参照过程语言度量使用的认识论基础。

IF 1.6 2区 文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS
Attà Negri, Arianna Barazzetti
{"title":"参照过程语言度量使用的认识论基础。","authors":"Attà Negri, Arianna Barazzetti","doi":"10.1007/s10936-025-10149-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The analysis of epistemological beliefs underlying psychotherapeutic interventions has been largely neglected by research in psychotherapy, training in psychotherapy and psychology, and often by theorists of different clinical orientations. The main risks of this neglect are the unexamined adoption of the epistemology that is taken for granted by the culture and is largely inconsistent with the specifics of the object of study of psychological science; the reduction of intervention effectiveness due to the inconsistency between epistemology, theory, and practice; and the maintenance of the gap between research and practice due to the different epistemologies used by clinicians and researchers. This article discusses the scientific status of the computerized linguistic measures of the Referential Process when used for clinical and research purposes. Our claim is that these measures developed to test Wilma Bucci's multiple code theory don't represent an objective examination of the psychotherapeutic process, but rather a methodological option to guide the researcher and clinician in identifying the most plausible scientific hypotheses about the complex phenomenon of emotional communication between speakers. Comparison of data from different points of view (therapist, patient, external observer, computerized linguistic analysis, etc.) and in different contexts (therapies, psychological tests, everyday conversations, experimental situations, etc.) will be presented as promising and viable ways to examine the validity of the hypotheses based on the Referential Process theory.</p>","PeriodicalId":47689,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Psycholinguistic Research","volume":"54 3","pages":"33"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12062047/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Epistemological Foundation for the Use of the Linguistic Measures of the Referential Process.\",\"authors\":\"Attà Negri, Arianna Barazzetti\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10936-025-10149-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The analysis of epistemological beliefs underlying psychotherapeutic interventions has been largely neglected by research in psychotherapy, training in psychotherapy and psychology, and often by theorists of different clinical orientations. The main risks of this neglect are the unexamined adoption of the epistemology that is taken for granted by the culture and is largely inconsistent with the specifics of the object of study of psychological science; the reduction of intervention effectiveness due to the inconsistency between epistemology, theory, and practice; and the maintenance of the gap between research and practice due to the different epistemologies used by clinicians and researchers. This article discusses the scientific status of the computerized linguistic measures of the Referential Process when used for clinical and research purposes. Our claim is that these measures developed to test Wilma Bucci's multiple code theory don't represent an objective examination of the psychotherapeutic process, but rather a methodological option to guide the researcher and clinician in identifying the most plausible scientific hypotheses about the complex phenomenon of emotional communication between speakers. Comparison of data from different points of view (therapist, patient, external observer, computerized linguistic analysis, etc.) and in different contexts (therapies, psychological tests, everyday conversations, experimental situations, etc.) will be presented as promising and viable ways to examine the validity of the hypotheses based on the Referential Process theory.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47689,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Psycholinguistic Research\",\"volume\":\"54 3\",\"pages\":\"33\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12062047/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Psycholinguistic Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-025-10149-1\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Psycholinguistic Research","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-025-10149-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对心理治疗干预的认识论信念的分析在很大程度上被心理治疗研究、心理治疗和心理学培训以及不同临床取向的理论家所忽视。这种忽视的主要风险是未经检验地采用认识论,这种认识论被文化视为理所当然,并且在很大程度上与心理科学研究对象的具体情况不一致;由于认识论、理论和实践的不一致导致干预效果的降低;由于临床医生和研究人员使用不同的认识论,研究和实践之间的差距一直存在。本文讨论了参照过程的计算机语言测量在临床和研究中的科学地位。我们的观点是,这些用于测试Wilma Bucci多重密码理论的方法并不代表对心理治疗过程的客观检查,而是一种方法选择,用于指导研究人员和临床医生识别关于说话者之间情感交流这一复杂现象的最合理的科学假设。从不同角度(治疗师,患者,外部观察者,计算机语言分析等)和不同背景(治疗,心理测试,日常对话,实验情境等)的数据比较将作为有希望和可行的方法来检验基于参考过程理论的假设的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Epistemological Foundation for the Use of the Linguistic Measures of the Referential Process.

The analysis of epistemological beliefs underlying psychotherapeutic interventions has been largely neglected by research in psychotherapy, training in psychotherapy and psychology, and often by theorists of different clinical orientations. The main risks of this neglect are the unexamined adoption of the epistemology that is taken for granted by the culture and is largely inconsistent with the specifics of the object of study of psychological science; the reduction of intervention effectiveness due to the inconsistency between epistemology, theory, and practice; and the maintenance of the gap between research and practice due to the different epistemologies used by clinicians and researchers. This article discusses the scientific status of the computerized linguistic measures of the Referential Process when used for clinical and research purposes. Our claim is that these measures developed to test Wilma Bucci's multiple code theory don't represent an objective examination of the psychotherapeutic process, but rather a methodological option to guide the researcher and clinician in identifying the most plausible scientific hypotheses about the complex phenomenon of emotional communication between speakers. Comparison of data from different points of view (therapist, patient, external observer, computerized linguistic analysis, etc.) and in different contexts (therapies, psychological tests, everyday conversations, experimental situations, etc.) will be presented as promising and viable ways to examine the validity of the hypotheses based on the Referential Process theory.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.00%
发文量
92
期刊介绍: Journal of Psycholinguistic Research publishes carefully selected papers from the several disciplines engaged in psycholinguistic research, providing a single, recognized medium for communications among linguists, psychologists, biologists, sociologists, and others. The journal covers a broad range of approaches to the study of the communicative process, including: the social and anthropological bases of communication; development of speech and language; semantics (problems in linguistic meaning); and biological foundations. Papers dealing with the psychopathology of language and cognition, and the neuropsychology of language and cognition, are also included.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信