Changes in semantic uses of first person

pronouns as possible linguistic markers of

recovery in psychotherapy

C. W. Van Staden, K. W. M. Fulford

Objective: To examine changes in linguistic markers in the course of psychotherapy,

drawing on Frege’s logic of relations to define semantic variables distinct from syntactic
variables.
Method: From a sample of 73 patients, 10 patients with the best and 10 patients with the
worst outcomes were selected. Forty transcribed sessions of each outcome group were
compared statistically for change between commencement and termination of psychotherapy
in: (i) the syntactic usage of first person pronouns (‘I’, ‘me’, ‘we’, ‘us’, ‘implied I’, ‘implied me’);
(ii) semantic usage of first person pronouns (expressing alpha, omega, or unclear positions);
and (iii) non-pronoun linguistic variables (passive voice, negative, copula, auxiliary verbs
expressing a sense of obligation).
Results: There were no significant differences between the best and worst outcome groups
in the change of either syntactic usage, or of the non-pronoun linguistic variables. However,
the outcome groups differed significantly in the change of their semantic usage (alpha:
p = 0.002; omega: p = 0.028): The best outcome group showed an increase of alpha
positions and a decrease of omega positions, whereas the worst outcome group showed the
inverse (i.e. decrease of alpha and increase of omega positions).
Conclusions: Results suggest only semantic, that is meaning-driven, usage of first person
pronouns marks recovery in the course of psychotherapy. If replicated, this finding could be
used to monitor treatment responses. Replication in other kinds of treatment could mean
these semantic changes are markers of recovery more generally than in psychotherapy.
Key words: language, outcome, psychotherapy, self.

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 2004; 38:226–232

This paper describes the use of variables derived from
linguistic theory in a comparative empirical study of
Werdie Van Staden, Associate Professor (Correspondence)
Department of Psychiatry, University of Pretoria, PO Box 667, Pretoria,
0001, South Africa. Email: cwvanstaden@icon.co.za
Bill Fulford, Professor of Philosophy and Mental Health
Department of Philosophy, University of Warwick, Coventry and
University Department of Psychiatry, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK
This research was part of the first author’s MD study at the University of
Warwick (UK; 1999), titled ‘Linguistic changes during recovery: a philo-
sophical and empirical study of first person pronoun usage and the semantic
positions of patients as expressed in psychotherapy and mental illness’.
A copy is obtainable from WVS.
Received 17 February 2003; revised 3 October 2003; accepted 17 November
2003.
changes in the use of first person pronouns in the course
of psychotherapy.
That changes in person pronoun use should occur in
psychotherapy is suggested by the importance of con-
cepts such as ‘self’ and ‘ego’ in psychotherapeutic and
psychoanalytic theory [1,2], these being commonly
assumed to be expressed by first person pronouns, ‘I’,
‘me’, etc. [2–5]. Changes in personal pronoun use, more-
over, if they occur, could be of practical importance:
they might be helpful in monitoring change, for exam-
ple, or in providing a simple measure of outcome (see
Discussion section). Yet apart from some suggestive
findings in Spence’s studies of the patient–therapist
relationship [6,7], empirical evidence that changes in
 C.W. VAN STADEN, K.W.M. FULFORD
first person pronoun use do indeed occur in the course of
psychotherapy has not previously been reported.
There is growing interest in linguistically defined
variables for empirical research in psychiatry [8]. In the
present study we drew on linguistic theory to define two
distinct uses of the personal pronouns, syntactic and
semantic. We also examined a number of non-pronoun
linguistic variables, partly for comparison with pronoun
variables, partly for their interest in their own right in
respect of psychoanalytic and psychotherapeutic theory
(see Discussion section).
Syntactic and semantic uses of the personal pronouns
differ broadly as to grammar and meaning, respectively.
As such, they do not always run parallel. For example, in
‘I chased the dog’ and ‘the dog was chased by me’, the
syntactic uses of the first person pronouns, ‘I’ and ‘me’,
are different even though the two expressions have
essentially the same meaning [9].
Semantic uses of the first person pronouns, in reflect-
ing individual meanings, could be defined in many dif-
ferent ways [10,11]. There are indications from both the
philosophy and sociology of medicine, that illness and
recovery are most likely to be associated with semantic
uses of the first person pronouns expressing specifically
agentic aspects of these meanings: thus, the experience
of illness is associated with incapacity (or loss of
agency) [12,13]; and Holmes and Lindley [14] argue that
recovery of autonomy (hence of agency) is the central
aim of most kinds of psychotherapy.
Frege’s semantic theory [15] and the related logic of
relations [16,17] provide a resource for defining seman-
tic variables connected with agency. Drawing on this
resource, we defined two semantic positions, ‘alpha’ and
‘omega’. The details of this derivation, including the
precise relationship between our semantic positions,
Frege’s ‘argument places’, and the ‘owner’ and ‘acci-
dental’ of relations, are described elsewhere [18]. In
brief, the alpha semantic position is characterized by
occupancy of the ‘owner’ of a relation as defined in
semantic theory, and the omega position is characterized
by occupancy of the ‘accidental’ of a relation. In respect
of verbs expressing actions, the alpha position is occu-
pied by the agent. Thus, in both ‘I chased the dog’ and
‘the dog was chased by me’, I occupy the alpha position
and the dog occupies the omega position. These seman-
tic positions, however, are not restricted to actions.
Similar positions are expressed by other classes of verb:
for example, verbs expressing attitudes (x is against y)
and states (x needs y).
The concept of a semantic position may be unfamiliar
outside philosophical logic. However, the alpha and
omega positions proved to be readily operationalizable
through a set of explicit rules and exemplars, which,
227
with a brief period of training, showed a high degree of
interrater reliability (see Method section).
This study was designed to compare statistically a best
outcome group with a worst outcome group for an
increase/decrease in, respectively, syntactic and seman-
tic first person pronoun variables between commence-
ment and termination of a course of psychotherapy.
Method
Data and subjects
Our data were derived from a series of verbatim transcripts of
psychotherapy sessions. The transcripts were originally made in the
1970s as part of the Pennsylvania Psychotherapy Study [19] and are
now archived at the Ulm Textbank at the University of Ulm in
Germany. All patients consented to the audio-recording of the
sessions for the purposes of transcription and analysis. Names by
which patients or other people could be identified were omitted or
changed.
A major methodological advantage of the Penn Study for our analy-
sis was that, from a total of 73 patients, the Penn investigators identi-
fied 10 patients with the best and 10 with the worst outcomes. This key
selection process had thus been carried out completely independently
of the present study.
Outcomes in the Penn Study were assessed by 14 psychometric
instruments including patients’ self-report measures, therapists’ rat-
ings, and independent clinical observer ratings. Using multiple regres-
sion analysis of the scores on each measure, ‘residual gain’ and ‘rated
benefit’ scores were calculated. ‘Residual gain’ was calculated on the
basis of ratings made at the beginning and again at the end of treat-
ment. ‘Rated benefits’ was based on all the ratings immediately after
the end of treatment. The ‘rated benefits’ and the ‘residual gain’ were
highly correlated (r = 0.75). Hence the best outcome and the worst
outcome groups were defined in the Penn Study by extreme scores on
either of these measures. In the best outcome group, seven were
selected on the basis of residual gain, three by rated benefits; in the
worst outcome group, eight were selected by residual gain, two by
rated benefits.
A disadvantage of the Penn Study for our purposes was that,
having been carried out in the 1970s, diagnostic information was
relatively unsophisticated by present standards. The subjects of the
Penn Study were diagnosed with depressive neurosis, anxiety neuro-
sis, and mixed neurosis. The two groups (best and worst outcomes)
appeared similar overall (in particular, there were no psychotic
subjects) but formal diagnostic comparisons were not possible from
the available data.
The best and worst outcome groups were also not significantly
different in age, gender, marital status or religion. All subjects had
either one or two sessions each week. Eighteen psychodynamically
orientated therapists were involved in the study (two therapists had two
cases and the rest one case each). They had a minimum of eight to a
maximum of 264 sessions, with a median of 32 sessions over a median
of 34 weeks. Best outcome patients were in therapy longer than worst
outcome (median 61 and 43 weeks, respectively).
228 LINGUISTIC MARKERS OF RECOVERY

Definition of variables
(i) Overall use of first person pronouns and verb phrases. We
examined the commencement and termination frequencies for all verb
phrases that were associated with a first person pronoun, and all that
were not.
(ii) Syntactic usage of first person pronouns. The variables defined
for investigating syntactic usage were ‘I’, ‘me’, ‘we’, ‘us’, as well as
‘implied I’ and ‘implied me’ (e.g. as in ‘I ate my food and (I) talked to
her’, and ‘she said (to me) . . .’).
(iii) Semantic usage of first person pronouns. The variables for
assessing semantic usage were the ‘alpha position’ and ‘omega
position’, as described earlier. We used ‘unclear position’ for expres-
sions where the patient’s semantic position was not clearly evident
(e.g. in ‘I was bored’).
(iv) Non-pronoun linguistic variables. Non-pronoun variables were
use of the passive voice, negatives (‘not’ and ‘never’), copulas (e.g. ‘to
be’, ‘seem’, ‘appear’), and auxiliary verbs expressing a sense of
obligation (e.g. ‘ought to’, ‘got to’, ‘have to’, ‘must’, ‘should’).
Recording and procedures
The basic unit of observation was a verb phrase. Besides a main verb,
a verb phrase may also include auxiliary verbs. For example, in ‘I ought
to have written to Jim’, the verb phrase is ‘ought to have written’. Each
verb phrase was examined for the presence or absence of all the above
variables in association with that verb phrase.
For each of the 20 subjects, two commencement sessions and two
termination sessions were examined, giving a total of 80 sessions. In
all cases we followed the definitions of commencement and termina-
tion sessions adopted by the Penn investigators. Thus, for a given
subject, the commencement sessions were sessions 3 and 5; the
termination sessions were the session in which 90% of the therapy was
complete and the immediately preceding session. All termination
sessions were within five sessions of the end of therapy. The first 200
verb phrases of each of the 80 sessions were analyzed.
The presence or absence of the variables in each verb phrase was
recorded in binary code. Frequencies of the variables in the sample
were calculated as the ratio (expressed as a percentage) of the number
of ‘present’ recordings for a particular variable to the total number of
analyzed verb phrases in the relevant two sessions (i.e. either the two
commencement or the two termination sessions). This generated a
commencement frequency and a termination frequency for each vari-
able for each patient.
The change between commencement and termination frequencies of
variables was calculated for each patient as the difference between
commencement frequency (C) and termination frequency (T) propor-
tionate to the commencement frequency, expressed as a percentage.
Thus, % change = 100 × (C–T)/C.
Since the transcripts were not edited, operational rules of recording
were developed to deal consistently with phenomena like half-
sentences and single word expressions. The operational rules (avail-
able on request from WVS) included for example: a verb phrase should
be identifiable before any recording is made; repetitions (like
stuttering) of a first person pronoun associated with a certain verb
phrase should be omitted; colloquial use of first person pronouns
should not be corrected; direct quotations by a patient from someone
else should be excluded.
The reliability of the recording procedures was assessed by sampling
100 verb phases from a randomly selected psychotherapy transcript
and subjecting them to blind analysis by five sixth-year medical
students from the University of Pretoria (South Africa). All the above-
mentioned variables were present among these verb phrases. The
students had a preliminary 15 minute training session in the operation-
alized procedures for identifying and recording variables. The mean
concordance rate between the study recordings and the student
recordings was 94% (SD = 1.85%; range: 92–96.7%). The Kendall
Coefficient of Concordance among the recordings of the students was
0.0011, which is highly satisfactory.
Statistical analysis
The best and the worst outcome groups were compared using either
the independent samples t-test or the Mann–Whitney U-test. The t-test
was used where the distribution of the changes in frequencies between
commencement and termination of therapy was consistent with a
normal distribution. This test did not assume equal variances. Where
the data did not follow a normal distribution, the Mann–Whitney U-test
was used. The extent to which the data followed a normal distribution
was assessed by visual inspection of graphic representations of the dis-
tributions of the cumulative frequencies, and by the Kolmogorov-
Smirnov and Lilliefors tests.
Results
Overall use of first person pronouns and verb
phrases
The commencement frequencies of all first person pronouns taken
together were similar for the best outcome (mean = 62.89%,
SD = 5.41%) and the worst outcome patient groups (mean = 62.19%,
SD = 7.46%). The termination frequencies were lower in both groups,
the best outcome group showing a mean decrease of 10.14%
(SD = 12.07%), the worst outcome group a mean decrease of 10.05%
(SD = 6.74%). These decreases were not significantly different
between the two groups (t = 0.021, df = 14.11, p = 0.984, mean
difference = 0.0913, 95% CI = –9.28–9.46).
Correspondingly, there was no significant difference between the
best and the worst outcome groups for change in verb phrases that were
not associated with a first person pronoun (t = –0.041, df = 16.05,
p = 0.968, mean difference = –0.279, 95% CI = –14.75–14.20).
Syntactic usage of first person pronouns
No statistically significant differences were found between the best
and the worst outcome groups in their syntactic usage of first person
pronouns.
The frequency of ‘I’ showed a very small increase between com-
mencement and termination of psychotherapy for both patient groups
(best outcome patients: mean increase of 0.33%, SD = 9.11%; worst
outcome patients: mean increase of 0.50%, SD = 6.63%) (Fig. 1). The
difference between the best and the worst outcome patients in this
respect was not statistically significant (t = 0.049, df = 16.15,
p = 0.962).
 C.W. VAN STADEN, K.W.M. FULFORD
The mean frequency of ‘me’ increased for both groups (best
outcome patients = 5.73%; worst outcome patients = 31%) (Fig. 1) but
the standard deviations were large (43.7% and 68.62%, respectively).
Correspondingly, no statistically significant differences were found
between the two groups of patients in their change in the usage of ‘me’
(t = 0.099, df = 15.27, p = 0.339).
The frequency of ‘we’ showed larger mean increases than ‘I’ or ‘me’
for both patient groups between commencement and termination.
Moreover, the best outcome patients’ mean increase in the frequency
of ‘we’ (215.22%, SD = 347.45%) was higher than the worst outcome
patients’ mean increase (43.83%, SD = 171.98%). The difference
between the patient groups in this respect, however, still did not reach
the 0.05 level of statistical significance (U-test = 23.0; p = 0.131). This
is most likely due to the large variance in the patients’ changes of
frequencies (cf. the large SD values cited earlier). Missing data may
also have contributed to the non-significant result since two of the
worst outcome patients did not use ‘we’ at all during the analyzed part
of the commencement sessions, and hence (as zero scores) had to be
excluded from calculating the percentage change between commence-
ment and termination of therapy.
The best outcome group showed a mean decrease of frequency of
‘us’ (28.85%, SD = 104.54%); and the worst outcome group showed a
mean increase (69%, SD = 143.99%). As for ‘we’, statistical testing
between the groups was not useful because commencement frequen-
cies were zero for two of the best outcome and six of the worst
outcome patients, and therefore had to be excluded from calculating
the percentage change between commencement and termination of
therapy.
No statistically significant differences were found between the
best and worst outcome patient groups in their uses of ‘implied I’
(U-test = 35.0, p = 0.257) or ‘implied me’ (U-test = 38.0, p = 0.364).
Figure 1. Mean changes of ‘I’, ‘me’, alpha positions
and omega positions between commencement and
termination of psychotherapy for best and worst
outcome groups.
229
Semantic usage of first person pronouns
In contrast with the syntactic usage of first person pronouns, signifi-
cant changes were found in semantic usage. These positive findings are
compared with the negative findings for the syntactic variables, ‘I’ and
‘me’, in Figure 1.
Thus, the alpha position increased among the best outcome patients
(mean increase of 7.14%, SD = 7.38%) and decreased among the worst
outcome patients (mean decrease of 4.40%, SD = 6.46%). The differ-
ence between the best outcome and the worst outcome patients was
highly significant (t = –3.72, df = 17.69, p = 0.002, mean difference =
–11.54, 95% CI = –5.06 – –18.07). The upper value of the confidence
interval suggests an increase of the alpha position in at least 95% of
similar comparisons.
The omega position changed in the opposite direction from the alpha
position. The omega position decreased among the best outcome
patients (mean decrease of 17.79%, SD = 19.95%) and increased
among the worst outcome group (mean increase of 20.18%,
SD = 38.74%). The difference between the patient groups was statisti-
cally significant (U-test = 21.0, p = 0.028).
The changes in the alpha and the omega positions for individual
subjects are shown in Figure 2 (alpha position) and Figure 3 (omega
position). Visual inspection shows opposite directions of the changes
for the two groups of subjects: the predominant response shown by
subjects in the best outcome group was an increase in the alpha and
a corresponding decrease in the omega positions, whereas in the
worst outcome group the predominant response was a decrease in
the alpha and an increase in the omega positions. This means that an
increase in frequency of the alpha position has a sensitivity and
specificity of 0.8 to identify correctly both the best and worst
outcome groups, and a decrease in the omega position has a sensitiv-
ity of 0.8 and specificity of 0.6 to identify the best and worst outcome
groups, respectively.
For the ‘unclear position’, no statistically significant differences
were found between the patient groups (U-test = 42, p = 0.545).
Figure 2. Change in the frequency of the alpha
positions between commencement and termination of
psychotherapy for each case.
230 LINGUISTIC MARKERS OF RECOVERY
Figure 3. Change in the frequency of the omega
positions between commencement and termination of
psychotherapy for each case.
Non-pronoun linguistic variables
No significant differences were found between the best and the worst
outcome groups for change in any of the non-pronoun linguistic vari-
ables, namely the passive voice (U-test = 48.0, p = 0.880), the negative
(U-test = 43.0, p = 0.597), a copula (t = –0.608, df = 17.07, p = 0.551,
mean difference = –5.25, 95% CI = –23.46–12.97), and auxiliary verbs
that express a sense of obligation (t = 1.715, df = 11.26, p = 0.114,
mean difference = 38.36, 95% CI = –10.72–87.46).
Discussion
The main finding of this study is that semantic (mean-
ing-driven) usage of first person pronouns changed over
the course of good outcome psychotherapy. Occupancy
of what we have defined as the alpha (semantic) posi-
tion increased, while occupancy of the omega position
decreased, in patients with good outcome. Occupancy of
the two positions, furthermore, was inversely related.
That is, occupancy of the alpha position was taken up at
the expense of occupancy of the omega position in a
majority of individual patients. Syntactic (grammatical)
usage of first person pronouns, by contrast, and a
number of non-pronoun linguistic variables, all showed
no significant changes between the best and worst
outcome groups.
The study clearly has limitations as well as strengths.
The resources of the Penn Psychotherapy Project gave us
access to a series of verbatim psychotherapy transcripts,
collected originally for purposes unrelated to our research,
and independently grouped for outcome on a series of
outcome measures. This supported a valid measure
of outcome in this study, but the influences of potential
confounding variables had not been known to us and
could not be investigated. For example, we could not
account for diagnostic details, knowing only that patients
were diagnostically heterogeneous and included none
with psychotic disorders. Furthermore, the detailed analy-
sis required of the transcripts (examination of 16 000
verb phrases for each of 13 variables) meant that we
were able to study only a relatively small number of
patients (i.e. 20 from a sample of 73).
Granted these constraints, what is the significance of
our findings?
Practical utility
Our results provide quantitative evidence to support
the clinical observation that recovery brings about a
change from a passive position to a more active (agent)
position. Active and passive positions, however, should
not be directly equated with alpha and omega positions
[18]. The active–passive distinction is at times ambigu-
ous, for example in passive aggression, whereas the
alpha–omega distinction derives its clarity from philo-
sophical logic.
Our results suggest further that psychotherapeutic
recovery could be tracked linguistically. Doing so may
prove useful to enhance the therapeutic process. As
considered elsewhere in more detail, cognizance of
the semantic positions could supplement the dynamic
understanding in analytic therapies and could aid the
restructuring of thoughts and behaviour in cognitive-
behavioural therapies [18].
Diagnostically, the shift from omega to alpha positions
could provide the basis for the development of relatively
simple ‘litmus tests’ of progress and outcome in psycho-
therapy. Psychotherapy, in all its forms, is both costly
and notoriously difficult to assess. Linguistic markers,
being comparatively simple to use, would allow treat-
ment plans to be fine-tuned, avoiding blind alleys in
therapy, and building on approaches which look promis-
ing. As measures of outcome, similarly, linguistic
markers, being relatively objective, could contribute to
the development of more accurate clinical guidelines on
the profiles of patients likely to benefit from this or that
particular form of therapy.
Future research
Further work is required to determine whether such
tests are indeed valid and viable. Findings of this study
suggest that an assessment of the semantic positions
of patients, rather than an assessment of syntactic use of
first person pronouns, would be a valid measurement
of recovery in psychotherapy. This validity is so far
based on the rigorous theoretical description of the
 C.W. VAN STADEN, K.W.M. FULFORD
semantic positions (i.e. the content validity) [18], and on
the ability to distinguishing between contrasting groups
that had been independently grouped for outcome
(i.e. the external criterion validity which is demonstrated
in the concurrent validity by using t-tests and Mann-
Whitney U-tests, and in the ability to predict the
outcome groups based on either an increase in the fre-
quency of alpha positions or a decrease in the frequency
of the omega positions) [20]. However, these are the first
steps for a comprehensive testing of validity in the
future. The reasons are that convergent validity was not
tested, because the specific measurements of the Penn
study had not been available, and our results need to be
replicated using other psychotherapy materials (the Penn
Project transcripts might be unusual in some way). It will
also be necessary to examine specific diagnostic groups
and other forms of treatment. The heterogeneous nature
of our subjects, and the theoretical links (noted in the
Introduction section) between our semantic variables
and agentic aspects of illness and recovery, suggest that
taking up occupancy of alpha positions and relinquishing
occupancy of the omega positions may be a generic, or
at any rate a general, marker of progress and good
outcome. But whether or not this is so, only further
research will show.
The reliability and practical utility of using linguistic
markers in this way would have to be assessed under
‘field’ conditions. The medical students involved in our
reliability study achieved a highly satisfactory level of
inter rater reliability after only 15 min of training in the
scoring methods. But they were working under ideal
conditions, away from the demands of clinical work,
and on materials in which they had no direct interest,
personal or professional.
Additional work is needed to determine the dynamics
of the shift from omega to alpha semantic positions. We
sampled the commencements and terminations of the
psychotherapy transcripts. But if the shift from omega
to alpha is to be used as a measure of progress, we need
to know whether it occurs continuously over the course
of therapy or discontinuously; if discontinuously, whether
it is an early or late change; and we need to know
whether the dynamics are the same or different for dif-
ferent diagnostic groups and from patient to patient.
The connection with psychotherapeutic and psycho-
analytic theory, suggests that linguistic variables might
be helpful in sharpening and developing therapeutic
models of disorder. Non-pronoun as well as pronoun
variables could be helpful here. In this study, for exam-
ple, among non-pronoun variables, we found no signifi-
cant changes in the use of the negative. This is surprising
given the significance attached to overcoming denial in
psychodynamic therapy [21]. Denial is not necessarily
231
expressed verbally in the use of negatives, of course; nor
are all verbal expressions of the negative reflections of
psychological denial. But the finding, which so far as
we are aware is reported here for the first time, is at
least suggestive. Similarly, the absence of any change in
the use of auxiliary verbs expressing obligation (‘I
must . . .’, ‘I have to . . .’, ‘I should . . .’, etc.) is contrary
to the expectations of rational emotive theory, a key
component of which is to challenge and then relinquish
thoughts of obligation [22].
Furthermore, the bearing of our findings on psycho-
analytic and other theories about first person pronouns
need to be researched. A connection with the work of
Jacques Lacan was outlined by Gillett [23], and other
theoretical connections with egotism and narcissism are
to be expected. For example, egotism is commonly asso-
ciated with the excessive use of first person pronouns
[24], but our findings suggest that the overall frequency
of first person pronouns does not differ significantly
between the best and the worst outcome patients, neither
at commencement nor at termination of psychotherapy.
This may mean that egotism, and likewise narcissism,
may be relevant to some but not all instances of first
person pronoun use. One hypothesis could be that
egotism and narcissism present in certain kinds of rela-
tions (e.g. recognition, admiration, appreciation) rather
than in all relations expressed in association with first
person pronouns [25].
Methodological innovation
Meanings, as no less a figure than Karl Jaspers empha-
sized, are crucially important alongside causes in psycho-
pathology [26], and are set to become more, not less,
important in psychiatry with advances in the neuro-
sciences [27,28]. Our study shows that it is possible
to draw on philosophical logic as a source of reliably
operationalizable variables for quantitative research on
meanings related to first person pronouns. It is in this
respect that it is methodologically innovative.
There have been other philosophical resources for
studying meanings in relation to first person pronouns.
The philosophical pragmatists Mead and Pierce focused
on the purposes of using ‘I’ and ‘me’ as symbols [29,30].
So did some psycho-analytical theorists [2–4,31]. This
study, however, investigated empirically the meaning as
revealed within patient expressions irrespective of the
underlying purposes of using these pronouns [32].
Phenomenology is another philosophical resource, one
on which Jaspers drew in developing his ‘Ich-störungen’
(i.e. disorders of ‘I’) in psychopathology. Phenomenol-
ogy is currently reinventing itself as an empirical disci-
pline [33] with considerable potential in this respect [34].
232 LINGUISTIC MARKERS OF RECOVERY
But philosophical logic, as an analytic rather than inter-
pretive philosophical discipline, holds out the prospect
of rigorously defined variables for research in the human
sciences, comparable, in some respects, with those
available from mathematics for the physical sciences.
This is a challenging prospect, certainly. But as Jaspers
clearly saw, it is no more than we should expect of a
science encompassing, as psychiatry encompasses, mean-
ings as well as causes.
Acknowledgements
We thank J. Z. Sadler, M. Luntley and C. Krüger for
advice, as well as the Ulm Textbank (Department of
Psychotherapy, University of Ulm, Germany) who kindly
provided the psychotherapy transcripts.
References
1. Baker HS, Baker MN. Heinz Kohut’s self psychology: an
overview. American Journal of Psychiatry 1987; 144:1–9.
2. Hinshelwood RD. A dictionary of Kleinian thought. London:
Free Association Books 1991, 284–285,425.
3. Rizzuto A. First person personal pronouns and their psychic
referents. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 1993;
74:535–546.
4. De Waele M. A clinical concept of self: The experiential being.
British Journal of Medical Psychology 1995; 68:223–242.
5. Taubes T. Healthy avenues of the mind: psychological theory
building and the influence of religion during the era of moral
treatment. American Journal of Psychiatry 1998;
155:1001–1008.
6. Spence DP. When do interpretations make a difference? A partial
answer to Fliess’s Achensee question. Journal of the American
Psychoanalytic Association 1995; 43:689–712.
7. Spence DP, Mayes LC, Dahl H. Monitoring the analytic surface.
Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association 1994;
42:43–64.
8. Thomas P, Fraser W. Linguistics, human communication, and
psychiatry. British Journal of Psychiatry 1994; 165:585–592.
9. Chomsky N. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA:
MIT, 1965.
10. Braude SE. First person plural: multiple personality and the
philosophy of mind, 2nd edn. London: Routledge, 1995.
11. Harré R. Pathological autobiographies. Philosophy, Psychiatry
and Psychology 1997; 4:99–110.
12. Fulford KWM. Moral theory and medical practice. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press 1989.
13. Van Staden CW, Krüger C. Incapacity to give informed consent
owing to mental disorder. Journal of Medical Ethics 2003;
29:41–43.
14. Holmes J, Lindley R. The values of psychotherapy. Oxford:
Oxford University Press 1989.
15. Frege G. Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob
Frege. Translated by P. Geach, M. Black. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1966.
16. Suppes P. Axiomatic set theory. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand,
1960.
17. Lemmon EJ. Beginning logic, 2nd edn. London: Chapman and
Hall, 1996.
18. Van Staden CW. Linguistic markers of recovery: theoretical
underpinnings of first person pronoun usage and semantic
positions of patients. Philosophy, Psychiatry and Psychology,
2002; 9:105–126.
19. Luborsky LP, Crits-Christoph P, Mintz J, Auerbach A. Who will
benefit from psychotherapy: predicting therapeutic outcomes.
New York: Basic, 1988.
20. Aiken LR. Rating scales and checklists: evaluating behavior,
personality, and attitude. New York: Wiley, 1996.
21. Wallace ER. Dynamic psychiatry in theory and practice.
Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger 1983, 112–113.
22. Ellis A. Rational emotive therapy. In: Corsini RJ, ed. Current
psychotherapies, 4th edn. Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock, 1996.
23. Gillett G. The self as relatum in life and language. Philosophy,
Psychiatry, Psychology 2002; 9:127–130.
24. Sykes JB, ed. The concise Oxford dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon,
1983; 309.
25. Van Staden CW. ‘I’ or ‘me’: the logic of human relations.
In: Mace C, ed. Heart and soul: the therapeutic face of
philosophy. London: Routledge, 1999; 101.
26. Jaspers K. Causal and meaningful connexions between life
history and psychosis. In: Hirsch SR, Shepherd M, eds. Themes
and variations in European psychiatry. Bristol: Wright, 1974.
27. Andreasen N. Brave new brain. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2001.
28. Fulford KWM, Morris KM, Sadler JZ, Stanghellini G, eds. Past
improbable, future possible: the renaissance in philosophy and
psychiatry. In: Nature and narrative: an introduction to the new
philosophy of psychiatry. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2003; 1–41.
29. Mead GH. Mind, self, society. London: University of Chicago
Press, 1934.
30. Wiley N. The semiotic self. Padstow, UK: Polity Press, 1994.
31. Lacan J. The mirror stage as formative of the function of the I.
In: Écrits. Translated by A. Sheridan. London: Tavistock, 1977;
1–7.
32. Van Staden CW. Language mirrors relational positions in
recovery: a response to commentaries by Falzer and Davidson,
Gillett, and Suppes. Philosophy, Psychiatry and Psychology,
2002; 9:137–140.
33. Petitot J, Varela F, Pachoud B, Roy JM, eds. Naturalizing
phenomenology: issues in contemporary phenomenology and
cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2000.
34. Philpott MJ. A phenomenology of dyslexia: the lived-body,
ambiguity, and the breakdown of expression. Philosophy,
Psychiatry and Psychology 1998; 5:1–20.