Advertisement

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 959–973 | Cite as

Linguistic Reflections on Psychotherapy: Change in Usage of The First Person Pronoun in Information Structure Positions

  • Çiğdem Koşe Demiray
  • Tülin Gençöz
Article
  • 121 Downloads

Abstract

Aim of present study was to understand changes in speech of clients with regard to certain linguistic features from 5th to 15th session of psychotherapy. First person pronoun use in information structure positions were analyzed in speech of clients. Participants of this study were 11 psychotherapists (clinical psychology master and doctorate students) and 16 clients (applicants to AYNA Psychotherapy Unit). In present study word count results of clinets’ speeches were analyzed by ANOVA method. According to results, use of first person pronoun changed significantly in preverbal position from 5th to 15th sessions of psychotherapy. Findings of this study suggest that, psychotherapy leads to certain linguistic changes, and these changes discussed to be means of understand change of clients during psychotherapy

Keywords

Psychotherapy Linguistics Information structure 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986) Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Emerson, C. & Holquist, M. (eds.), McGee, V. W. (trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1975). The Structure of Magic I: A Book About Language and Therapy. Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books.Google Scholar
  3. Beck, A. T., Epstein, N., Brown, G., & Steer, R. A. (1988). An inventory for measuring clinical anxiety: Psychometric properties. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(6), 893–897.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck, A. T., Rush, J. A., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive Therapy of Depression. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Garbin, M. G. (1988). Psychometric properties of the Beck depression inventory: Twenty-five years of evaluation. Clinical Psychology Review, 8(1), 77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, E. J., & Heimberg, R. G. (2001). Effects of writing about rape: Evaluating Pennebaker’s Paradigm with severe Trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 14, 781–790.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bucci, W., & Freedman, N. (1981). The language of depression. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 45(4), 334–358.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Buehler, R. E., & Richmond, J. F. (1965). Interpersonal communication therapy. Corrective Psychiatry Journal of Social Therapy, 11, 204–216.Google Scholar
  9. Calogero, R. M., Davis, W. N., & Thompson, J. K. (2005). The sociocultural attitudes toward appearance questionnaire (SATAQ-3): Reliability and normative comparisons of eating disordered patients. Body Image, 1, 193–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chafe, Wallace L. (1976). Givenness, contractiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Charles N. Li (Ed.), Subject and Topic (pp. 25–55). New York: Associated Press.Google Scholar
  11. Clarke, K. M. (1989). Creation of meaning: An emotional processing task in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 26, 139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis, D., & Brock, T. C. (1975). Use of first person pronouns as a function of increased objective self-awareness and performance feedback. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11(4), 381–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Shazer, S. (1994). Words were originally magic. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  14. Duval, T. S., & Wicklund, R. A. (1973). Effects of objective self-awareness on attributions of causality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frewin, K. (2002). Theorising “Self”: Poststructuralist Interpretations of Self Construction and Psychotherapy. PhD thesis, Massey University.Google Scholar
  16. Freud, S. (1914). Psychopathology of everyday life. Brill, A. A. (trans.). New York: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
  17. Gawda, B. (2008). Gender differences in verbal expression of love schema. Sex Roles: Journal of Research., 58, 814–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gençöz, T. (2000). Positive and Negative Affect Scale: Validity and Reliability Study. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi [Turkish Journal of Psychology]., 15(46), 19–26.Google Scholar
  19. Gendlin, E. T. (1962). Experience and Creation of Meaning. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Givon, T. (1976). Topic, Pronoun and Grammatical Agreement. In Charles N. Li (Ed.), Subject and Topic (pp. 149–188). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gundel, J. K., & Fretheim, T. (2004). Topic and Focus. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatic Theory, Blackwell (pp. 174–196). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  22. Habermas, J. (2001). On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction: Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communicative Action. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  23. Habermas, J., & Fultner, B. (2002). On the pragmatics of social interaction: Preliminary studies in the theory of communicative action. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hajičová, E. (1983). Topic and focus. Theoretical. Linguistics, 10(3), 268–276.Google Scholar
  25. Halliday, M. A. K. (2000). An introduction to functional grammar. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hisli, N. (1987). Validation of the Beck Depression Inventory: Turkish sample of psychiatric outpatients. Turkish Journal of Psychology, 6, 118–122.Google Scholar
  27. Hisli, N. (1989). Realibility and Validity of Beck Depression Inventory. Psikoloji Dergisi, 7(23), 3–13.Google Scholar
  28. Hunsley, J., Elliott, K., & Therrien, Z. (2013). The Efficacy and Effectiveness of Psychological Treatments. Ottawa: Canadian Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  29. İşsever S. (2000). Information Structure in Turkish Language. Master of Science dissertation, Ankara ÜniversitesiGoogle Scholar
  30. Jameson, F. (1977). Literature and psychoanalysis (pp. 338–395). The Question of Reading: Otherwise.Google Scholar
  31. Janoff-Bulman, R. (1985). The aftermath of victimization: Rebuilding shattered assumptions. In Charles R. Figley (Ed.), Trauma and Its Wake, Volume I: The Study and Treatment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (pp. 15–35). New York: Brunner/Mazel.Google Scholar
  32. Kiesler, D. J. (1973). Process of Psychotherapy. Piscataway, NJ: Aldine Transaction.Google Scholar
  33. Lacan, J. (1968). The Language of the Self: The Function of Language in Psychoanalysis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  34. Mallinson, G., & Blake, B. (1981). Language typology. New York: North Holland.Google Scholar
  35. Markey, J. F. (1928). The symbolic process and its integration in children: A study in social psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Morin, A. (2006). Levels of consciousness and self-awareness: A comparison and integration of various neurocognitive views. Consciousness and Cognition, 15, 358–371.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Morry, M., & Staska, S. (2001). Magazine exposure: Internalization, self-objectification, eating attitudes, and body satisfaction in male and female university students. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des Sciences du comportement, 33, 269–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Musacchio, J. M. (2002). Dissolving the explanatory gap: Neurobiological differences between phenomenal and propositional knowledge. Brain and Mind, 3, 331–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Paja̧k, K., & Trzebiński, J. (2014). Escaping the world: Linguistic indicators of suicide attempts in poets. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 5, 389–402.Google Scholar
  40. Pennebaker, J. W., & Graybeal, A. (2001). Patterns of natural language use: Disclosure, personality, and social integration. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(3), 90–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pennebaker, J. W., Mehl, M. R., & Niederhoffer, K. G. (2003). Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 547–577.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Prince, E. F.(1986), On the Syntactic Marking of Presupposed Open Presuppositions. Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory, 22\(^{nd}\) Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, (ed.) Farley, A., Farley, P., and McCullough, K.-E., 208–222.Google Scholar
  43. Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a Taxonomy of Given/New Information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 223–255). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  44. Raskin, R., & Shaw, R. (1988). Narcissism and the use of personal pronouns. Journal of Personality, 56(2), 393–404.Google Scholar
  45. Reinhart, T. (1982). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, 27, 53–94.Google Scholar
  46. Reyes, L., Aristegui, R., Krause, M., Strasser, K., Tomicic, A., Valdes, N., et al. (2008). Language and therapeutic change: a speech acts analysis. Psychotherapy Research: Journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research, 18(3), 355–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rizzuto, A. (1993). First person personal pronouns and their psychic referents. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 74, 535–546.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Rogers, C. R. (1992). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60(6), 827–832.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Rosenzweig, S. (1936). Some implicit common factors in diverse methods of psychotherapy. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 6, 412–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Russell, R. L. (1987). Psychotherapeutic discourse: Future directions and the critical pluralist attitude. In R. L. Russell (Ed.), Language in psychotherapy: Strategies of discovery (pp. 341–351). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Steedman, M. (2000). Information Structure and the Syntax-Phonology Interface. Linguistic Inquiry, 31(4), 649–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Streeck, J. (2002). Grammars, Words, and embodied meanings: On the uses and evolution of ’so’ and ’like’. Journal of Communication, 52(3), 581–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tegin, B. (1980). Cognitive schemas in depression. Ankara: Hacettepe University.Google Scholar
  54. Ulusoy, M., Sahin, N. H., & Erkmen, H. (1998). Turkish Version of the Beck Anxiety Inventory: Psychometric Properties. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 12(2), 163–172.Google Scholar
  55. Vallduvi, E., Engdahl, E.(1994). Information packaging and grammar architecture: A constraint-based approach, Centre for Cognitive Science & Human Communication Research Centre University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  56. Van Staden, C. W., & Fulford, K. W. M. (2004). Changes in semantic uses of first person pronouns as possible linguistic markers of recovery in psychotherapy. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 38, 226–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wampold, B. E. (2007). Psychotherapy: The humanistic (and effective) treatment. American Psychologist, 62(8), 857–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Whorf, B. L., Carroll, J. B., Levinson, S. C., & Lee, P. (2012). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of benjamin lee whorf. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  60. Wittgenstein, L., (1958) Philosophical Investigations, Anscombe, G. E. M. (trans.), New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Istanbul Arel UniversitesiIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Middle East Technical University (METU)AnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations