Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T00:36:39.074Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The frequency of cohesion weakness in psychiatric syndromes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Giampiero Bartolucci  and
Jonathan Fine
Giampiero Bartolucci*
Affiliation:
McMaster University Medical School
Jonathan Fine
Affiliation:
Bar-Ilan University
*
Giampiero Bartolucci, McMaster University Medical School, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The percentage of unclear cohesive ties in the conversation of schizophrenic speakers is significantly higher than in a group of psychiatric patients with mixed diagnoses, mostly affective disorders. This measure of cohesive weakness is not related to the verbal IQ of the patients.

This finding was obtained in patients who were not prejudged to be thought disordered and was based on the analysis of all of their utterances during a ten minute interview. It is concluded that cohesive weakness is a more frequent characteristic of the language of schizophrenic speakers, compared to its incidence in the conversation of psychiatric patients in different diagnostic categories, with the possible exception of manic syndromes.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , March 1987 , pp. 67 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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

Cronbach, L. J. (1970). Essentials of psychological testing. 3rd Ed.New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Dawson, D., Bartolucci, G., & Blum, H. (1980). Language and schizophrenia: Towards a synthesis. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 21, 81–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fine, J. (1978). Conversation, cohesive and thematic patterning in children's dialogues. Discourse Processes, 1, 247–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, J., & Bartolucci, G. (1981). Cohesion and retrieval categories in normal and disturbed communication: A methodological note. Discourse Processes, 4, 267–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Harvey, P. D. (1983). Speech competence in manic and schizophrenic psychoses: The association between clinically rated thought disorder and cohesion and reference performance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92, 368–377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rochester, S. R., & Martin, J. R. (1977). The art of referring: The speaker's use of noun phrases to instruct the listener. In Freedle, R. O., (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
Rochester, S. R., & Martin, J. R. (1979). Crazy talk. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Spitzer, R. L., Endicott, J., & Robins, E. (1978). Research diagnostic criteria. Archives of General Psychiatry, 35, 773–782.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wechsler, D. (1944). The measurement of adult intelligence. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar