- Email: [email protected]
A linguist looks at “a linguist looks at ‘schizophrenic language’”
BRAIN AND LANGUAGE 2, 498-503 (1975)
NOTES & DISCUSSION
A Linguist Looks at "A Linguist Looks at 'Schizophrenic Language '''1 VICTORIA A . FROMKIN
Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90024 This note presents evidence in opposition to the position proposed by Chaika that schizophrenic speech can be characterized by six definable features. It is shown that, except for the disruption of the sequencing of ideas in discourse which can be attributed to nonlinguistic factors, all the features are prevalent in normal speech as exemplified by speech errors and "slips of the tongue."
In a recent issue of Brain and Language, Chaika (1974) attempts to define "schizophrenic language" by six definable characteristics. She agrees that "this language may not characterize all patients diagnosed as schizophrenic" but it is her contention that the presence of these features reveal schizophrenia- otherwise they would not be defining features. Furthermore, in arguing against the opinion of Brown (1972) that schizophrenics do not reveal a breakdown in language so much as a breakdown in thought, she contends that the psychological or mental aberrations are paralleled by "a disturbance in those areas of the brain concerned with linguistic production." This is an interesting avenue of research in that it may shed light on the relationship between nonlinguistic mental breakdown and language disruption. If it is always the case that a disruption of one leads to a disruption of the other, then one may conclude that there is an interdependence of thought and language. If, on the other hand, language can remain intact despite mental or psychological disturbance, this argues for a greater independence of language processing from other mental functions. It is my contention that Chaika does not prove her case in favor of the first hypothesis because the linguistic deviations which she singles out as characteristic of schizophrenic speech occur in normal speech production. Using data from one schizophrenic patient, X, the author maintains 1 The research on speech errors was supported in part by grants from N.I.H., N.S.F., and the U C L A Academic Senate. 498 Copyright@ 1975by AcademicPress, Inc. All rightsof reproductionin any formreserved.
SCHIZOPHRENIC
LANGUAGE
499
that X's utterances "are rule governed and produced according to the phonological rules of the patient's dialect," but, it is suggested, the patient's use of "gibberish .... even if the patient were deliberately coining new words . . . would have to be considered b i z a r r e . . . " In the context cited such behavior certainly is bizarre. But this does not presuppose that this bizarre behavior results from linguistic causes. Chaika admits that it is probably impossible to determine whether Laffal (1965) is correct in imputing volition to the use of such gibberish, but whether "the schizophrenic cannot help his peculiar speech" or whether "he speaks that way deliberately" is a psychiatric problem rather than a linguistic one. It certainly does not, in itself, support the view that "schizophrenics who produce gibberish are suffering from a disruption in the ability to match sound strings to actual words" since, for the most part, the utterances consist of occurring words of English. Many new words are added to the slang vocabulary by individuals attempting to keep their thoughts "secret." (Folb, 1972) While these often become secret terms shared by a group, the invention of new secret terms by schizophrenics is not unique. If it were known that the patient produced the gibberish while trying to produce actual terms or lexical items, the author's conclusion would be more acceptable. Furthermore, it is difficult to understand why the "production of gibberish" is equated with "a disruption in the ability to apply phonological rules" when in an earlier section the author states just the contrary. Similarly, it is questionable that the creation of neologisms "also could be caused by a failure to apply phonological rules correctly" when these neologisms are all in keeping with the phonological constraints of the grammar. More importantly, however, neologisms abound in "slips of the tongue" produced by nonschizophrenic, normal speakers, either because of incorrect application of derivational rules, or by haplologies or word blends as is shown in the following: z l.
a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.
the groupment of words in classes an intervening node ~ an intervenient node 3 they sit there motionly sequentially ~ sequencingly explanations ~ explanatings " J o h n s h a v e s J o h n " is not ambiguous ~ . . . is not ambigual in a m a n n e r of speaking ~ in a m a n n e r of speakingly likelihood ~ likeliness
All examples o f speech errors are taken from a corpus of over 6,000 items collected by m y s e l f in the last n u m b e r of years. T h e s e were s p o n t a n e o u s l y produced utterances by " n o n s c h i z o p h r e n i c s " like university professors and speakers at scholarly meetings. T h e intended utterance, if cited, occurs to the left of the arrow, the actual utterance to the right of the arrow.
500
V I C T O R I A A. F R O M K I N i. j. k. 1. m. n. o. p. q.
specializing in ~ specialating in s h r i m p and egg souffle ~ shrig souffle a pretty idiotic idea ~ a prettiotic idea instantaneous/momentary ~ momentaneous splinters/blisters ---> splisters m a i n l y / m o s t l y ---> maistly draft/breeze ~ dreeze marijuana[acid --~ maracid right up m y alley --~ right u p m y alledge (intrusion of k n o w l e d g e ? )
As further evidence for the "sporadic disruption in the ability to match semantic features with sound strings comprising actual lexical items" Chaika cites the "confusion of antonyms." But again, a common form of speech errors is just this substitution of antonyms for intended words (Fromkin, 1971, 1973; Nooteboom 1967) as is illustrated by the speech errors in 2. 2. a. I really hate to get up in the m o r n i n g ~ I really like to get up in the m o r n ing. b. It' at the top of the stack ~ . . . at the bottom . . . . c. T h i s r o o m is too d a m n cold - - * . . . is too d a m n hot d. T h e written part of the e x a m -+ the oral part . . . .
If one recognizes the distinction between the underlying grammar which represents one's knowledge of language and how one uses that grammar in speaking, it is clear that normal speakers show performance errors and deviances identical with those of the schizophrenic patient cited in the paper. Chaika also discusses, as a characteristic feature of schizophrenic speech, syntactic errors, noting in particular, violation of co-occurrence restrictions, substitutions, failure to pronominalize or delete, errors in tense and aspect marking, choice of a wrong article, and concludes that these "all seem to confirm the thesis of this paper that the schizophrenic suffers from a disruption in the ability to apply linguistic rules." The disruption in this ability is not a unique characteristic of schizophrenic speech, as the following errors reveal. 3. a. L a u r i e ' s b o y f r i e n d has longer hair t h a n she does ~ . . . has longer hair t h a n he does. ( W r o n g gender in pronominalization.) b. I think y o u r h o n o r has really p u t y o u r finger o n it ~ . . . p u t the finger on it. ( I n c o r r e c t determiner.) c. L e t ' s a s s u m e t h e r e ' s only o n e language b o x and it's in the left hemis p h e r e ~ . . . it's on the left hemisphere. (Preposition substitution.) d. T h e r e are ( s o m e ) beautiful h o u s e s ~ there are a beautiful h o u s e s ( W r o n g n u m b e r agreement.) e. T u r k i s h and G e r m a n j u s t d o n ' t h a v e it; neither does S w e d i s h ~ . . . so does S w e d i s h (Lack of negation agreement.) f. Y o u ' r e in a better position ~ . . . in a more better position (Duplication of comparative morpheme.)
SCHIZOPHRENIC L A N G U A G E
501
g. When a person grows old ~ when a person grow old (Nonapplication of agreement rule.) h. I learned how to write it ~ I learned how to wrote it. (Incorrect tense form.) i. You're going, aren't you? ~ you're going, isn't it? (Incorrect tag question)
Such errors reveal the existence of grammatical rules which are wrongly applied, or fail to apply in the speech of normal as well as schizophrenic speakers. The White House Transcripts (Gold, 1974) are excellent evidence that "normal" speech performance is filled with incorrect deletions, repetitions, syntactic rule misapplications, etc. (One must assume, of course, that the participants are nonschizophrenics.) 4. a. D. The fact that the civil case drew to a h a l t - t h a t the depositions were halted he is freed. (p. 60) b. P. Going on to the interrogatory t h i n g - w e shall s e e - y o u r view would not to give any further ground on that? (p. 79) c. H. That is the kind of thing that, you know, we really ought to do is call the Speaker. (p. 64) d. D. I suppose the other area we are going to see some publicity on in the coming weeks because I think now that the indictments are down there will be a cresting on t h a t - t h e w h i t e w a s h - t h e civil rights cases in advance. (p. 64) e. D. l was talking the '68 incident that occurred, (p. 84)
If such "disruption in the ability to apply rules of syntax" occur in normal speech it clearly cannot or should not be used as a defining characteristic of schizophrenic speech. I would agree with Chaika, from the textual material she cites, that "The oddity of X's productions seem mostly to be caused by aberrations in the structure of her discourse." But such aberrations support, rather than negate, Roger Brown's claim "that [while] there is no such thing as schizophrenic speech" there seems to be a good deal of evidence of "schizophrenic thought." The disconnected discourse seems to reflect para-linguistic and nonlinguistic aberrations. The author however argues "that part of normal linguistic competence is being able to assess a situation so as to mention only what it is proper to utter overtly." Any attempt to include constraints on logical sequencing or social relevance in a model of linguistic competence would seem to me to be too ambitious and bound to fail. What is being discussed is not linguistic competence but social competence or psychological competence. Chaika also poses as linguistic deviance the schizophrenic's "preoccupation with definition, abnormal rhyming, and inappropriate word associating" which she concludes "result from an interest in the properties of words, such as sound and semantic features." It seems doubtful that such an interest is the result of "a disturbance in those areas of the
502
V I C T O R I A A. F R O M K I N
brain concerned with linguistic production." In fact, it is just such an interest which underlies the genius of a Lewis Carroll and other humorists, and mark, to a great extent, poetic imagery. Even if this interest on the part of schizophrenics is an involuntary one, it does not represent a language disruption. It rather reveals the intactness of language competence. Rhyming games have been played by children and adults all over the world; rhyming slang invented by Cockney workers (in which, for example, "storm and strife" mea~s wife, and "glorious sinner" means dinner) shows the creative ability of speakers who have "an interest in the properties of words." It is even possible that this ability which is repressed by most normal speakers is released in schizophrenics. As the examples already given demonstrate, Chaika is wrong in her claim that "the kinds of errors associated with schizophrenic speech are different from 'normal' performance errors. 'Normals' make anticipatory slips of the tongue, and false starts, but they do not utter stretches of gibberish, rhyme, 'free associate' or misuse common words as the schizophrenic does." Patients undergoing psychoanalysis are able to associate as freely as do schizophrenics. And speech errors show the intrusion of associated similar sounding phrases or idioms (some of which create rhymes) or of associated thoughts as exemplified in 5. 5. a. b. c. d. e.
Sue weeded the garden ~ s e a weeded the garden. deep phrase m a r k e r ~ deep freeze m a r k e r It spread like wild fire ~ it spread like wild flower. s e s a m e seed crackers ~ S e s a m e Street crackers I ' m going to die young, b u t I'll die less y o u n g - - - ~ . . . I'll die yes lung [spoken by s o m e o n e w h o had j u s t given up smoking]. f. H e made headlines ~ he m a d e hairlines Ereferring to a barber]
Chaika is also incorrect in stating that normal people who make "slips of the tongue" always attempt to correct themselves. While such corrections do occur, a large percentage of errors go undetected by the speaker. And many errors produce utterances as bizarre as those cited in the paper, as seen in 6. 6. a. b. c. d. e. f.
whole second half ~ soul h e c o n d path I hate long hair in hot weather ~ I hate hot wear [wer] in long heather loose leaf notebook ~ [ n o w s nijf luwf] book three toed slo,th ~ slee throwed toth using the feature flat and plain --> using the peature plat and flain A r e there any corrections to the minutes of the last meeting ~ are there a n y collections to the m e e n u t e s of the m a s t leeting.
If one didn't know the context or the reference, utterances such as "soul hecond path" or "slee throwed toth" would rank as gibberish as much as X's utterance " H e still had fooch with teykrimez." And the speaker who said "I broke the whistle on my crotch" (for the intended
SCHIZOPHRENIC LANGUAGE
503
"I broke the crystal on my watch") might be said to have shown a difficulty "in ordering linguistic elements into meaningful structures." If the characteristic features singled out by Chaika are unique, then they are unique to the class of human speakers. This is not to deny the existence of schizophrenia, but merely to point out that the examples of schizophrenic speech do not show such speech to differ widely from that of nonschizophrenics. Linguistic analysis of speech errors of normals and schizophrenics can however provide insight into the ways in which we produce speech and help in the construction of models of linguistic performance. REFERENCES Brown, R. 1972. Schizophrenia, language, and reality. American Psychologist, 28, 395-403. Chaika, E. 1974. A Linguist Looks at "Schizophrenic" Language. Brain and Language, 1, 257-276 Folb, E. A. 1972. A Comparative Study of Urban Black Argot. Occasional Papers in Linguistics, No. 1. U C L A , 1-153 Fromkin, V. A. 1971. The Non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Language 47, 27-52 Fromkin, V. A. 1973. (ed.) Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence. The Hague: Mouton. Gold, G. (Ed.) 1974.. The White House Transcripts. New York: Bantam Books. Laffal, J. 1965. Pathological and Normal Language. New York: Atherton Press. Nooteboom, S. G. 1969. The Tongue Slips into Patterns. Nomen, Leyden Studies in Linguistics and Phonetics. The Hague: Mouton.
NOTES & DISCUSSION
A Linguist Looks at "A Linguist Looks at 'Schizophrenic Language '''1 VICTORIA A . FROMKIN
Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90024 This note presents evidence in opposition to the position proposed by Chaika that schizophrenic speech can be characterized by six definable features. It is shown that, except for the disruption of the sequencing of ideas in discourse which can be attributed to nonlinguistic factors, all the features are prevalent in normal speech as exemplified by speech errors and "slips of the tongue."
In a recent issue of Brain and Language, Chaika (1974) attempts to define "schizophrenic language" by six definable characteristics. She agrees that "this language may not characterize all patients diagnosed as schizophrenic" but it is her contention that the presence of these features reveal schizophrenia- otherwise they would not be defining features. Furthermore, in arguing against the opinion of Brown (1972) that schizophrenics do not reveal a breakdown in language so much as a breakdown in thought, she contends that the psychological or mental aberrations are paralleled by "a disturbance in those areas of the brain concerned with linguistic production." This is an interesting avenue of research in that it may shed light on the relationship between nonlinguistic mental breakdown and language disruption. If it is always the case that a disruption of one leads to a disruption of the other, then one may conclude that there is an interdependence of thought and language. If, on the other hand, language can remain intact despite mental or psychological disturbance, this argues for a greater independence of language processing from other mental functions. It is my contention that Chaika does not prove her case in favor of the first hypothesis because the linguistic deviations which she singles out as characteristic of schizophrenic speech occur in normal speech production. Using data from one schizophrenic patient, X, the author maintains 1 The research on speech errors was supported in part by grants from N.I.H., N.S.F., and the U C L A Academic Senate. 498 Copyright@ 1975by AcademicPress, Inc. All rightsof reproductionin any formreserved.
SCHIZOPHRENIC
LANGUAGE
499
that X's utterances "are rule governed and produced according to the phonological rules of the patient's dialect," but, it is suggested, the patient's use of "gibberish .... even if the patient were deliberately coining new words . . . would have to be considered b i z a r r e . . . " In the context cited such behavior certainly is bizarre. But this does not presuppose that this bizarre behavior results from linguistic causes. Chaika admits that it is probably impossible to determine whether Laffal (1965) is correct in imputing volition to the use of such gibberish, but whether "the schizophrenic cannot help his peculiar speech" or whether "he speaks that way deliberately" is a psychiatric problem rather than a linguistic one. It certainly does not, in itself, support the view that "schizophrenics who produce gibberish are suffering from a disruption in the ability to match sound strings to actual words" since, for the most part, the utterances consist of occurring words of English. Many new words are added to the slang vocabulary by individuals attempting to keep their thoughts "secret." (Folb, 1972) While these often become secret terms shared by a group, the invention of new secret terms by schizophrenics is not unique. If it were known that the patient produced the gibberish while trying to produce actual terms or lexical items, the author's conclusion would be more acceptable. Furthermore, it is difficult to understand why the "production of gibberish" is equated with "a disruption in the ability to apply phonological rules" when in an earlier section the author states just the contrary. Similarly, it is questionable that the creation of neologisms "also could be caused by a failure to apply phonological rules correctly" when these neologisms are all in keeping with the phonological constraints of the grammar. More importantly, however, neologisms abound in "slips of the tongue" produced by nonschizophrenic, normal speakers, either because of incorrect application of derivational rules, or by haplologies or word blends as is shown in the following: z l.
a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.
the groupment of words in classes an intervening node ~ an intervenient node 3 they sit there motionly sequentially ~ sequencingly explanations ~ explanatings " J o h n s h a v e s J o h n " is not ambiguous ~ . . . is not ambigual in a m a n n e r of speaking ~ in a m a n n e r of speakingly likelihood ~ likeliness
All examples o f speech errors are taken from a corpus of over 6,000 items collected by m y s e l f in the last n u m b e r of years. T h e s e were s p o n t a n e o u s l y produced utterances by " n o n s c h i z o p h r e n i c s " like university professors and speakers at scholarly meetings. T h e intended utterance, if cited, occurs to the left of the arrow, the actual utterance to the right of the arrow.
500
V I C T O R I A A. F R O M K I N i. j. k. 1. m. n. o. p. q.
specializing in ~ specialating in s h r i m p and egg souffle ~ shrig souffle a pretty idiotic idea ~ a prettiotic idea instantaneous/momentary ~ momentaneous splinters/blisters ---> splisters m a i n l y / m o s t l y ---> maistly draft/breeze ~ dreeze marijuana[acid --~ maracid right up m y alley --~ right u p m y alledge (intrusion of k n o w l e d g e ? )
As further evidence for the "sporadic disruption in the ability to match semantic features with sound strings comprising actual lexical items" Chaika cites the "confusion of antonyms." But again, a common form of speech errors is just this substitution of antonyms for intended words (Fromkin, 1971, 1973; Nooteboom 1967) as is illustrated by the speech errors in 2. 2. a. I really hate to get up in the m o r n i n g ~ I really like to get up in the m o r n ing. b. It' at the top of the stack ~ . . . at the bottom . . . . c. T h i s r o o m is too d a m n cold - - * . . . is too d a m n hot d. T h e written part of the e x a m -+ the oral part . . . .
If one recognizes the distinction between the underlying grammar which represents one's knowledge of language and how one uses that grammar in speaking, it is clear that normal speakers show performance errors and deviances identical with those of the schizophrenic patient cited in the paper. Chaika also discusses, as a characteristic feature of schizophrenic speech, syntactic errors, noting in particular, violation of co-occurrence restrictions, substitutions, failure to pronominalize or delete, errors in tense and aspect marking, choice of a wrong article, and concludes that these "all seem to confirm the thesis of this paper that the schizophrenic suffers from a disruption in the ability to apply linguistic rules." The disruption in this ability is not a unique characteristic of schizophrenic speech, as the following errors reveal. 3. a. L a u r i e ' s b o y f r i e n d has longer hair t h a n she does ~ . . . has longer hair t h a n he does. ( W r o n g gender in pronominalization.) b. I think y o u r h o n o r has really p u t y o u r finger o n it ~ . . . p u t the finger on it. ( I n c o r r e c t determiner.) c. L e t ' s a s s u m e t h e r e ' s only o n e language b o x and it's in the left hemis p h e r e ~ . . . it's on the left hemisphere. (Preposition substitution.) d. T h e r e are ( s o m e ) beautiful h o u s e s ~ there are a beautiful h o u s e s ( W r o n g n u m b e r agreement.) e. T u r k i s h and G e r m a n j u s t d o n ' t h a v e it; neither does S w e d i s h ~ . . . so does S w e d i s h (Lack of negation agreement.) f. Y o u ' r e in a better position ~ . . . in a more better position (Duplication of comparative morpheme.)
SCHIZOPHRENIC L A N G U A G E
501
g. When a person grows old ~ when a person grow old (Nonapplication of agreement rule.) h. I learned how to write it ~ I learned how to wrote it. (Incorrect tense form.) i. You're going, aren't you? ~ you're going, isn't it? (Incorrect tag question)
Such errors reveal the existence of grammatical rules which are wrongly applied, or fail to apply in the speech of normal as well as schizophrenic speakers. The White House Transcripts (Gold, 1974) are excellent evidence that "normal" speech performance is filled with incorrect deletions, repetitions, syntactic rule misapplications, etc. (One must assume, of course, that the participants are nonschizophrenics.) 4. a. D. The fact that the civil case drew to a h a l t - t h a t the depositions were halted he is freed. (p. 60) b. P. Going on to the interrogatory t h i n g - w e shall s e e - y o u r view would not to give any further ground on that? (p. 79) c. H. That is the kind of thing that, you know, we really ought to do is call the Speaker. (p. 64) d. D. I suppose the other area we are going to see some publicity on in the coming weeks because I think now that the indictments are down there will be a cresting on t h a t - t h e w h i t e w a s h - t h e civil rights cases in advance. (p. 64) e. D. l was talking the '68 incident that occurred, (p. 84)
If such "disruption in the ability to apply rules of syntax" occur in normal speech it clearly cannot or should not be used as a defining characteristic of schizophrenic speech. I would agree with Chaika, from the textual material she cites, that "The oddity of X's productions seem mostly to be caused by aberrations in the structure of her discourse." But such aberrations support, rather than negate, Roger Brown's claim "that [while] there is no such thing as schizophrenic speech" there seems to be a good deal of evidence of "schizophrenic thought." The disconnected discourse seems to reflect para-linguistic and nonlinguistic aberrations. The author however argues "that part of normal linguistic competence is being able to assess a situation so as to mention only what it is proper to utter overtly." Any attempt to include constraints on logical sequencing or social relevance in a model of linguistic competence would seem to me to be too ambitious and bound to fail. What is being discussed is not linguistic competence but social competence or psychological competence. Chaika also poses as linguistic deviance the schizophrenic's "preoccupation with definition, abnormal rhyming, and inappropriate word associating" which she concludes "result from an interest in the properties of words, such as sound and semantic features." It seems doubtful that such an interest is the result of "a disturbance in those areas of the
502
V I C T O R I A A. F R O M K I N
brain concerned with linguistic production." In fact, it is just such an interest which underlies the genius of a Lewis Carroll and other humorists, and mark, to a great extent, poetic imagery. Even if this interest on the part of schizophrenics is an involuntary one, it does not represent a language disruption. It rather reveals the intactness of language competence. Rhyming games have been played by children and adults all over the world; rhyming slang invented by Cockney workers (in which, for example, "storm and strife" mea~s wife, and "glorious sinner" means dinner) shows the creative ability of speakers who have "an interest in the properties of words." It is even possible that this ability which is repressed by most normal speakers is released in schizophrenics. As the examples already given demonstrate, Chaika is wrong in her claim that "the kinds of errors associated with schizophrenic speech are different from 'normal' performance errors. 'Normals' make anticipatory slips of the tongue, and false starts, but they do not utter stretches of gibberish, rhyme, 'free associate' or misuse common words as the schizophrenic does." Patients undergoing psychoanalysis are able to associate as freely as do schizophrenics. And speech errors show the intrusion of associated similar sounding phrases or idioms (some of which create rhymes) or of associated thoughts as exemplified in 5. 5. a. b. c. d. e.
Sue weeded the garden ~ s e a weeded the garden. deep phrase m a r k e r ~ deep freeze m a r k e r It spread like wild fire ~ it spread like wild flower. s e s a m e seed crackers ~ S e s a m e Street crackers I ' m going to die young, b u t I'll die less y o u n g - - - ~ . . . I'll die yes lung [spoken by s o m e o n e w h o had j u s t given up smoking]. f. H e made headlines ~ he m a d e hairlines Ereferring to a barber]
Chaika is also incorrect in stating that normal people who make "slips of the tongue" always attempt to correct themselves. While such corrections do occur, a large percentage of errors go undetected by the speaker. And many errors produce utterances as bizarre as those cited in the paper, as seen in 6. 6. a. b. c. d. e. f.
whole second half ~ soul h e c o n d path I hate long hair in hot weather ~ I hate hot wear [wer] in long heather loose leaf notebook ~ [ n o w s nijf luwf] book three toed slo,th ~ slee throwed toth using the feature flat and plain --> using the peature plat and flain A r e there any corrections to the minutes of the last meeting ~ are there a n y collections to the m e e n u t e s of the m a s t leeting.
If one didn't know the context or the reference, utterances such as "soul hecond path" or "slee throwed toth" would rank as gibberish as much as X's utterance " H e still had fooch with teykrimez." And the speaker who said "I broke the whistle on my crotch" (for the intended
SCHIZOPHRENIC LANGUAGE
503
"I broke the crystal on my watch") might be said to have shown a difficulty "in ordering linguistic elements into meaningful structures." If the characteristic features singled out by Chaika are unique, then they are unique to the class of human speakers. This is not to deny the existence of schizophrenia, but merely to point out that the examples of schizophrenic speech do not show such speech to differ widely from that of nonschizophrenics. Linguistic analysis of speech errors of normals and schizophrenics can however provide insight into the ways in which we produce speech and help in the construction of models of linguistic performance. REFERENCES Brown, R. 1972. Schizophrenia, language, and reality. American Psychologist, 28, 395-403. Chaika, E. 1974. A Linguist Looks at "Schizophrenic" Language. Brain and Language, 1, 257-276 Folb, E. A. 1972. A Comparative Study of Urban Black Argot. Occasional Papers in Linguistics, No. 1. U C L A , 1-153 Fromkin, V. A. 1971. The Non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Language 47, 27-52 Fromkin, V. A. 1973. (ed.) Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence. The Hague: Mouton. Gold, G. (Ed.) 1974.. The White House Transcripts. New York: Bantam Books. Laffal, J. 1965. Pathological and Normal Language. New York: Atherton Press. Nooteboom, S. G. 1969. The Tongue Slips into Patterns. Nomen, Leyden Studies in Linguistics and Phonetics. The Hague: Mouton.