Selvaraj and Vadakkanthara Hariharan ﻿Language Testing in Asia
(2024) 14:22
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-024-00289-x

Language Testing in Asia

Open Access

RESEARCH

Global coherence in structured
and unstructured discourse types
in neurotypical adults
Ruba Selvaraj1 and Savitha Vadakkanthara Hariharan1*   *Correspondence:savithavh@gmail.com
1

Department of Audiology
and Speech Language
Pathology, SRM Medical College
Hospital and Research Centre,
SRM Institute of Scienceand Technology, Kattankulathur
Campus, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
603203, India

Abstract
Background: Research on global coherence in neurotypical aging has predominantly
focused on different methods of elicitation and their impact on age. The use of structured versus unstructured discourse tasks can have varying effects on global coherence. Comparative studies investigating this effect within Tamil language-speaking
populations are scarce. This study seeks to address this gap by examining global coherence in structured and unstructured tasks among speakers of Tamil language.
Aim: This study aimed to identify any significant differences in the global coherenceof discourse, as measured through structured (picture description) and unstructured(conversation) tasks, in middle-aged and older neurotypical individuals across ages
and genders.
Method: Thirty Tamil-speaking individuals participated in the study, which included
15 middle-aged adults (aged 44–59 years) and 15 older adults (aged 60–80 years),with an equal number of males and females. Discourse samples were audio recorded
using structured (picture description) and unstructured (conversational discourse)tasks. The picture description task included describing a single picture (of a birthday
scene) and a sequential picture stimulus (depicting an argument event). The conversational task consisted of two topics of conversation (family and work) with the investigator. Each discourse task lasted for at least a minute. The recorded samples weretranscribed verbatim and analyzed using a 4-point Global Coherence Rating Scale.
Results: Participants exhibited significant differences, with the unstructured discourse
task having a significantly higher global coherence rating (p ≤ 0.05) than both structured discourse tasks. The varying cognitive demands, functional purposes, and contextual factors across various discourse elicitation tasks could be attributed to thesedifferences. No significant differences were observed in the coherence ratings
between middle-aged and older adults or between genders.
Conclusion: The method used to elicit discourse and the type of discourse need to beconsidered when exploring global coherence measures. The current study has important methodological implications for the coherence analysis of the Tamil-speaking
population in both structured and unstructured tasks.
Keywords: Global coherence, Aging, Discourse, Structured discourse task,
Unstructured discourse task

© The Author(s) 2024. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permitsuse, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third
party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Selvaraj and Vadakkanthara Hariharan ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:22

Introduction
Global coherence is a key aspect of communication that guarantees the overall meaningand organization of a discourse. It refers to preserving thematic unity and creating a link
between different ideas or concepts (Polakova et al., 2021; Coelho & Flewellyn, 2003).
The concept of global coherence in discourse analysis has been studied extensively andhas implications for numerous domains such as language processing, cognitive development, and communication disorders (Babaei et al., 2019; Burke et al., 2023; Ellis et al.,2016; Maddy, 2017; Wright et al., 2013).
As individuals age, there may be a disruption in globally coherent speech. This has
been observed in both unstructured and structured discourse tasks. Older adults produce less global coherence in discourse than younger adults. The speaker’s and listeners’
aptitude to transfer and understand information can be significantly impacted by disruptions in global coherence. It may be more challenging for the speaker to convey theirintended meaning and retain their attention on the topic at hand if they produce lessglobally coherent language. Moreover, the lack of global coherence in discourse makes
it difficult for the listener to infer and grasp the intended meaning. These changes in the
global coherence of discourse abilities have been noted in both neurocommunication
disorders and cognitively healthy aging (Andreetta & Marini, 2014; Dijkstra et al., 2004;
Marini et al., 2011; Swaab et al., 2013).
Numerous studies have investigated global coherence in the aging population and its
influence on discourse abilities (Glosser & Deser, 1992; Marini et al., 2005; Wright et al.,2014). Research conducted by Marini et al. (2005) studied global coherence abilities inadults aged 20–84 years. The findings showed that the oldest age group (74–84 years)
had significantly lower global coherence scores than the younger and middle age groups(20–24, 25–39, and 40–59 years). Further studies have discovered the neural connections of coherence measures, identifying that several cognitive processes contribute to
greater global coherent discourse (Azad, 2023). In addition, the effects of various types of
discourse tasks on global coherence abilities in older adults have also been studied. Elliset al. (2016) found that maintaining global coherence can vary based on the demands of
discourse tasks, with some tasks requiring greater cognitive loads on older adults andpossibly worsening global coherence deficits. Further, studies have indicated that maintaining global coherence in discourse is not determined exclusively by age-related cognitive changes (Wright et al., 2013). Aspects such as language proficiency, visual literacy,
working memory capacity, and attentional abilities also play a role in determining thelevel of global coherence in discourse for both younger and older adults.
To examine global coherence, studies utilizing various types of discourse elicitation
tasks have produced different findings (Glosser & Deser, 1992; Marini et al., 2005; Van
Leer & Turkstra, 1999; Wright et al., 2014). For illustration, research indicates thatrecounts and procedural discourse tasks are less impacted by the decline in coherence
often associated with aging, due to their task familiarity and predictable nature (Marini
et al., 2005; North et al., 1986). On the other hand, other studies have demonstrated thatolder adults tend to produce less globally coherent discourse than younger adults inpersonal recounting or narration tasks (Glosser & Deser, 1992). Moreover, studies haveshown that while maintaining global coherence in picture description tasks, older people showed higher coherence levels in sequential picture description tasks than in single

Page 2 of 11

Selvaraj and Vadakkanthara Hariharan ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:22

description tasks. This is probably because sequential pictures provide a clear structure
and path for the narrative, where single descriptions allow individuals to interpret thesequence of events (Capilouto et al., 2005; Duong & Ska, 2001; Wright & Capilouto,
2009; Wright et al., 2013). These divergences in research findings emphasize the need to
study global coherence through various discourse tasks to fully understand how it affects
aging and discourse production.
Various factors influence global coherence in the aging population. According to
Duchan (2013), speakers’ knowledge and familiarity with discourse schemas affect theirability to produce a coherent discourse. Other factors, such as cognitive processes anddiscourse types, influence global coherence abilities (Azad, 2023; Wright et al., 2014).
The maintenance of discourse coherence has been linked to cognitive changes that occur
with healthy aging (Arbuckle & Gold, 1993; Glosser & Deser, 1992; Rogalski et al., 2010).
The choice of discourse elicitation task can affect the evaluation of global coherence inaging. It is vital to consider both structured and unstructured tasks when studying global
coherence in middle and older adults, as different discourse tasks may elicit various
coherence levels. Hence, this study aims to compare global coherence measured using
structured and unstructured discourse tasks in neurotypical Tamil-speaking adults.
The specific objectives of the study were as follows: (1) to identify whether there weresignificant differences in global coherence between structured (picture description) and
unstructured (conversation) tasks in middle-aged and older neurotypical individuals, (2)to identify whether there were significant differences in global coherence between middle-aged and older individuals across discourse types, and (3) to identify whether there
were significant differences in global coherence between genders across discourse types.

Methods
Participants

Thirty participants were divided into two groups: Group A consisted of 15 middle-aged
individuals between the ages of 44 and 59 years, and Group B consisted of 15 older
adults aged 60 to 80 years. All participants had to meet the inclusion criteria, including being a native Tamil speaker, having at least a fifth-grade education level, normal
cognitive functioning, adequate visual acuity, normal hearing sensitivity, and no depression. Participants’ Tamil language proficiency was measured according to the Language
Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (Marian et al., 2007), cognitive function was
screened using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (Nasreddine et al., 2005), hearing
ability was assessed informally at a distance of 5 ft, visual acuity was determined byscreening with the Snellen eye chart test (Sue, 2007), and depression was indicated bytheir performance on the General Health Questionnaire (Goldberg & Williams, 1988).
In addition, participants who had a history of stroke, head injury, or any neurological orneurodegenerative disorder that could impact communication abilities and participants
with psychiatric disorders such as depression, anxiety, or post-traumatic stress disorders
were excluded.
Sample elicitation

The sample was collected using two distinct discourse tasks: structured and unstructured. The structured task required participants to describe scenes from the single andPage 3 of 11

Selvaraj and Vadakkanthara Hariharan ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:22

Page 4 of 11

sequential picture descriptions of Nicholas and Brookshire (1993). The single picture
involved a description of a birthday party, and the sequential picture involved a series of
six pictures describing an argument scene. Participants were asked to provide descriptions of these pictures. The unstructured discourse task involved engaging in a conversation with the examiner on two topics (topic I: Family and topic II: Work). Each discourse
task lasted a minimum of at least 1 min. All audio samples were obtained in a quiet room
environment at the participants’ residence.
Global coherence analysis

The discourse samples were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim and then segmented into communication units (C-units). This C-unit segmentation method involves
breaking down the samples into independent clauses with their modifiers, which is acommonly used approach in discourse analysis (Fergadiotis & Wright, 2011; Hughes
et al., 1997; Loban, 1976). Each C-unit segmentation sample was then analyzed for
global coherence using the 4-point Global Coherence Ratings Scale. The mean global
coherence score was then computed for each discourse task to assess the overall levelof coherence in the samples. An example of a sample analysis using a 4-point Global
Coherence Rating Scale is given in Table 1.
Ethical issues

Before the commencement of the study, informed consent was obtained from all potential participants, ensuring they were fully aware of the purpose and procedures as wellas their rights as participants. The audio-recorded data from the discourse samples werestored securely and confidentially, only accessible to the researchers involved in the
study. The data was stored following the guidelines provided by the university’s research
ethics committee. The researchers also adhered to ethical guidelines and standards
throughout the study.
Statistical analysis

This study used a nonparametric test because the data were not normally distributed after a normality test was conducted. Nonparametric tests, such as the Wilcoxon
signed-rank test and Mann–Whitney U-test, were used in the statistical analysis. First,
Table 1 Example of analysis of global coherence using the 4-point Global Coherence Rating Scale(Wright et al., 2014): task-single picture description
Utterances (Tamil language)

Utterances (English
translation)

Scores Reason for scoreantha viitula pirantha naal
kondaaduraanga

Birthday party is celebrated inthat house4

A statement is directly connected
to a stimulus

athu sofakku kiila ukkanthuruku

That is sitting under the sofa

3

An utterance has meaning,although it could be lacking somedetails (i.e., who is sitting under
the sofa)

sonthakaaranga bas misspannittu letaa varaangannu
nenaikuren

Relatives are arriving late; probably, they missed the bus

2

An utterance has extra information that is only tangentiallyconnected to the stimuli

naan chinna vayasula pirantha
naal kondaadala

I did not celebrate a birthday
when I was young1

An utterance is not connected tothe stimulusSelvaraj and Vadakkanthara Hariharan ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:22

Page 5 of 11

Table 2 Representing inter- and intra-rater reliability for word-by-word agreement, C-unit
segmentation, and global coherenceWord-by-word agreement

C-unit segmentation

Globalcoherence
ratingInter-judge reliability

97.85%

93.49%

91.66%

Intra-judge reliability

98.23%

95.98%

95.83%

Fig. 1 Mean and SD of global coherence scores of structured and unstructured discourse tasks in middle
and older individuals

descriptive analysis was used to examine the fundamental characteristics of the data.
The Mann–Whitney U-test was used to compare coherence scores across different age
and gender groups. In addition, a Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to compare
coherence scores among different discourse tasks.

Results
Based on the study data, the total number of C-unit segmentation samples ranged from
291 to 422, and the average number of C-unit segmentations per participant ranged
from 10 to 14 across each discourse task.
To ensure reliability, 20% of the total discourse samples (n = 6) were randomly selected
and used for intra- and inter-reliability checks in terms of word accuracy, c-unit segmentation, and global coherence rating. An experienced speech-language pathologist trained
to evaluate the data by giving multiple examples and who was blind to the participants
and data conducted an inter-rater reliability analysis. Agreements and disagreements
were subjected to the following formula: total agreements/[total agreements + total
disagreements] × 100. The results are shown in Table 2. Intra- and inter-reliability were
found to be good. It ranges from 91.6 to 98.2%. Agreement percentages are comparablewith those of previous studies that included coherence measures (Rogalski et al., 2010;
Wright et al., 2014).
Participants’ mean age and standard deviation (SD) was 50.6 ± 3.22 years for middle
age and 68.8 ± 5.28 years for older age. The mean and standard deviation (SD) of global
coherence scores of structured and unstructured discourse tasks in middle-aged andolder individuals are shown in Fig. 1.

Selvaraj and Vadakkanthara Hariharan ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:22

Page 6 of 11

Table 3 Representing Mann–Whitney U-test results for global coherence difference between
middle and older individuals
Discourse task

Structured task
Unstructured task

Middle age

Older age

p-value

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Single picture

3.85

0.18

3.62

0.35

0.06

Sequential picture

3.83

0.16

3.77

0.27

0.77

Conversation I (family)

4.00

0.00

3.96

0.10

0.53

Conversation II (work)

4.00

0.00

4.00

0.00

1.00

Table 4 Representing Mann–Whitney U-test results for global coherence difference between maleand female
Discourse task

Structured task
Unstructured task

Male

Femalep-value

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Single picture

3.72

0.31

3.74

0.29

0.95

Sequential picture

3.76

0.26

3.84

0.17

0.60

Conversation I (family)

3.98

0.07

3.98

0.07

0.92

Conversation II (work)

4.00

0.00

4.00

0.00

1.00

Comparing the global coherence levels between structured and unstructured discourse tasks for both middle-aged and older participants indicated significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) in global coherence across structured and unstructured discourse tasks,
including single picture description vs. conversation I family (p = 0.00), single picture
description vs. conversation II work (p = 0.00), sequential picture description vs. conversation I family (p = 0.00), and sequential picture description vs. conversation II work(p = 0.00) among middle-aged and older individuals. Notably, participants exhibited
higher performance on unstructured discourse tasks, such as conversational discourse,
compared to structured tasks involving picture descriptions.
The second aim of the study was to examine any significant difference in global coherence between younger and older individuals across different discourse types. Resultsfrom Mann–Whitney tests are displayed in Table 3, indicating that there are no significant differences in global coherence between the younger and older groups on various tasks, including single picture description (p = 0.06), sequential picture description(p = 0.77), conversation I family (p = 0.53), and conversation II work (p = 1.00).
The third aim of the study was to investigate any significant differences in global coherence between males and females across different tasks. The results from Mann–Whitney tests presented in Table 4 indicate that there are no significant differences in global
coherence between males and females across discourse tasks, including single picture
description (p = 0.95), sequential picture description (p = 0.60), conversation I family(p = 0.92), and conversation II work (p = 1.00).
Global coherence errors

The sample revealed four types of coherence errors, aligning with the classifications
established by Marini et al. (2005). These errors received a coherence score of 1 to 3 onSelvaraj and Vadakkanthara Hariharan ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:22

the 4-point Global Coherence Rating Scale (Wright et al., 2014). Details regarding the
linguistic aspects of the audio samples are provided below:a) Tangential information: This error occurs when the speaker includes off-topic or
irrelevant details that diverge from the main topic or stimulus. Including tangential
information disrupts the overall coherence because it can confuse the listener orreader about the central message.
b) Conceptually incongruent utterances: These are statements or phrases that do notconceptually align with the preceding discourse. They create confusion because theideas expressed are not logically connected or relevant to the current topic or stimulus.
c) Propositional repetitions: This coherence error involves unnecessarily repeating thesame idea or proposition within a discourse. Instead of advancing the conversation,
it stalls the progression of ideas, which can be perceived as a lack of fluency or an
inability to introduce new, pertinent information.
d) Fillers: Fillers are words or sounds that people use to fill pauses during speech, often
without adding any meaningful content. Examples include “uh,” “um,” or “so.” Frequent use of fillers can disrupt communication and suggest a lack of preparation or
uncertainty about the topic.
Each of these errors, when present in discourse, leads to a breach in coherence, making it difficult for the listener to follow along and grasp the overarching message or pointof the conversation or picture description.

Discussion
Based on the results of the study, it can be inferred that unstructured discourse tasks,
such as conversational tasks, yield higher levels of global coherence in middle-aged andolder neurotypical individuals. This could be because conversational tasks allow for
more flexibility and a natural flow of conversation, which may make it easier for participants to maintain global coherence (Doyle et al., 1995; Kim et al., 2017). On theother hand, structured tasks involving picture descriptions may require more cognitive
demand, which could explain the lower levels of global coherence observed in this study(Marini et al., 2005; Wright et al., 2014). Earlier studies have also renowned disparities in
discourse production based on the type of discourse task, which is consistent with ourfindings (Doyle et al., 1995; Glosser & Deser, 1992; Kim et al., 2017; Marini et al., 2005;
Van Leer & Turkstra, 1999; Wright et al., 2014). Furthermore, picture description tasks
require higher involvement of short-term memory compared to conversational tasks,
whereas conversational tasks require higher involvement of long-term memory thanpicture description (Kim et al., 2017; Marini et al., 2005; Rogalski et al., 2010; Wrightet al., 2014). This suggests that the cognitive demands of various discourse tasks canaffect discourse coherence.
One more possible explanation for conversational discourse tasks being better thanpicture description tasks is that conversational discourse tasks necessitate both referential (expressing factorial information) and evaluative language (expressing opinions
and reactions), whereas picture description involves only referential language (Labov,Page 7 of 11

Selvaraj and Vadakkanthara Hariharan ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:22

1972; Olness et al., 2010). This combination of language types permits a richer and moremeaningful information discussion. Moreover, conversational discourse tasks happen
within an interpersonal framework and aid interpersonal determination, which mightenhance motivation and engagement for participants. Additionally, conversational
discourse tasks deliver a more natural and dynamic setting for discourse production
compared to structured discourse tasks like picture description (Eisenbeiss, 2010; MacDonald, 2013; Nakahama et al., 2001; Tanenhaus & Brown-Schmidt, 2008). The observed
challenges in maintaining coherence during picture description tasks could be attributed
to greater interpretative demands and the absence of sequential cues in contrast withthe conversational discourse tasks that inherently encourage a richer and more coherent
structure. These factors, along with the occasion for interactive and spontaneous communication, may contribute to the superiority of conversational discourse tasks. Anotherpossible factor that could contribute to the differences between the conversational andpicture description tasks is the varying contextual elements, such as task familiarity andthe mode of stimulus presentation (Doyle et al., 1995). In summary, the study found thatparticipants performed better on unstructured discourse tasks compared to structured
tasks. This difference can be attributed to various factors such as cognitive demands,
language use, setting, familiarity, and personal relevance of the discourse task.
Interestingly, this study found no significant differences in global coherence between
younger and older individuals across different discourse types. This finding lines up with
the Indian study by Maria et al. (2021), which revealed no substantial effects of age on
discourse coherence, signifying that aging may not inherently diminish discourse coherence in neurotypical individuals. Nevertheless, these findings stand in disparity withother studies (Marini et al., 2005; Wright et al., 2014), which supported age-related
declines in discourse coherence. A study by Wright et al. (2014) classified the age groupas young adults (20–39 years) and older adults (70–87 years). In another study, Marini
et al. (2005) divided the participants’ age group into five groups: very young adults (20–
24 years), young adults (25–39 years), middle-aged adults (40–59 years), young elderly(60–74 years), and old elderly (75–84 years). This divergence was attributable to various
contributing factors in different studies. Firstly, the age brackets classified as “younger”
and “older” in these studies differ. Henceforth, this discrepancy reflects demographic differences rather than distinct outcomes. Secondly, differences could occur from the varying methodologies employed in these studies, such as research design, discourse types
used, and rating protocols for coherence, which could play a part in these conflicting
results. Finally, other studies investigated global coherence using Western languages, andTamil, in a way, is unique from Western languages. The Tamil language has complex andrich linguistic structures (Sarveswaran & Butt, 2020), and studies indicate that microlinguistic structure contributions influence global coherence (Hazamy & Obermeyer,2020). This language variation among studies also contributes to the different findings.
The above methodological differences may contribute to discrepancies among studies.
This study’s findings reveal no significant difference in global coherence between genders, comparable to conclusions drawn by Wright et al. (2013). These consistent findings suggest that global coherence in discourse may not be influenced by gender, thus
highlighting the robustness of this aspect of communication across various demographic
groups. Future research should prioritize the evaluation of the linguistic, cognitive, andPage 8 of 11

Selvaraj and Vadakkanthara Hariharan ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:22

neural correlates of global coherence in discourse, particularly in clinical populations
such as those with right hemisphere damage, aphasia, traumatic brain injury, and Alzheimer’s disease.
Furthermore, methodological factors such as participants’ visual literacy may affectperformance in discourse tasks that involve picture descriptions. Individuals withexperience in fields that necessitate extensive visual analysis or communication skills,
for instance, illustrators, painters, graphic designers, art teachers, critics, advertisers,
journalists, and visual literacy researchers, may possess enhanced visual literacy skills
for tasks related to picture description or visual interpretation compared to those inprofessions with less emphasis on visual skills (Burmark, 2002). This proficiency could
influence the ability to maintain coherence in picture description tasks. It should
be noted that none of the participants in this study had such professional experience
demanding extensive visual analysis. However, future research designs could accountfor participants’ professional backgrounds, potentially controlling for visual literacy orincorporating its assessment into the study’s methodology.
The outcome of this study has a crucial role in the advancement of global coherence
measurement methodologies. The challenges of the scarcity of up-to-date tools emphasize the need for ongoing scholarly engagement in developing reliable and culturally nuanced metrics. Measuring global coherence in various discourse tasks has been
proven to be a valid and reliable method (Wright et al., 2013). The current study incorporates pertinent factors of analyzing global coherence into its study design and adds tothe body of knowledge about Tamil-speaking populations and addresses recent studies’
calls for methodological improvement.

Conclusion
The present study reveals critical insights into the impact of discourse task structure on
global coherence. The findings indicate that unstructured discourse tasks exhibit greater
global coherence, signifying their inherent advantage due to cognitive demand and contextual factors. Additionally, the study found no significant impact of age or gender on
global coherence, suggesting that certain aspects of discourse coherence may be consistently present across diverse demographic groups. The elicitation method and the type of
discourse analyzed emerge as pivotal factors when assessing global coherence measures.
These findings have important implications for future linguistic research, particularly inthe methodological design of discourse tasks for analyzing coherence in Tamil-speaking populations during both structured and unstructured tasks. Future research should
investigate global coherence across larger and more diverse demographic samples toconfirm these findings. It is also essential to incorporate assessments of visual literacy
into the research design to examine its influence on discourse analysis. Investigating the
cognitive, linguistic, and neural underpinnings of global coherence, especially in clinicalpopulations, will further help to understand the mechanism involved in coherent discourse production.
Abbreviations
C-units	Communication units
SD	Standard deviation

Page 9 of 11

Selvaraj and Vadakkanthara Hariharan ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:22

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the participants of the study.
Authors’ contributions
Both authors contributed equally and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for this research.
Availability of data and materials
Data is not publicly available due to ethical reasons.

Declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Received: 10 January 2024 Accepted: 6 May 2024

References
Andreetta, S., & Marini, A. (2014). Narrative assessment in patients with communicative disorders. Travaux neuchâtelois delinguistique, 60, 69–84. https://​doi.​org/​10.​26034/​tranel.​2014.​3033
Arbuckle, T. Y., & Gold, D. P. (1993). Axging, inhibition, and verbosity. Journal of Gerontology, 48(5), P225–P232. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1093/​geronj/​48.5.​P225
Azad, O. (2023). Investigating the relationship between local and global coherence and cognitive processes in Persianspeaking elderly population. Practice in Clinical Psychology, 11(1), 57–68. http://​jpcp.​uswr.​ac.​ir/​artic​le-1-​849-​en.​html.
Babaei, Z., Ghayoumi-Anaraki, Z., & Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari, B. (2019). Discourse in aging: Narrative and persuasive. Dementia& Neuropsychologia, 13, 444–449. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1590/​1980-​57642​018dn​13-​040012
Burke, E., Gunstad, J., & Hamrick, P. (2023). Comparing global and local semantic coherence of spontaneous speech inpersons with Alzheimer’s disease and healthy controls. Applied Corpus Linguistics, 100064. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
acorp.​2023.​100064
Burmark, L. (2002). Visual Literacy: Learn to See, See to Learn. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,
1703 N. Beauregard St., Alexandria, VA 22311–1714 (ASCD stock no. 101226: member price $18.95, nonmember
price $22.95).
Capilouto, G. J., Wright, H. H., & Wagovich, S. A. (2005). CIU and main event analyses of the structured discourse of older
and younger adults. Journal of Communication Disorders, 38, 431–444. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jcomd​is.​2005.​03.​005
Coelho, C., & Flewellyn, L. (2003). Longitudinal assessment of coherence in an adult with fluent aphasia: A follow-up
study. Aphasiology, 17(2), 173–182. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​72925​5216
Dijkstra, K., Bourgeois, M. S., Allen, R. S., & Burgio, L. D. (2004). Conversational coherence: Discourse analysis of older adults
with and without dementia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17(4), 263–283. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0911-​6044(03)​00048-4
Doyle, P. J., Goda, A. J., & Spencer, K. A. (1995). The communicative informativeness and efficiency of connected discourse
by adults with aphasia under structured and conversational sampling conditions. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 4(4), 130–134. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1044/​1058-​0360.​0404.​130
Duchan, J. (2013). Approaches to the study of discourse in the social sciences. In Discourse analysis and applications (pp.
1–14). Psychology Press.
Duong, A., & Ska, B. (2001). Production of narratives: Picture sequence facilitates organizational but not conceptual processing in less educated subjects. Brain and Language, 45(121), 124. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0278-​2626(01)​80047-6
Eisenbeiss, S. (2010). Production methods in language acquisition research. Experimental methods in language acquisition
research, 11–34.
Ellis, C., Henderson, A., Wright, H. H., & Rogalski, Y. (2016). Global coherence during discourse production in adults: A
review of the literature. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 51(4), 359–367. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1111/​1460-​6984.​12213
Fergadiotis, G., & Wright, H. H. (2011). Lexical diversity for adults with and without aphasia across discourse elicitation
tasks. Aphasiology, 25(11), 1414–1430. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​02687​038.​2011.​603898
Glosser, G., & Deser, T. (1992). A comparison of changes in macrolinguistic and microlinguistic aspects of discourse production in normal aging. Journal of Gerontology, 47(4), P266–P272. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​geronj/​47.4.​P266
Goldberg, D. P., & Williams, P. (1988). A user’s guide to the General Health Questionnaire.
Hazamy, A. A., & Obermeyer, J. (2020). Evaluating informative content and global coherence in fluent and non-fluent
aphasia. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 55(1), 110–120. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​1460-​
6984.​12507
Hughes, D. L., McGillivray, L., & Schmidek, M. (1997). Guide to narrative language: Procedures for assessment.
Kim, S., D’Haro, L. F., Banchs, R. E., Williams, J. D., & Henderson, M. (2017). The fourth dialog state tracking challenge. Dialogues with Social Robots: Enablements, Analyses, and Evaluation, 435–449.
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Loban, W. (1976). Language development: Kindergarten through Grade Twelve. NCTE Committee on Research Report
No. 18.

Page 10 of 11

Selvaraj and Vadakkanthara Hariharan ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:22

MacDonald, M. C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 4,226. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fpsyg.​2013.​00226
Maddy, K. M. (2017). The relationship between selective attention and global coherence in narrative discourse following righthemisphere stroke.
Maria, J., Baskar, K. D., Thiruvalluvan, V., & Kannan, A. (2021). Conversational discourse analysis in Tamil speaking individuals– A comparison across age range. International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews, 8(3), 654–676.
Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q):
Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. . https://​doi.​org/​10.​1044/​1092-​4388(2007/​067)
Marini, A., Boewe, A., Caltagirone, C., & Carlomagno, S. (2005). Age-related differences in the production of textual
descriptions. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34, 439–463. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10936-​005-​6203-z
Marini, A., Galetto, V., Zampieri, E., Vorano, L., Zettin, M., & Carlomagno, S. (2011). Narrative language in traumatic brain
injury. Neuropsychologia, 49(10), 2904–2910. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​neuro​psych​ologia.​2011.​06.​017
Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A., & Van Lier, L. (2001). Negotiation of meaning in conversational and information gap activities: A
comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 377–405. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​35880​28
Nasreddine, Z. S., Phillips, N. A., Bédirian, V., Charbonneau, S., Whitehead, V., Collin, I., ... & Chertkow, H. (2005). The Montreal
Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: A brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. Journal of the American Geriatrics
Society, 53(4), 695–699. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1532-​5415.​2005.​53221.x.
Nicholas, L. E., & Brookshire, R. H. (1993). A system for quantifying the informativeness and efficiency of the connectedspeech of adults with aphasia. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 36(2), 338–350. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1044/​jshr.​3602.​338
North, A., J., Ulatowska, H. K., Macaluso-Haynes, S., & Bell, H. (1986). Discourse performance in older adults. International
Journal of Aging and Human Development, 23(4), 267–283. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2190/​BPF0-​2BWD-​BGNQ-​HWCW.
Olness, G. S., Matteson, S. E., & Stewart, C. T. (2010). “Let me tell you the point”: How speakers with aphasia assign prominence to information in narratives. Aphasiology, 24(6–8), 697–708. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​02687​03090​34385​24
Poláková, L., Mírovský, J., Zikánová, Š, & Hajičová, E. (2021). Discourse relations and connectives in higher text structure.
Dialogue & Discourse, 12(2), 1–37. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5210/​dad.​2021.​201
Rogalski, Y., Altmann, L. J., Plummer-D’Amato, P., Behrman, A. L., & Marsiske, M. (2010). Discourse coherence and cognition
after stroke: A dual task study. Journal of Communication Disorders, 43(3), 212–224. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jcomd​is.​2010.​02.​001
Sarveswaran, K., & Butt, M. (2020). Computational challenges with Tamil complex predicates. In The 2019 Conference on
Lexical Functional Grammar: LFG’19 (pp. 272–292).
Sue, S. (2007). Test distance vision using a Snellen chart. Community Eye Health, 20(63), 52.
Swaab, T. Y., Boudewyn, M. A., Long, D. L., Luck, S. J., Kring, A. M., Ragland, J. D., ... & Carter, C. S. (2013). Spared and impaired
spoken discourse processing in schizophrenia: Effects of local and global language context. Journal of Neuroscience,
33(39), 15578–15587. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1523/​JNEUR​OSCI.​0965-​13.​2013.
Tanenhaus, M. K., & Brown-Schmidt, S. (2008). Language processing in the natural world. Philosophical Transactions of theRoyal Society b: Biological Sciences, 363(1493), 1105–1122. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1098/​rstb.​2007.​2162
Van Leer, E., & Turkstra, L. (1999). The effect of elicitation task on discourse coherence and cohesion in adolescents withbrain injury. Journal of Communication Disorders, 32(5), 327–349. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0021-​9924(99)​00008-8
Wright, H. H., & Capilouto, G. J. (2009). Manipulating task instructions to change narrative discourse performance. Aphasiology, 23(10), 1295–1308. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​02687​03090​28268​44
Wright, H. H., Capilouto, G. J., & Koutsoftas, A. (2013). Evaluating measures of global coherence ability in stories in adults.
International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 48(3), 249–256. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​1460-​6984.​
12000
Wright, H. H., Koutsoftas, A. D., Capilouto, G. J., & Fergadiotis, G. (2014). Global coherence in younger and older adults:
Influence of cognitive processes and discourse type. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 21(2), 174–196. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13825​585.​2013.​794894

Publisher’s NoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Page 11 of 11