The Computer Analysis of Therapeutic Discourse

  • D. Malinverni
  • C. Cipolli
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Medical Informatics book series (LNMED, volume 24)


Many researchers have stressed the lack of linguistic indicators of the development of family interaction and have cast doubts on the validity of the behavioural measures applied in family interaction studies: for a review, see Jacob (1975). The combination of linguistic (mainly syntactic) with other behavioural (paralinguistic and nonverbal) indicators in studying family interaction during therapeutic sessions has been claimed by Silvestri et al. (1980) to be an important heuristic tool for the assessment of the effectiveness of family treatment. The package of automatic linguistic analysis (ALA) described below forms part of a wider research, planned by the Psychiatric Clinic of Bari and the Institutes of Informatics and Psychology of the Trento University, whose purpose is to integrate the study of pragmatic functions and communicative strategies in family interaction during therapeutic sessions with linguistic indicators of the cognitive processes operating in speech planning during those sessions. Thereby it is hoped to assess the validity of linguistic indicators as providers of insight into developmental aspects of treatment by family therapy.


Family Therapy Family Interaction Matched Classification Kernel String Therapeutic Session 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Butterworth, B. Hesitation and semantic planning in speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 1975, 4, 75–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chomsky, N. Syntactic structures. The Hague Mouton, 1975Google Scholar
  3. Goldman-Eisler, F. Psycholinguistics: experiments in spontaneous speech. London: Academic Press, 1968Google Scholar
  4. Jacob, T. patterns of family conflict and dominance as a function of child age and social class, Rev. Psychol., 1974, 10, 1–12Google Scholar
  5. Kintsch, W. The rapresentation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale (N.J.) Erlbaurn, 1974Google Scholar
  6. Lyons, J. Introduction to theoretical linguistics, London, Cambridge University Press, 1968Google Scholar
  7. Malinverni D. Aspetti sintattico-strutturali della comunicazione verbale in situazione terapeutica. Università di Trento, 1982, unpublished thesisGoogle Scholar
  8. Malinverni, D. Cipollino. Silvestri, A. Linguistic and paralinguistic aspects of family therapy, in preparationGoogle Scholar
  9. Manelis, L. Determinants of processing for a propositional structure, Memory and Cognition, 1980, 8, 49–57Google Scholar
  10. Reynolds, A. & Paivio, A. Cognitive and emotional determinants of speech. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1968, 22, 164–175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ruder, K, F. Duration of silent interval as a perceptual cue of speech pauses. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1973, 36, 47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Silvestri, A. De Giacomo, P. Pierri, G.P. Lefons, E. Pazienza M.T. and Tangorra, F. A basic model of interacting subjects. Cibemetics and Systems: an international journal, 1980, 11, 115–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Woods, W. Transition network grammars for natural language analysis. Comm. ACM, 1970, 13, 591–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Malinverni
    • 1
  • C. Cipolli
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of PsychologyUniverstity of TrentoTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations