No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The critique by Lanin- Kettering and Harrow (1985) of Chaika's article (1982) overlooks the essential distinction between speech, an overt behavior, and thought, a cognitive process inferred on the basis of many different overt behaviors including speech. It is argued that the fundamental importance of this distinction requires the fullest possible analysis of psychotic speech-qua speechsince no inference, however desirable, can be more secure than its base in observation.

The classification of schizophrenic patients into thought disordered (TD) and non-thought disordered (NTD) is questioned. It is suggested that the terms speech disordered and non-speech disordered are more exact, and that viewing deviant speech structurally with no assumptions as to the thought behind it may prove valuable.