Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T02:19:25.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discourse analysis of schizophrenic speech: A critique and proposal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

H. Alverson  and
S. Rosenberg
H. Alverson*
Affiliation:
Dartmouth College
S. Rosenberg
Affiliation:
Dartmouth Medical School
*
Department of Anthropology, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is wide agreement that current psycholinguistic techniques (especially discourse analysis) may help us better understand the relationship between psychopathology and linguistic performance. This application would seem particularly worthwhile in the domain of schizophrenic speech, which has resisted adequate characterization in terms of earlier linguistic paradigms. A major effort at systematic psycholinguistic analysis has been made and is most developed in Rochester and Martin's (1979) monograph, Crazy Talk. While we see their interest in utilizing discourse analysis to be very appropriate, it manifests some serious shortcomings. Accordingly, we attempt to give a clearer picture of discourse analysis and the assumptions behind it. This elucidation should provide a better indication of both the promise and the procedures of a discourse-analytic approach to the speech productions of psychiatric populations.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 167 - 184
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Andreasen, N., & Hurtig, R. (1980). Psycholinguistics. In Kaplan, N., Freeman, A., & Sadock, B. (Eds.), Comprehensive textbook of psychiatry (3rd ed., pp. 458–467). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
Bartolucci, G., & Fine, J. (1987). The frequency of cohesion weakness in psychiatric syndromes. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, B. (1964). Elaborated and restricted codes: Their origins and some consequences. In Hymes, D. & Gumperz, J. (Eds.), The ethnography of communication. American Anthropologist, 66, 55–69.Google Scholar
Bleuler, E. (1950). Dementia praecox. New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
Brown, G. J., & Yule, A. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutting, J., & Murphy, D. (1988). Schizophrenic thought disorder. A psychological and organic interpretation. British Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 310–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawson, F. L., Bartolucci, G., & Blum, H. M. (1980). Language and schizophrenia: Towards a synthesis. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 211, 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Beaugrande, R. (1980). Text, discourse, and process. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Docherty, N., Schnur, M., & Harvey, P. D. (1988). Reference patterns and positive and negative thought disorder: A follow-up study of manics and schizophrenics. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 437–442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goffman, I. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. (1978). Language and social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In Gumperz, J. J. & Hymes, D. H. (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (pp. 35–71). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W., & Fanshel, D., (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R., & Rochester, S. R. (1975). Cohesion and reference in schizophrenic speech. In Makkai, A. & Makkai, V. (Eds.), The first LACUS forum (pp. 302–311). Columbia, SC: Hornbean.Google Scholar
Ragin, A. B., & Oltmanns, T. F. (1983). Predictability as an index of impaired verbal communication in schizophrenic and affective disorders. British Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 578–583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rochester, S. R., & Martin, J. R. (1979). Crazy talk: A study of the discourse of schizophrenic speakers. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rochester, S. R., Martin, J. R., & Thurston, S. (1977). Thought process disorder in schizophrenia: The listener's tasks. Brain and Language, 4, 95–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saville-Troike, M. (1982). The ethnography of communication. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schenkein, J. (Ed.). (1978). Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. (1980). Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tanner, D. (1984). Conversational style. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Weintraub, S. (1987). Risk factors in schizophrenia: The Stony Brook High-Risk Project. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 13, 439–450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed