SOME FORMAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHIZOPHRENIC SPEECH AS A MEASURE OF SOCIAL DEVIANCE *

In r e c e n t y e a r s , much d i s c u s s i o n a n d r e s e a r c h h a v e b e e n d e v o t e d to t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n l a n g u a g e a n d o t h e r asp e c t s o f c u l t u r e , b e t w e e n l a n g u a g e a n d “ t h o u g h t , ” b e t w e e n v e r b a l a n d n o n v e r b a l behavior . T h e q u e s t i o n to b e c o n s i d e r e d h e r e is w h e t h e r c e r t a i n statistical p r o p e r t i e s o f s p e e c h a r e a f f e c t e d wi th a n y r e g u l a r i t y i n s c h i z o p h r e n i a , a n i l l n e s s c l i n i c a l l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s involv ine . d i s t u r b a n c e s o f t h o u g h t p r o c e s s e s , a n d a n i l l n e s s w h i c h o f t e n m a n i f e s t s i t s e l f i n s o d i a l d e v i a n c e of many k i n d s . P r e v i o u s s t u d i e s h a v e c o n t r a s t e d c e r t a i n formal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f l a n g u a g e u s a g e b e t w e e n s c h i z o p h r e n i c and normal s u b j e c t s (e.g., F a i r b a n k s , 1944; F e l d s t e i n & J a f f e , 1962, G o t t s c h a l k , et al., 1957; J o h n s o n , 1944; Mann, 1944; Mowrer, 1953; White, 1949). In t h i s s t u d y , w e w i l l e x a m i n e some of t h e s t a t i s t i c a l a s p e c t s o f s p e e c h i n t e n s of t h e i r p o t e n t i a l u s e f u l n e s s as a n o b j e c t i v e , q u a n t i t a t i v e , a n d broadly a p p l i c a b l e i n d e x o f social d e v i a n c e . D e v i a n c e from o n e ’ s o w n group is n o t a m e a s u r e o f d e g r e e o f “ i l l n e s s , ” b u t i t is r e l a t e d to t h e a b i l i t y to f u n c t i o n i n o n e ’ s social e n v i r o n m e n t a n d may, therefore , u n d e r l i e c r i t e r i a of “ o n s e t ” a n d o u t c o m e ” of i l l n e s s . An i n d e x o f s o c i a l d e v i a n c e may n o t g i v e a n y i n f o m a t i o n a b o u t t h e p a t i e n t ’ s p s y c h o l o g i c a l or p s y c h o p a t h o o l o g i c a l c o n d i t i o n ; it may, n e v e r t h e l e s s , b e u s e f u l i n t e r m s of social p r o g n o s i s , w h i c h a c c o u n t s f o r some u n k n o w n por t ion o f t h e f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g e n t r y i n t o a m e n t a l h o s p i t a l , l e n g t h o f s t a y i n the h o s p i t a l , a n d “ a d j u s t m e n t ” d u r i n g t h e p o s t h o s p i t a l per iod. In a d d i t i o n , i t may be u s e f u l to assess i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h e s e t e r m s i n s t u d i e s d e a l i n g c o m p a r a t i v e l y w i t h d i f f e r e n t social envi ronments . For exa m p l e , some of our o w n work h a s s u g g e s t e d t h a t t e m p o r a l p a t t e r n s o f h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n vary wi th s o c i o c u l t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s l i k e t h e s t i u c t u i e o f t h e p a t i e n t ’ s ties wi th in h i s fami ly (Hammet, 1963-64) a n d t h e r e l a t i v e n o n p a t i v e d i s p a r i t y b e t w e e n t h e p a t i e n t ’ s s u b c u l t u r e a n d t h e d o m i n a n t c u l t u r a l s y s t e m (Hammer, 1960). It would h a v e b e e n u s e f u l i n t h a t r e s e a r c h to h a v e h a d a m e a s u r e of e a c h p a t i e n t ’ s “ d i s t a n c e ” from his o w n group, i n o r d e r to e v a l u a t e the d e g r e e t o w h i c h s y s t e m a t i c v a r i a t i o n s a m o n g t h e p a t i e n t s m a y h a v e a f f e c t e d t h e s o c i o c u l t u r a l c o m p a r i s o n s . An i n d e x of s o c i a l d e v i a n c e , a p p l i c a b l e to i n d i v i d u a l s , m i g h t h e l p to r e s o l v e t h i s k i n d of problem. l <