Although many of us tend to associate older adults’ speech with a slower rate and simpler content, it is more accurate to treat it as a distinctive discourse type and a rich site of inquiry in its own right, one in which meaning becomes denser and emotion and identity are reconfigured. Among healthy older adults, sentences may become syntactically shorter over time, but this does not necessarily entail a loss of meaning. At the level of discourse, simple structures are known to enhance clarity and communicative effectiveness (Kemper et al., 2003). Linguistic and pragmatic research likewise suggests that language does not simply “decline” with age; rather, discourse becomes more selective, affectively charged, and relationally oriented (Coupland, 2009; Coupland, et al. 1991; Hamilton, 2019).

How, then, might we outline the key parameters along which the discursive practices of older adults can be examined?

1. The Relationship Between Speech Rate and Meaning

Ageing is often accompanied by a natural slowing of speech rate, linked to changes in cognitive processing speed. However, empirical work indicates that this reduction in speed does not impair communicative quality; on the contrary, it can deepen meaning (Burke & Shafto, 2008).

Pauses also become more salient in later life. Older speakers make use of meaningful silences to think, to search for words, to highlight a particular part of the utterance, or to grant the interlocutor processing time. At times, especially with proper names, they may experience what is commonly referred to as a “tip-of-the-tongue state” (Abrams et al., 2003), a phenomenon discussed in our previous R&D blog post. Yet older adults typically repair such moments by offering additional explanations or using synonyms, thereby maintaining the flow of interaction.

2. Meaning-Making Through Narratives

Older adults’ talk is frequently narrative in shape; that is, it often takes the form of storytelling. In this process, the transmission of experience functions not merely as information transfer, but as an act of sharing identities and values (Norrick, 2000, 2009). For instance, in Labov’s (1972) model of narrative discourse, the “evaluation” component, where the narrator explains why an event matters, tends to be particularly prominent in the narratives of older adults.

Narrativity in later life also serves interactional goals. Expressions of mutual understanding, displays of emotional closeness, and humour (Holmes & Marra, 2008) appear frequently in older speakers’ discourse. Humour here is not just entertainment; it operates as a resource for face repair and for maintaining relational harmony (Brown & Levinson, 1987).

In the recounting of negative or painful life events, researchers have shown that older speakers often shift the frame of the story into one of everyday normality, using humour to recontextualise such episodes as ordinary matters one can laugh about (Matsumoto, 2009).

A further tendency is toward reformulation: rephrasing one’s own utterances in order to ensure that the intended meaning has been conveyed. Older adults may reword or repeat sentences to secure understanding (Hamilton, 2019). This practice is also a sign of pragmatic sensitivity. Older speakers attend carefully not only to “what” is said, but also to “how” it is said.

3. Linguistic Identity and the Expression of Social Roles

Discourse is not merely a vehicle for transmitting information; it is a site where identities are enacted (Goffman, 1981). Older adults often adopt roles such as mentor, advisor, or bearer of collective memory through practices like giving advice, sharing life experience, or narrating episodes from the social past (Coupland, 2009).

References to the past are particularly salient: phrases such as “in our day” or “back then” link individual memory to collective memory (Schiffrin, 1996). Collective identities such as “our generation,” “our family,” “our neighbourhood”are also invoked frequently. Older speakers have been shown to construct belonging and continuity via “we” rather than “I” (Hamilton, 2019). This can develop into what might be termed discursive nostalgia: linguistic forms that idealise the past and juxtapose it with the present (Coupland, 2009). Yet for older adult talk, such nostalgia is not only an expression of loss; it is also a way of seeking balance and meaning.

4. Voice, Nonverbal Gesture, and Silence

With age, changes may occur in voice quality, breath control, and pitch range. Intonation thus becomes an even more crucial resource for expressing emotional stance and communicative intent (Harnsberger et al., 2008). When verbal production decreases, gestures and facial expressions can bear greater communicative weight. Provided there are no physical constraints, researchers have observed increased use of hand movements, facial expressions, and gaze in their interaction (Wanko Keutchafo et al., 2020).

In some contexts, touch (haptics) also emerges as a salient channel such as placing a hand on someone’s shoulder, holding hands, or lightly tapping one’s own or the interlocutor’s knee can serve to convey empathy and trust. For this reason, scholars examining older adults’ discourse and interaction need to recognise that not only words and structures, but also bodily cues and silence form part of the interactional pattern. Silence, too, stands out as a characteristic feature. Recent work suggests that silence itself can function as a type of discourse, creating space for thought, emotion, and mutual understanding.

5. Interactional Accommodation and Markers of Sensitivity

Older speakers are often observed to accommodate to their interlocutors in interactional terms. For example, when addressing younger or unfamiliar interlocutors, they may adopt a clearer, more explicit or elaborated style (Giles & Coupland, 1991). Conversation frequently features backchannels such as “uh-huh”, “yes” or “oh” that signal close listening and alignment with the other participant.

This pattern resonates with Accommodation Theory, which holds that such adjustments facilitate the establishment of social connection. At the same time, older adults tend to be acutely sensitive to “elderspeak” which is defined as a patronising, infantilising style often directed at older people. Such speech has been found to undermine perceptions of autonomy and respect (Williams et al., 2017).

A Final Word on the “Transformation of Discourse” in Older age…

The discourse of older adults should be understood not as a sign of loss, but as evidence of transformation. What we must not forget is that the effectiveness of talk is measured not by speed, but by meaning. Sentences may slow down, but the contextual frame widens. Words may become fewer, but meaning becomes more concentrated.

For this age group, communication is often less about the sheer transfer of information and more about the forging and sustaining of relationships. Understanding these discursive practices can foster deeper awareness both in intergenerational communication and in language teaching, where sensitivity to later-life discourse can significantly enrich our pedagogical and interactional repertoires.

References

Abrams, L., White, K. K., & Eitel, S. L. (2003). Isolating phonological components that increase tip-of-the-tongue resolution. Memory & Cognition, 31(8), 1153–1162.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.

Burke, D. M., & Shafto, M. A. (2008). Language and aging. In F. I. M. Craik & T. A. Salthouse (Eds.), The handbook of aging and cognition (pp. 373–443). Psychology Press.

Coupland, J. (2009). Discourse, identity and change in mid-to-late life: interdisciplinary perspectives on language and ageing. Ageing & Society, 29(6), 849-861.

Coupland, N., Coupland, J. and Giles, H. (1991). Language, Society and the Elderly: Discourse, Identity and Ageing. Basil Blackwell.

Giles, H., & Coupland, N. (1991). Language: Contexts and consequences. Thomson Brookes.

Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Hamilton, H. E. (2019). Language, Dementia and Meaning Making: Navigating Challenges of Cognition and Face in Everyday Life. Palgrave Macmillan.

Harnsberger, J. D., Shrivastav, R., Brown, W. S. Jr., Rothman, H., & Hollien, H. (2008). Speaking rate and fundamental frequency as speech cues to perceived age. Journal of Voice, 22(1), 58–69.

Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (2008). Humour as a discursive boundary marker in social interaction. In Duzsak, A (Ed.) Us and others: Social identities across languages, discourses and cultures (pp. 377-400). John Benjamins.

Kemper, S., Herman, R., & Lian, C. (2003). Age differences in sentence production. The Journals of Gerontology, 58(5), 260–268

Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Matsumoto, Y. (2009). Dealing with change: humour in painful self disclosure by elderly Japanese women. Ageing & Society, 29, 6, 927–50.

Norrick, N. R. (2000). Conversational narrative: Storytelling in everyday talk. John Benjamins.
 

Norrick, N. R. (2009). The construction of multiple identities in elderly narrators' stories. Ageing & Society, 29, 6, 901–25.

Schiffrin, D. (1996). Narrative as self-portrait: Sociolinguistic constructions of identity. Language in Society, 25(2), 167–203. 

Williams, K., Herman, R., Gajewski, B., & Wilson, K. (2017). Overcoming elderspeak: A qualitative study of three alternatives. The Gerontologist, 58(4), 724–732. 

Wanko Keutchafo, E. L., Kerr, J., & Jarvis, M. A. (2020). Evidence of nonverbal communication between nurses and older adults: a scoping review. BMC nursing, 19(1), 53.