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.