Cognitive pragmatic abilities in individuals with right hemisphere damage: A domain-specific and correlational analysis

Cognitive pragmatic abilities in individuals with right hemisphere damage: A domain-specific and correlational analysis | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Cognitive pragmatic abilities in individuals with right hemisphere damage: A domain-specific and correlational analysis Jasna Nasrin, Girija P C This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8544084/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Cognitive pragmatics examines the interaction between cognitive processes and pragmatic language use in communication. Pragmatic abilities such as discourse management, figurative language processing, humor comprehension, and narrative organization are cognitively demanding and are frequently compromised following right hemisphere damage (RHD). The present study aimed to evaluate domain-specific cognitive pragmatic abilities in individuals with RHD and to examine interrelationships among these domains. Ten adults with neurologist-confirmed right hemisphere damage (age range: 30–65 years) were assessed using a standardized cognitive pragmatic assessment tool. The tool evaluates pragmatic production and comprehension across six domains: discourse, description, narratives, figurative language I, humor, and figurative language II. Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation analyses were performed. Results revealed heterogeneous performance across domains, with relative preservation of discourse abilities and marked impairment in humor comprehension. Strong and statistically significant correlations were observed among figurative language and humor domains, indicating shared cognitive–linguistic mechanisms. Narrative and descriptive abilities also demonstrated significant associations with figurative language and humor. These findings highlight the integrative nature of cognitive pragmatics and underscore the disproportionate vulnerability of non-literal language and humor processing in individuals with RHD. The results support the need for comprehensive, domain-specific assessment and targeted intervention strategies in clinical practice. Cognitive pragmatics right hemisphere damage figurative language humor discourse narratives Introduction Cognition encompasses the mental processes involved in acquiring, processing, and utilizing knowledge, including attention, memory, reasoning, judgment, executive functions, and language comprehension and production. Pragmatic language abilities—such as understanding jokes, sarcasm, figurative expressions, implied meanings, and social cues—are intrinsically linked to these cognitive processes. Effective pragmatic communication requires perspective shifting, suppression of literal interpretations, inferential reasoning, contextual integration, and theory of mind, rendering pragmatics a cognitively demanding domain. The interaction between cognition and pragmatic language use is addressed within the framework of cognitive pragmatics. Cognitive pragmatics refers to the mental processes involved in intentional human communication, emphasizing the integration of linguistic knowledge with cognitive abilities such as attention, memory, and executive functions. These abilities enable individuals to infer speakers’ intentions, recognize humor and irony, interpret indirect meanings, and manage the dynamic exchange of everyday conversation. According to Bara ( 2010 ), cognitive pragmatics is a theory of human communication that focuses on the inferential processes underlying communicative interactions, encompassing both communicative competence and communicative performance. Cognitive pragmatics extends beyond literal language interpretation to examine how meaning is constructed in context. It investigates the mental mechanisms that allow speakers and listeners to derive implied meanings, understand indirect requests, process sarcasm and metaphor, and adapt language use to situational demands. Core processes include inferencing, theory of mind, executive functioning, figurative language processing, and discourse organization. Despite increasing research interest, the specific contribution of these cognitive mechanisms to pragmatic performance remains incompletely understood, and the relationship between cognition, pragmatics, and communicative competence is complex and multifactorial. From a neuroanatomical perspective, cognitive pragmatics is supported by a distributed neural network involving the prefrontal cortex, temporal and parietal lobes, basal ganglia, hippocampus, and both cerebral hemispheres. Within this network, the right hemisphere plays a particularly critical role in figurative language processing, emotional prosody, inferencing, and social–pragmatic aspects of communication. Deficits in cognitive–pragmatic functioning are commonly observed following neurological conditions such as right hemisphere damage (RHD), traumatic brain injury, stroke, and dementia. Individuals with RHD frequently exhibit impairments in discourse coherence, interpretation of non-literal language, humor comprehension, recognition of emotional cues, and conversational management, despite relatively preserved phonological and syntactic abilities. Notably, microlinguistic components of language are typically spared in RHD, as these are more closely associated with left hemisphere pathology. The communicative domain most consistently affected following right hemisphere damage is pragmatics. RHD compromises the ability to comprehend indirect speech acts, figurative expressions, humor, irony, and sarcasm, while literal sentence comprehension often remains intact. This dissociation suggests that pragmatic deficits in RHD primarily reflect impairments in higher-level language processing, particularly contextual inferencing and interpretation of speaker intent. Understanding the cognitive and neural bases of pragmatic impairments is therefore essential for the development of valid assessment tools and effective intervention strategies for individuals with neurogenic communication disorders. Need for the study Although pragmatic impairments following right hemisphere damage are well documented, domain-specific patterns—particularly involving humor, figurative language, narratives, and descriptive abilities—and their interrelationships remain underexplored. Examining how these cognitive–pragmatic domains interact is essential for developing comprehensive assessment frameworks and targeted intervention strategies. The present study addresses this gap by systematically evaluating multiple domains of cognitive pragmatic abilities in individuals with right hemisphere damage. Aim The aim of the present study was to evaluate cognitive pragmatic abilities across multiple domains in individuals with right hemisphere damage. Objectives To assess domain-specific cognitive pragmatic performance in individuals with right hemisphere damage To examine the relationships among different domains of cognitive pragmatic abilities in individuals with right hemisphere damage Method Participants Ten adults with neurologist-confirmed right hemisphere damage participated in the study. Participants ranged in age from 30 to 65 years, with a post-onset duration between six months and one year. Individuals with left hemisphere lesions, aphasia, or dementia were excluded. All participants were right-handed and had completed at least tenth standard education. They were proficient in speaking, reading, and writing Malayalam. Vision and hearing were corrected as required. The Malayalam version of the Western Aphasia Battery was administered to confirm non-aphasic status. Assessment Cognitive pragmatic abilities were assessed using a standardized tool developed by Sisliya ( 2020 ), which evaluates pragmatic production and comprehension across six domains: discourse, description, narratives, figurative language I, humor, and figurative language II. Domain scores and a total cognitive pragmatic score were derived according to standardized scoring procedures. Procedure Assessment was conducted in a quiet, distraction-free environment after obtaining informed consent from participants and caregivers. Neuroimaging reports were reviewed to confirm the diagnosis of right hemisphere damage. Responses were scored according to domain-specific criteria. All procedures adhered to ethical guidelines for research involving human participants. Statistical analysis Descriptive statistics were used to summarize performance across cognitive–pragmatic domains. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to examine relationships among domain scores. Statistical significance was set at p < .05. Results Descriptive statistics Performance across cognitive–pragmatic domains was heterogeneous. Mean scores, standard deviations, and score ranges are presented in Table 1 . Table 1 Descriptive table of total domain scores of cognitive pragmatic abilities in Individuals with Right hemisphere damage. Discourse Description Narratives Figurative language 1 Humor Figurative language 2 Mean 21.8000 8.7000 8.5000 14.9000 2.3000 7.3000 Median 19.0000 6.0000 7.5000 13.5000 1.5000 6.5000 Std. Deviation 13.38988 6.16532 5.19080 7.75242 2.21359 3.46570 Minimum 10.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 0.00 3.00 Maximum 54.00 18.00 18.00 30.00 5.00 12.00 Discourse demonstrated the highest mean score, indicating relative preservation of basic conversational abilities. Humor comprehension showed the lowest mean score, reflecting marked impairment. Correlational analysis Pearson correlation coefficients among cognitive–pragmatic domains are presented in Table 2 . Table 2 Correlational analysis Table 2 Correlation analysis using Pearson correlation coefficient of cognitive pragmatic abilities in Individuals with Right hemisphere damage. Pair 1- Pair 2 Karl Pearson's Correlation Coefficient p-value Discourse-Descriptions 0.536 0.11 Discourse-Narratives 0.625 0.053 Discourse-Figurative Language 1 0.454 0.188 Discourse-Humour 0.628 0.052 Discourse-Figurative Language 2 0.499 0.142 Descriptions-Narratives 0.693 0.026 Descriptions-Figurative Language 1 0.785 0.007 Descriptions-Humour 0.74 0.014 Descriptions-Figurative Language 2 0.54 0.107 Narratives-Figurative Language 1 0.802 0.005 Narratives-Humour 0.807 0.005 Narratives-Figurative Language 2 0.781 0.008 Figurative Language 1-Humour 0.895 < .001 Figurative Language 1-Figurative Language 2 0.824 0.003 Humour-Figurative Language 2 0.928 < .001 Strong and statistically significant correlations were observed among figurative language and humor domains, suggesting shared cognitive–linguistic mechanisms. Discussion The present study examined domain-specific cognitive pragmatic abilities and their interrelationships in individuals with right hemisphere damage. The findings revealed widespread impairments across domains, with disproportionately severe deficits in humor and figurative language processing. Statstical analysis revealed that the mean score is lowest for Humor (Mean = 2.7) and highest for Discourse (Mean = 21.8). The relative preservation of discourse abilities may be attributed to the use of familiar, personally relevant topics that rely on overlearned linguistic routines and provide contextual scaffolding. Such discourse tasks impose comparatively lower cognitive demands than tasks requiring abstract reasoning, inferencing, and suppression of literal meaning. In contrast, humor comprehension was profoundly impaired, reflecting difficulties integrating contextual information, detecting incongruity, and interpreting implied meanings. These processes rely heavily on right hemisphere structures and are closely associated with emotional processing and theory of mind Humor comprehension was the most constrained domain with mean of 2.3 and SD of 2.21. The low mean score indicates profound difficulties in this area. Humor processing relies heavily on the integration of contextual information, recognition of incongruities, and understanding of social norms and implied meanings. It engages various brain regions, including the right inferior frontal gyrus, left superior temporal gyrus, left middle temporal gyrus, and left cerebellum. Chan et al., (2013), Samson et al., (2009), and Shibata et al., (2014) suggests that the superior frontal gyrus plays a significant role in humor comprehension. This understanding is influenced by emotional and affective processing, as well as Theory of Mind (ToM). While the study indicated that humor comprehension is primarily mediated by the right hemisphere, so this can be assigned to participants poor performance in this study. Similar findings were reported by Blake M L (2003), adults with right hemisphere brain damage exhibit difficulties in the comprehension of humor. Deficits generally affected their ability to integrate an incongruous element that is identifying punch line. The strongest correlation was found between humor and figurative language 2 followed by figurative language 1 and humor. This highlights a profound shared cognitive mechanisms underlying humor comprehension and figurative language processing. Humor comprehension often relies on nuanced understanding of figurative language, wordplay, and context, which are integral to right hemisphere functions. The current findings are consistent with the reports of Colston H L (2021). According to him Humor and figurative language are closely connected, often complementing one another and sharing several common characteristics. Both are versatile, serving a range of overlapping functions. While predominantly social in nature, both can also be experienced individually. Additionally, both are rooted in deep cognitive, emotional, and social processes, yet they remain highly adaptable and flexible in their use underpinnings, yet both are also very flexible. Mio S J & Graesser C A (1991) reported humor and metaphor are connected. Similarly, a strong positive correlation between figurative language 1 and figurative language 2 that is, comprehension and expression of figurative language. This underscores the interconnectedness of different facets of figurative expression. This relationship reflects a shared reliance on right hemisphere mechanisms for processing non-literal language, including metaphors and, idioms, which require abstract cognitive reasoning and contextual interpretation .This result gain support from the findings of Benedek M et al., (2014) who reported that metaphor comprehension and production key components of figurative language shares the some of the same underlying cognitive processes such as fluid intelligence and executive function. The strong positive correlation between descriptions and humor and descriptions and figurative language 1 reflects the importance of descriptive abilities in supporting humor and figurative comprehension. Descriptive skills often involve selecting salient details, employing contextually appropriate language, and creating vivid imagery, all of which may scaffold higher-order language processes. The weaker but statistically significant correlations between variables such as descriptions and narratives, further point to the integrative role of discourse-level abilities. These findings highlight how impaired communication skills in individuals with RHD may extend beyond isolated domains to include broader interrelated aspects of language processing. Overall, the results suggest that figurative language and humor comprehension share overlapping cognitive and linguistic pathways, which may be disproportionately impacted by right hemisphere damage. Furthermore, the interplay between narrative, descriptive, and figurative language abilities highlights the broader integrative deficits in these individuals. Conclusion Individuals with right hemisphere damage exhibit significant and interrelated impairments in cognitive-pragmatic abilities, particularly in humor comprehension and figurative language processing. The findings underscore the importance of comprehensive, domain-specific assessment and targeted intervention strategies that address the interconnected nature of cognitive pragmatics in neurogenic communication disorders. Declarations Ethical Declarations Human Ethics Approval Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee, AWH Special College, Kozhikode, Kerala, India . The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the committee and the Declaration of Helsinki. Consent to Participate Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their inclusion in the study. Participants were provided with detailed information regarding the purpose and procedures of the study, and were assured of the confidentiality of their data and their right to withdraw from the study at any time without any consequences. For participants with communication or cognitive difficulties, consent was obtained from their legally authorized representatives. Funding The authors did not receive any specific funding for the conduct of this study. Data Availability Statement The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to ethical and confidentiality considerations but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. References Bara BG. Cognitive pragmatics: The mental processes of communication. MIT Press; 2010. Brownell HH, Carroll JJ, Rehak A, Wingfield A. The use of pronoun anaphora and speaker role in the interpretation of conversational utterances by right-hemisphere–damaged patients. Brain Lang. 1992;43(1):121–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(92)90053-K . Brundage SB. Metaphor comprehension by left- and right-hemisphere-damaged subjects. Brain Lang. 1996;55(2):320–31. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1996.0102 . Cheang HS, Pell MD. A study of humour and communicative intention following right hemisphere stroke. Clin Linguist Phon. 2006;20(6):447–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699200500266427 . Gardner H, Brownell HH, Wapner W, Michelow D. Missing the point: The role of the right hemisphere in the processing of complex linguistic materials. In: Perecman E, editor. Cognitive processing in the right hemisphere. Academic; 1983. pp. 169–91. Marini A. Characteristics of narrative discourse processing after damage to the right hemisphere. Semin Speech Lang. 2012;33(1):68–78. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1301164 . Marini A, Carlomagno S, Caltagirone C, Nocentini U. The role of the right hemisphere in the production of narrative discourse. Brain Lang. 2005;93(1):46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2004.08.005 . McDonald S. Exploring the process of inference generation in sarcasm: A review of normal and clinical studies. Brain Lang. 2000;75(3):486–506. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2000.2366 . Papagno C, Curti R, Rizzo S, Crippa F, Colombo MR. Is the right hemisphere involved in idiom comprehension? A neuropsychological study. Neuropsychology. 2006;20(5):598–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.20.5.598 . Sisliya T. (2020). Development and standardization of a cognitive pragmatic assessment tool in Malayalam (Unpublished master’s dissertation). University of Calicut, Kerala, India. Tompkins CA, Fassbinder W, Lehman-Blake M, Baumgaertner A. The nature and implications of right hemisphere language disorders: Issues in theory and management. Semin Speech Lang. 2002;23(2):123–36. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2002-24990 . Weylman ST, Brownell HH, Roman M, Gardner H. Appreciation of indirect requests by left- and right-brain-damaged patients: The effects of verbal context and conventionality of wording. Brain Lang. 1989;36(4):580–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(89)90001-2 . Winner E, Brownell H, Happé F, Blum A, Pincus D. Distinguishing lies from jokes: Theory of mind deficits and discourse interpretation in right hemisphere brain-damaged patients. Brain Lang. 1998;62(1):89–106. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1997.1889 . Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8544084","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":580367790,"identity":"bf66b9a3-a997-40b6-b3ef-88be91659043","order_by":0,"name":"Jasna Nasrin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"AWH Special College","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jasna","middleName":"","lastName":"Nasrin","suffix":""},{"id":580367791,"identity":"cc5c8b22-4071-48c4-b4af-d6dd3332d336","order_by":1,"name":"Girija P C","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"AWH Special College","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Girija","middleName":"P","lastName":"C","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-07 17:23:39","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8544084/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8544084/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":104477537,"identity":"f02444cd-d1a3-4f68-9f8d-a152d88d241c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-12 08:40:38","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":517490,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8544084/v1/9d1abfe0-e098-4b8c-baaa-664357e70bb6.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Cognitive pragmatic abilities in individuals with right hemisphere damage: A domain-specific and correlational analysis","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eCognition encompasses the mental processes involved in acquiring, processing, and utilizing knowledge, including attention, memory, reasoning, judgment, executive functions, and language comprehension and production. Pragmatic language abilities\u0026mdash;such as understanding jokes, sarcasm, figurative expressions, implied meanings, and social cues\u0026mdash;are intrinsically linked to these cognitive processes. Effective pragmatic communication requires perspective shifting, suppression of literal interpretations, inferential reasoning, contextual integration, and theory of mind, rendering pragmatics a cognitively demanding domain.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe interaction between cognition and pragmatic language use is addressed within the framework of cognitive pragmatics. Cognitive pragmatics refers to the mental processes involved in intentional human communication, emphasizing the integration of linguistic knowledge with cognitive abilities such as attention, memory, and executive functions. These abilities enable individuals to infer speakers\u0026rsquo; intentions, recognize humor and irony, interpret indirect meanings, and manage the dynamic exchange of everyday conversation. According to Bara (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), cognitive pragmatics is a theory of human communication that focuses on the inferential processes underlying communicative interactions, encompassing both communicative competence and communicative performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCognitive pragmatics extends beyond literal language interpretation to examine how meaning is constructed in context. It investigates the mental mechanisms that allow speakers and listeners to derive implied meanings, understand indirect requests, process sarcasm and metaphor, and adapt language use to situational demands. Core processes include inferencing, theory of mind, executive functioning, figurative language processing, and discourse organization. Despite increasing research interest, the specific contribution of these cognitive mechanisms to pragmatic performance remains incompletely understood, and the relationship between cognition, pragmatics, and communicative competence is complex and multifactorial.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a neuroanatomical perspective, cognitive pragmatics is supported by a distributed neural network involving the prefrontal cortex, temporal and parietal lobes, basal ganglia, hippocampus, and both cerebral hemispheres. Within this network, the right hemisphere plays a particularly critical role in figurative language processing, emotional prosody, inferencing, and social\u0026ndash;pragmatic aspects of communication.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDeficits in cognitive\u0026ndash;pragmatic functioning are commonly observed following neurological conditions such as right hemisphere damage (RHD), traumatic brain injury, stroke, and dementia. Individuals with RHD frequently exhibit impairments in discourse coherence, interpretation of non-literal language, humor comprehension, recognition of emotional cues, and conversational management, despite relatively preserved phonological and syntactic abilities. Notably, microlinguistic components of language are typically spared in RHD, as these are more closely associated with left hemisphere pathology.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe communicative domain most consistently affected following right hemisphere damage is pragmatics. RHD compromises the ability to comprehend indirect speech acts, figurative expressions, humor, irony, and sarcasm, while literal sentence comprehension often remains intact. This dissociation suggests that pragmatic deficits in RHD primarily reflect impairments in higher-level language processing, particularly contextual inferencing and interpretation of speaker intent.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnderstanding the cognitive and neural bases of pragmatic impairments is therefore essential for the development of valid assessment tools and effective intervention strategies for individuals with neurogenic communication disorders.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eNeed for the study\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough pragmatic impairments following right hemisphere damage are well documented, domain-specific patterns\u0026mdash;particularly involving humor, figurative language, narratives, and descriptive abilities\u0026mdash;and their interrelationships remain underexplored. Examining how these cognitive\u0026ndash;pragmatic domains interact is essential for developing comprehensive assessment frameworks and targeted intervention strategies. The present study addresses this gap by systematically evaluating multiple domains of cognitive pragmatic abilities in individuals with right hemisphere damage.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAim\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe aim of the present study was to evaluate cognitive pragmatic abilities across multiple domains in individuals with right hemisphere damage.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eObjectives\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo assess domain-specific cognitive pragmatic performance in individuals with right hemisphere damage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo examine the relationships among different domains of cognitive pragmatic abilities in individuals with right hemisphere damage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTen adults with neurologist-confirmed right hemisphere damage participated in the study. Participants ranged in age from 30 to 65 years, with a post-onset duration between six months and one year. Individuals with left hemisphere lesions, aphasia, or dementia were excluded. All participants were right-handed and had completed at least tenth standard education. They were proficient in speaking, reading, and writing Malayalam. Vision and hearing were corrected as required. The Malayalam version of the Western Aphasia Battery was administered to confirm non-aphasic status.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAssessment\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCognitive pragmatic abilities were assessed using a standardized tool developed by Sisliya (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), which evaluates pragmatic production and comprehension across six domains: discourse, description, narratives, figurative language I, humor, and figurative language II. Domain scores and a total cognitive pragmatic score were derived according to standardized scoring procedures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eProcedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssessment was conducted in a quiet, distraction-free environment after obtaining informed consent from participants and caregivers. Neuroimaging reports were reviewed to confirm the diagnosis of right hemisphere damage. Responses were scored according to domain-specific criteria. All procedures adhered to ethical guidelines for research involving human participants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStatistical analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics were used to summarize performance across cognitive\u0026ndash;pragmatic domains. Pearson\u0026rsquo;s correlation coefficient was used to examine relationships among domain scores. Statistical significance was set at \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDescriptive statistics\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerformance across cognitive\u0026ndash;pragmatic domains was heterogeneous. Mean scores, standard deviations, and score ranges are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDescriptive table of total domain scores of cognitive pragmatic abilities in Individuals with Right hemisphere damage.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscourse\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNarratives\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigurative language 1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHumor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigurative language 2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21.8000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.7000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.5000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.9000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.3000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.3000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedian\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.5000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.5000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.5000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.5000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStd. Deviation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.38988\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.16532\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.19080\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.75242\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.21359\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.46570\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMinimum\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaximum\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e54.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e Discourse demonstrated the highest mean score, indicating relative preservation of basic conversational abilities. Humor comprehension showed the lowest mean score, reflecting marked impairment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCorrelational analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePearson correlation coefficients among cognitive\u0026ndash;pragmatic domains are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCorrelational analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorrelation analysis using Pearson correlation coefficient of cognitive pragmatic abilities in Individuals with Right hemisphere damage.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePair 1- Pair 2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKarl Pearson's Correlation Coefficient\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscourse-Descriptions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.536\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscourse-Narratives\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.625\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.053\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscourse-Figurative Language 1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.454\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.188\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscourse-Humour\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.628\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.052\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscourse-Figurative Language 2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.499\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.142\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptions-Narratives\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.693\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.026\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptions-Figurative Language 1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.785\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.007\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptions-Humour\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.74\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.014\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptions-Figurative Language 2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.107\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNarratives-Figurative Language 1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.802\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.005\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNarratives-Humour\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.807\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.005\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNarratives-Figurative Language 2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.781\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.008\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigurative Language 1-Humour\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.895\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigurative Language 1-Figurative Language 2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.824\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.003\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHumour-Figurative Language 2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.928\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrong and statistically significant correlations were observed among figurative language and humor domains, suggesting shared cognitive\u0026ndash;linguistic mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":" \u003cp\u003eThe present study examined domain-specific cognitive pragmatic abilities and their interrelationships in individuals with right hemisphere damage. The findings revealed widespread impairments across domains, with disproportionately severe deficits in humor and figurative language processing. Statstical analysis revealed that the mean score is lowest for Humor (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.7) and highest for Discourse (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;21.8).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e The relative preservation of discourse abilities may be attributed to the use of familiar, personally relevant topics that rely on overlearned linguistic routines and provide contextual scaffolding. Such discourse tasks impose comparatively lower cognitive demands than tasks requiring abstract reasoning, inferencing, and suppression of literal meaning. In contrast, humor comprehension was profoundly impaired, reflecting difficulties integrating contextual information, detecting incongruity, and interpreting implied meanings. These processes rely heavily on right hemisphere structures and are closely associated with emotional processing and theory of mind Humor comprehension was the most constrained domain with mean of 2.3 and SD of 2.21. The low mean score indicates profound difficulties in this area. Humor processing relies heavily on the integration of contextual information, recognition of incongruities, and understanding of social norms and implied meanings. It engages various brain regions, including the right inferior frontal gyrus, left superior temporal gyrus, left middle temporal gyrus, and left cerebellum. Chan et al., (2013), Samson et al., (2009), and Shibata et al., (2014) suggests that the superior frontal gyrus plays a significant role in humor comprehension. This understanding is influenced by emotional and affective processing, as well as Theory of Mind (ToM). While the study indicated that humor comprehension is primarily mediated by the right hemisphere, so this can be assigned to participants poor performance in this study. Similar findings were reported by Blake M L (2003), adults with right hemisphere brain damage exhibit difficulties in the comprehension of humor. Deficits generally affected their ability to integrate an incongruous element that is identifying punch line.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe strongest correlation was found between humor and figurative language 2 followed by figurative language 1 and humor. This highlights a profound shared cognitive mechanisms underlying humor comprehension and figurative language processing. Humor comprehension often relies on nuanced understanding of figurative language, wordplay, and context, which are integral to right hemisphere functions. The current findings are consistent with the reports of Colston H L (2021). According to him Humor and figurative language are closely connected, often complementing one another and sharing several common characteristics. Both are versatile, serving a range of overlapping functions. While predominantly social in nature, both can also be experienced individually. Additionally, both are rooted in deep cognitive, emotional, and social processes, yet they remain highly adaptable and flexible in their use underpinnings, yet both are also very flexible. Mio S J \u0026amp; Graesser C A (1991) reported humor and metaphor are connected. Similarly, a strong positive correlation between figurative language 1 and figurative language 2 that is, comprehension and expression of figurative language. This underscores the interconnectedness of different facets of figurative expression. This relationship reflects a shared reliance on right hemisphere mechanisms for processing non-literal language, including metaphors and, idioms, which require abstract cognitive reasoning and contextual interpretation .This result gain support from the findings of Benedek M et al., (2014) who reported that metaphor comprehension and production key components of figurative language shares the some of the same underlying cognitive processes such as fluid intelligence and executive function. The strong positive correlation between descriptions and humor and descriptions and figurative language 1 reflects the importance of descriptive abilities in supporting humor and figurative comprehension. Descriptive skills often involve selecting salient details, employing contextually appropriate language, and creating vivid imagery, all of which may scaffold higher-order language processes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe weaker but statistically significant correlations between variables such as descriptions and narratives, further point to the integrative role of discourse-level abilities. These findings highlight how impaired communication skills in individuals with RHD may extend beyond isolated domains to include broader interrelated aspects of language processing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, the results suggest that figurative language and humor comprehension share overlapping cognitive and linguistic pathways, which may be disproportionately impacted by right hemisphere damage. Furthermore, the interplay between narrative, descriptive, and figurative language abilities highlights the broader integrative deficits in these individuals.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIndividuals with right hemisphere damage exhibit significant and interrelated impairments in cognitive-pragmatic abilities, particularly in humor comprehension and figurative language processing. The findings underscore the importance of comprehensive, domain-specific assessment and targeted intervention strategies that address the interconnected nature of cognitive pragmatics in neurogenic communication disorders.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Declarations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHuman Ethics Approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical approval for the study was obtained from the \u003cstrong\u003eInstitutional Ethics Committee, AWH Special College, Kozhikode, Kerala, India\u003c/strong\u003e. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the committee and the Declaration of Helsinki.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWritten informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their inclusion in the study. Participants were provided with detailed information regarding the purpose and procedures of the study, and were assured of the confidentiality of their data and their right to withdraw from the study at any time without any consequences. For participants with communication or cognitive difficulties, consent was obtained from their legally authorized representatives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors did not receive any specific funding for the conduct of this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to ethical and confidentiality considerations but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBara BG. Cognitive pragmatics: The mental processes of communication. MIT Press; 2010.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrownell HH, Carroll JJ, Rehak A, Wingfield A. The use of pronoun anaphora and speaker role in the interpretation of conversational utterances by right-hemisphere\u0026ndash;damaged patients. Brain Lang. 1992;43(1):121\u0026ndash;47. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(92)90053-K\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/0093-934X(92)90053-K\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrundage SB. Metaphor comprehension by left- and right-hemisphere-damaged subjects. Brain Lang. 1996;55(2):320\u0026ndash;31. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1996.0102\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1006/brln.1996.0102\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCheang HS, Pell MD. A study of humour and communicative intention following right hemisphere stroke. Clin Linguist Phon. 2006;20(6):447\u0026ndash;62. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/02699200500266427\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/02699200500266427\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGardner H, Brownell HH, Wapner W, Michelow D. Missing the point: The role of the right hemisphere in the processing of complex linguistic materials. In: Perecman E, editor. Cognitive processing in the right hemisphere. Academic; 1983. pp. 169\u0026ndash;91.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarini A. Characteristics of narrative discourse processing after damage to the right hemisphere. Semin Speech Lang. 2012;33(1):68\u0026ndash;78. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1301164\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1055/s-0032-1301164\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarini A, Carlomagno S, Caltagirone C, Nocentini U. The role of the right hemisphere in the production of narrative discourse. Brain Lang. 2005;93(1):46\u0026ndash;54. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2004.08.005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.bandl.2004.08.005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcDonald S. Exploring the process of inference generation in sarcasm: A review of normal and clinical studies. Brain Lang. 2000;75(3):486\u0026ndash;506. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2000.2366\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1006/brln.2000.2366\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePapagno C, Curti R, Rizzo S, Crippa F, Colombo MR. Is the right hemisphere involved in idiom comprehension? A neuropsychological study. Neuropsychology. 2006;20(5):598\u0026ndash;606. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.20.5.598\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0894-4105.20.5.598\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSisliya T. (2020). \u003cem\u003eDevelopment and standardization of a cognitive pragmatic assessment tool in Malayalam\u003c/em\u003e (Unpublished master\u0026rsquo;s dissertation). University of Calicut, Kerala, India.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTompkins CA, Fassbinder W, Lehman-Blake M, Baumgaertner A. The nature and implications of right hemisphere language disorders: Issues in theory and management. Semin Speech Lang. 2002;23(2):123\u0026ndash;36. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1055/s-2002-24990\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1055/s-2002-24990\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWeylman ST, Brownell HH, Roman M, Gardner H. Appreciation of indirect requests by left- and right-brain-damaged patients: The effects of verbal context and conventionality of wording. Brain Lang. 1989;36(4):580\u0026ndash;91. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(89)90001-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/0093-934X(89)90001-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWinner E, Brownell H, Happ\u0026eacute; F, Blum A, Pincus D. Distinguishing lies from jokes: Theory of mind deficits and discourse interpretation in right hemisphere brain-damaged patients. Brain Lang. 1998;62(1):89\u0026ndash;106. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1997.1889\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1006/brln.1997.1889\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Cognitive pragmatics, right hemisphere damage, figurative language, humor, discourse, narratives","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8544084/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8544084/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eCognitive pragmatics examines the interaction between cognitive processes and pragmatic language use in communication. Pragmatic abilities such as discourse management, figurative language processing, humor comprehension, and narrative organization are cognitively demanding and are frequently compromised following right hemisphere damage (RHD). The present study aimed to evaluate domain-specific cognitive pragmatic abilities in individuals with RHD and to examine interrelationships among these domains. Ten adults with neurologist-confirmed right hemisphere damage (age range: 30\u0026ndash;65 years) were assessed using a standardized cognitive pragmatic assessment tool. The tool evaluates pragmatic production and comprehension across six domains: discourse, description, narratives, figurative language I, humor, and figurative language II. Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation analyses were performed. Results revealed heterogeneous performance across domains, with relative preservation of discourse abilities and marked impairment in humor comprehension. Strong and statistically significant correlations were observed among figurative language and humor domains, indicating shared cognitive\u0026ndash;linguistic mechanisms. Narrative and descriptive abilities also demonstrated significant associations with figurative language and humor. These findings highlight the integrative nature of cognitive pragmatics and underscore the disproportionate vulnerability of non-literal language and humor processing in individuals with RHD. The results support the need for comprehensive, domain-specific assessment and targeted intervention strategies in clinical practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Cognitive pragmatic abilities in individuals with right hemisphere damage: A domain-specific and correlational analysis","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-27 14:29:00","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8544084/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"9ccf18a7-9d39-45a2-9723-dafae0cb7f49","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 27th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-12T08:38:11+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-27 14:29:00","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8544084","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8544084","identity":"rs-8544084","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}