Advertisement

The Analysis of Natural Language in Psychological Treatment

  • Michael J. Patton
  • Naomi M. Meara
Part of the Emotions, Personality, and Psychotherapy book series (EPPS)

Abstract

For a number of years, we have conducted research designed to promote increased understanding of psychological treatment through an analysis of the language used by those who are participating in such treatment. Although our assumptions, conceptual work, and method have been shaped by work in several areas such a linguistics, psychology, and sociology, the research itself is a direct development from theorizing and earlier empirical investigations conducted by Pepinsky and his colleagues (cf. Pepinsky, 1970; Pepinsky & Karst, 1964; Pepinsky & Patton, 1971). This early work developed an interactive definition of psychological treatment (Pepinsky & Patton, 1971) which subsequently became the basis for a still developing model of counselor-client interaction and change (Patton, Fuhriman & Bieber, 1977; Pepinsky, 1974, 1984; Pepinsky & DeStefano, 1983; Rush, Pepinsky, Landry, Meara, Strong, Valley, & Young, 1974).

Keywords

Natural Language Matrix Model Psychological Treatment Noun Phrase Counseling Psychology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, J. N. (1971). The grammar of case: Towards a localislic theory. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barak, A., & LaCrosse, M. (1975). Multitimensional perception of counselor behavior. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22, 471–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bieber, M. R. (1978). A language analysis of three counseling series. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.Google Scholar
  4. Bieber, M. R., Patton, M. J., & Fuhriman, A. J. (1977). A metalanguage analysis of coun-selor and client verb usage in counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 24, (4), 264–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brentano, F. (1955). Psychologie von empirischen Standpunkt [Pyschology from an empirical standpoint]. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
  6. Chafe, W. S. (1970). Meaning and structure of language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cook, W. A. (1979). Case grammar: Development of the matrix model (1970–1978). Washington, D. C: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, K. L., Meara, N. M., & Moore, K. B. (1984, April). A language analysis of resistance in psychological treatment. In M. J. Patton (Chair), Research on language analysis in counseling. Session conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  9. DeStefano, J. S., Pepinsky, H. B., & Sanders, T. S. (1982). Discourse rules for literacy learning in a classroom. In L. C. Wilkenson (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom (pp. 101–129). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Edwards, J. A. (1978). Analysis of the relationship between grammatical structure and construct domains in counseling. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Utah.Google Scholar
  11. Filmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach and R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  12. Friedlander, M. L. (1984). Psychotherapy talk as social control. Psychotherapy, 21, 333–339.Google Scholar
  13. Friedlander, M. L., & Phillips, S. D. (1984). A stochastic process analysis of interactive discourse in early counseling interviews. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1971). On formal structures of practical actions. In J. C. McKinney and E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspective and developments (pp. 337–366). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  16. Garfinkel, H., Lynch, M., & Livingston, E. (1981). The work of a discovering science construed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11, 131–158.Google Scholar
  17. Goldstein, A. P. (1962). Therapist-patient expectancies in psychotherapy. New York, NY: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  18. Goldstein, A. P. (1966). Psychotherapy research by extrapolation from social psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 13, 38–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hassan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  20. Highlen, P. S., & Hill, C. (1984). Factors affecting client change in individual counseling: Current status and theoretical speculations. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology, (pp. 334–396). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  21. Highlen, P. S., Hampl, S. P., Lonborg, S. D., Lassiter, W. L., & Williams, D. A. (1982, August). Convergence of content and structural approaches for analyzing the counseling process. Symposium presented at the American Psychological Association Convention, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  22. Highlen, P. S., Lonborg, S. D., Hampl, S. P., & Lassiter, W. L. (1982). Classification system for counseling responses (CSCR) manual. Unpublished manuscript: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  23. Hurndon, C. J., Pepinsky, H. B., & Meara, N. M. (1979). Conceptual level and structural complexity in language. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 26, 190–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jaffe, J. (1964). Verbal behavior analysis in psychiatric interviews with the aid of digital computers. In D. M. K. Roch and E. A. Weinstein (Eds.), Disorders of communication, (Vol. 42). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  25. Kidder, D. W. (1984, April). Use of calas in a study of counselor empathy and client verbal behavior. In M. J. Patton (Chair), Research on language analysis in counseling. Session conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  26. Kiesler, D. J. (1973). The process of psychotherapy: Empirical foundations and systems of analysis. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  27. May, G. (1977). Psychotherapy and language: Linguistic convergence between therapist and client. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  28. Meara, N. M. (1976). A computer-assisted language analysis system for research on natural language. In H. B. Pepinsky (Chair), Linguistic convergence of therapist and client. Symposium presented at the Inter-American Congress of Psychology, Miami Beach.Google Scholar
  29. Meara, N. M. (1983). calas: Conceptualizations and caveats in communicating and coun-seling. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA.Google Scholar
  30. Meara, N. M., & Patton, M. J. (1984). Language analysis and policies of psychological treatment: An overview. In M. J. Patton (Chair), Research on language analysis in counsel-ing. Session conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  31. Meara, N. M., Shannon, J. W., & Pepinsky, H. B. (1979). Comparison of the stylistic complexity of the language of counselor and client across three theoretical orientations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 26, 181–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meara, N. M., Pepinsky, H. B., Shannon, J. W., & Murray, W. A. (1981). Semantic communication and expectations for counseling across three theoretical orientations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 110–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oster, R. Q. (1979). The identification of topical tracking in three counseling series. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Department of Educational Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.Google Scholar
  34. Patton, M. J. (1969). Attraction discrepancy and responses to psychological treatment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 16, 317–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Patton, M. J. (1984). Managing social interaction in counseling: A contribution from the philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 443–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Patton, M. J., & Sullivan, J. J. (1980). Heinz Kohut and the classical psychoanalytic tradition: An analysis in terms of levels of explanation. Psychoanalytic Review, 62(3), 365–388.Google Scholar
  37. Patton, M. J., Fuhriman, A. J., & Bieber, M. R. (1977). A model and a metalanguage for research on psychological counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 24, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pepinsky, H. B. (1970). Psychological help-giving as an informed definition of the situation. In H. B. Pepinsky (Ed.), People and information (pp. 261–295). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  39. Pepinsky, H. B. (1974). A metalanguage for systematic research on human communication via natural language. Journal of the American Security for Information Sciences, 25, 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pepinsky, H. B. (1985). A metalanguage of text. In V. M. Rentel, S. A. Carson, and B. R. Dunn (Eds.), Psychophysiological aspects of reading (pp. 263–325). New York: Gordon & Breach.Google Scholar
  41. Pepinsky, H. B., & DeStefano, J. S. (1983). Interactive discourse in the classroom as organizational behavior. In B. A. Hutson (Ed.), Advances in Reading/Language Research (pp. 107–137). Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  42. Pepinsky, H. B., & Karst, T. O. (1964). Convergence: A phenomenon in counseling and psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 19, 333–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pepinsky, H. B., & Patton, M. J. (Eds.). (1971). The psychological experiment: A practical accomplishment. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  44. Pepinsky, H. B., Weick, K., & Riner, J. (1965). Primer for productivity. Columbus: Ohio State University Research Foundation.Google Scholar
  45. Pepinsky, H. B., Baker, W. M., Matalon, R., May, G. D., & Staubus, A. M. (1977). A users manual for the Computer-Assisted Language Analysis System. Columbus: Group for Research and Development in Language and Social Policy. Mershon Center, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  46. Percy, W. (1972). Toward a triadic theory of meaning. Psychiatry, 21(1), 29–64.Google Scholar
  47. Reed, J. M. (1983). Linguistic evaluation. Unpublished paper. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar
  48. Reed, J. M., Hector, M. A., & Meara, N. M. (1984, April). The effects of semantic and stylistic variations in language on perception of social influence characteristics in a counseling sophisticated population. In M. J. Patton (Chair), Research on language analysis in counseling. Session conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  49. Rush, J. E., Pepinsky, H. B., Landry, B. C., Meara, N. M., Strong, S. M., Valley, J. A., & Young, C. E. (1974). A computer-assisted language analysis system. (Computer and Infor-mation Science Research Center, OSU-CISRC-TR-74-1.) Columbus: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  50. Schutz, A. (1967a). Collected papers I: The problem of social reality. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  51. Schutz, A. (1967b). The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Shostrom, E. L. (Producer). (1966). Three approaches to psychotherapy. Santa Ana, CA: Psychological Films. (Film)Google Scholar
  53. Strong, S. R. (1968). Counseling: An interpersonal influence process. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 15, 215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Warden, K. W., & Wycoff, J. P. (1984, April). A linguistic analysis of counselor’s affect-oriented responses across three levels of counseling experience. In M. J. Patton (Chair), Research on language analysis in counseling. Session conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  55. Wycoff, J. P., Davis, K. L., Hector, M. A., & Meara, N. M. (1982). A language analysis of empathic responding. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29, 462–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wyman, E. A. (1983). The effects of semantic and stylistic variations in language on perceptions of social influence characteristics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar
  57. Wyman, E. A., Hector, M. A., & Meara, N. M. (1984, April). The effects of semantic and stylistic variations in language on perception of social influence characteristics. In M. J. Patton (Chair), Research on language analysis in counseling. Session conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  58. Young, C. E. (1973). Development of language analysis procedures with applications to automatic indexing. Columbus: Computer and Information Science Research Center, OSU-CISRC-TR-3-2, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  59. Zimmerman, D. H., & Pollner, M. (1970). The everyday world as a phenomenon. In H. B. Pepinsky (Ed.), People and information (pp. 33–59). New York, NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael J. Patton
    • 1
  • Naomi M. Meara
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Educational and Counseling PsychologyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations