Advertisement

Exploring the Heterogeneity of ‘Schizophrenic Speech’

  • Lisa Mikesell
  • Elizabeth Bromley
Chapter

Abstract

Despite claims that pragmatic impairment is a defining feature of schizophrenia (Covington et al., 2005), few studies explore the communication practices of individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia (IwS) in spontaneous interactions where pragmatic impairment may come to the fore. A number of linguistic deficits have been identified (Fraser, King, & Thomas, 1986; Hoffman & Sledge, 1988), but many studies examine language features de-contextualised from their interactional environment. Such an approach allows quantification of isolated, well-defined features but may mask how language use impacts functional outcomes and defines interactional moments, a gap which has led to somewhat mechanistic descriptions of ‘schizophrenic speech’. Although not all IwS exhibit problematic speech patterns, it is often clinically presumed that language is disordered, reflecting a disturbance in cognition or thought processes (Bleuler, 1911/1950). Clinicians thus often pay attention to related categories of pathology rather than to whether the language or discourse practices are communicative. As a result, the situational complexities of language behaviour may be overlooked.

Keywords

Communication Practice Brief Psychiatric Rate Scale Discursive Practice Conversation Analysis Prosodic Feature 
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. Arnedo, J., Svrakic, D. M., del Val, C., Romero-Zaliz, Hernandez-Cuervo, Fanous, A. H., Pato, M. T. et al. (2015). Uncovering the hidden risk architecture of the schizophrenias: Confirmation in three independent genome-wide association studies. American Journal of Psychiatry, 172(2), 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bellack, A. S. (1983). Recurrent problems in the behavioral assessment of social skill. Behavioral Research Therapy, 21(1), 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bleuler, E. (1911/1950). Dementia praecox, or the group of schizophrenias New York: International University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bromley, E., Mikesell, L., Mates, A., Smith, M., & Brekke, J. (2011). A video ethnography approach to assessing the ecological validity of neurocognitive and functional measures in severe mental illness: Results from a feasibility study. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 38(5), 981–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen, M., & Noosbond, J. P. (1997). From deficit toward competency: Discourse and language in clinical practice. The Humanistic Psychologist, 25(3), 287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Covington, M. A., He, C., Brown, C., Naçi, L., McClain, J. T., Fjordbak, B. S., Semple, J., & Brown, J. (2005). Schizophrenia and the structure of language: The linguist’s view. Schizophrenia Research, 77(1), 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cretchley, J., Gallois, C., Chenery, H., & Smith, A. (2010). Conversations between carers and people with schizophrenia: A qualitative analysis using Leximancer. Qualitative Health Research, 20(12), 1611–1628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ford, C. E., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for turn management. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 134–184). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fraser, W. I., King, K., & Thomas, P. (1986). The diagnosis of schizophrenia by language analysis. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 148(3), 275–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freese, J., & Maynard, D. (1998). Prosodic features of bad news and good news in conversation. Language in Society, 27(2), 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fromkin, V. A. (1975). A linguist looks at ‘A linguist looks at ‘schizophrenic language.’ Brain and Language, 2, 498–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics, 1(1), 1–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Green, M. F., Nuechterlein, K. H., Kern, R. S., Baade, L. E., Fenton, W. S., Gold, J. M., … & Marder, S. R. (2008). Functional co-primary measures for clinical trials in schizophrenia: Results from the MATRICS psychometric and standardization study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 165(2), 221–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoffman, R. E., & Sledge, W. (1988). An analysis of grammatical deviance occurring in spontaneous schizophrenic speech. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 3(1), 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jefferson, G. (1983). On a failed hypothesis: ‘Conjunctionals’ as overlap-vulnerable. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature, 28(2), 1–33.Google Scholar
  16. ——. (1984). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 191–222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Jucker, A. H., & Smith, S. W. (1998). And people just you know like ‘wow’: Discourse markers as negotiating strategies. In A. H. Jucker & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory (pp. 171–201). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kingston Stevens, A., McNichol, J., & Magalhaes, L. (2009). Social relationships in schizophrenia: A review. Personality and Mental Health, 3(3), 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lakeman, R. (1995). The mental status examination. As retrieved on 1st December 2014 at: http://www.testandcalc.com/Richard/teaching_resources.asp
  20. Lerner, G. H. (1996). On the ‘semi-permeable’ character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff and S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 238–276). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Local, J., & Kelly, J. (1986). Projection and ‘silences’: Notes on phonetic and conversational structure. Human Studies, 9(2/3), 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Meilijson, S. R., Kasher, A., & Elizur, A. (2004). Language performance in chronic schizophrenia: A pragmatic approach. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 47(3), 695–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mikesell, L. (2011). A conversation analytic approach to ‘schizophrenic speech’: Examining variation in turn design. Paper presented at Language and Social Interaction Working Group, Teachers College Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
  24. ——. (2013). An impaired interactional instinct: Schizophrenia as a case study. In A. D. L. Joaquin & J. H. Schumann (Eds.), Exploring the interactional instinct (pp. 225–255). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. ——. (2014). Conflicting demonstrations of understanding in interactions of individuals with frontotemporal dementia. In R. Schrauf & Y N. Muller (Eds.), Dialogue and dementia: Cognitive and communicative resources for engagement (pp. 146–180). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  26. Mikesell, L., & Bromley, E. (unpublished manuscript). Prosodic features in the discourse of an individual with schizophrenia and the consequences for turn-taking.Google Scholar
  27. Mikesell, L., & Smith, M. S. (November 2014). Exploring negative symptoms of schizophrenia outside of the laboratory. Paper presented at National Communication Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  28. Oh, S-Y (2001). A focus-based study of English demonstrative reference: With special reference to the genre of written advertisements. Journal of English Linguistics, 29(2), 124–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pilgrim, D., Rogers, A., & Bentall, R. (2009). The centrality of personal relationships in the creation and amelioration of mental health problems. The current interdisciplinary case. Health, 13(2), 235–254.Google Scholar
  30. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of pre-ferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Selting, M. (2000). The construction of units in conversation. Language in Society, 29(4), 477–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tannen, D. (1984/2005). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Tew, J., Ramon, S., Slade, M., Bird, V., Melton, J., & Le Boutillier, C. (2011). Social factors and recovery from mental health difficulties: A review of the evidence. British Journal of Social Work, 1–18.Google Scholar

Recommended reading

  1. • Covington, M. A., He, C, Brown, C, Naçi, L., McClain, J. T, Fjordbak, B. S., Semple, J., & Brown, J. (2005). Schizophrenia and the structure of language: The linguist’s view. Schizophrenia Research, 77(1), 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. • Goodwin, C, & Goodwin, M. H. (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics, 1(1), 1–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. • Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. • Selting, M. (2000). The construction of units in conversation. Language in Society, 29(4), 477–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Lisa Mikesell and Elizabeth Bromley 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa Mikesell
  • Elizabeth Bromley

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations