • “How would you judge that behaviour?” • Amplification • how speakers grade their attitudes towards people, things or events.
Questions • Are speakers with RBD able to express emotion verbally and to what extent? • What appraisal resources do they use to do this?
Participants • community-dwelling British males • monolingual English-speaking • minimum of 10 years of education
7 RBD participants • Pre-morbidly strongly right-handed • Single right hemisphere CVA • Aged 54-77 • TPO 2y6m to 5 y
10 NBD participants • right-handed • matched for age and SES to RBD group
Narratives • 2 narratives of personal experience • “Tell me about a frightening/funny experience that you have had at any time in your life”
Conclusions • Relative, not absolute, differences between groups • RBD tended to use less, particularly for negative topic • On positive topic, RBD and NBD similar. • On negative topic, RBD appraised things more than expressing feelings
More questions than answers • Effect of discourse genre? • Specific/personally relevant negative topic? • Other factors? • Limitations of this study?
Final comments • Attitudinal analysis will never be completely clear-cut and are still being developed • Appraisal framework used has considerable merit • Evaluation plays a constructive role in “organising sociality – how we share feelings in order to belong (Martin, 2004, p, 341).
RBD and social integration • The difficulties of people with RBD in emotion processing have marked effects on interpersonal interactions (Lehman Blake, 2003). • People with RBD are considered to be “disconnected from the world around them” (Myers, 1999) and as having “a social handicap at least as significant as aphasia” (Paradis, 1998)