Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-7vssv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T08:06:52.962Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards understanding and studying cohesion in schizophrenic speech

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Jonathan Fine
Jonathan Fine*
Affiliation:
Bar-Ilan University
*
Department of English, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel e-mail: F24054@BARILAN.BITNET
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cohesion analysis has been used to investigate the language of schizophrenics and that associated with other psychiatric syndromes. Alverson and Rosenberg (1990) reviewed this technique. Such analyses properly imply the necessity and value of a broad approach to language and language use. To be optimally useful, cohesion analysis must be seen in its theoretical context. Cohesion is one means of creating text, and therefore it cannot account for all aspects of the pretheoretical notion of coherence. Cohesion may realize elements of register and code, but these concepts are distinct and account for different kinds of variation in language use. As a research tool, cohesion is one initial step of linguistic analysis that can meet the dual criteria of both an analysis of language in context and in reliability.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , January 1995 , pp. 25 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Adams, C., & Bishop, D. V. M. (1989). Conversational characteristics of children with semantic-pragmatic disorder: I. Exchange structure, turntaking, repairs and cohesion. British Journal of Disorders of Communication, 24, 211–239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alverson, H., & Rosenberg, S. (1990). Discourse analysis of schizophrenic speech: A critique and proposal. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltaxe, C., & D'Angiola, N. (1992).Cohesion in the discourse interaction of autistic, specifically language-impaired, and normal children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 22, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartolucci, G., & Fine, J. (1987). The frequency of cohesive weakness in psychiatric syndromes. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, D. V. M., & Adams, C. (1989). Conversational characteristics of children with semantic-pragmatic disorder: II. What features lead to a judgement of inappropriacy? British Journal of Disorders of Communication, 24, 241–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bishop, D. V. M., & Adams, C. (1991). What do referential communication tasks measure? A study of children with specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12, 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G. J., & Yule, A. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, C. S. (1985). Systemic linguistics: Theory and applications. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
Butler, C. S. (1988). Pragmatics and systemic linguistics. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaika, E. (1990). Understanding psychotic speech: Beyond Freud and Chomsky. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.Google Scholar
Chaika, E., & Lambe, R. (1985) The locus of dysfunction in schizophrenic speech. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 11, 8–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, J. (1985). Cohesion as an index of social-cognitive factors: oral language of the reading disabled. Discourse Processes, 8, 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, J. (1991). The static and dynamic choices of responding: Toward the process of building social reality by the developmentally disordered. In Ventola, E. (Ed.), Functional and systemic linguistics (pp. 213–234). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, J., Bartolucci, G., Ginsberg, G., & Szatmari, P. (1991). The use of intonation to communicate in pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 32, 771–782.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fine, J., Bartolucci, G., & Szatmari, P. (1989). Textual systems: Their use in creation and miscalculation of social reality. Word, 40, 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
Lanin-Kettering, I., & Harrow, M. (1985). The thought behind the words: A view of schizophrenic speech and thinking disorders. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 11, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leudar, I., Thomas, P., & Johnston, M. (1992). Self-repair in dialogues of schizophrenics: Effects of hallucinations and negative symptoms. Brain and Language, 43, 487–511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, J. R. (1983). The development of register. In Fine, J. & Freedle, R. O. (Eds.), Developmental issues in discourse (pp. 1–39). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. (1985). Text and process: Two aspects of human semiosis. In Benson, J. D. & Greaves, W. S. (Eds.), Systemic perspectives on discourse: Vol. 1. Selected theoretical papers from the 9th International systemics workshop (pp. 248–274). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam, Holland: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ovadia, R., & Fine, J. (in press). A functional analysis of intonation in Asperger's Syndrome. In Siegfried, J. (Ed.), Therapeutic and everyday discourse as behaviour change: Towards a micro-analysis in psychotherapy process research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Rochester, S. R., & Martin, J. R. (1979). Crazy talk: A study of the discourse of schizophrenic speakers. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, M. (1980). Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sudhalter, V., Cohen, I., Silverman, W., & Wolf-Schein, E. (1990). Conversational analysis of males with fragile X, Down syndrome, and autism: Comparison of the emergence of deviant language. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 94, 431–441.Google Scholar
Ventola, E. (1987). The structure of social interaction: A systemic approach to the semiotics of service encounters. London: Pinter.Google Scholar