Pragmatic and executive dysfunction in schizophrenia

Theory of mind and language comprehension in schizophrenia: Poor mindreading affects figurative language comprehension beyond intelligence deficits

“…Our results are also in line with previous studies examining the association of ToM performance with pragmatic aspects of language such as the comprehension of metaphors and/or ironies (Herold et al, 2002;Champagne-Lavau & Stip, 2010) or proverb interpretation (Brüne & Bodenstein, 2005;Greig et al, 2004). Our data show a clear connection between impairments in ToM and pragmatic aspects of LC, but are not conclusive with regard to processing differences between the different kinds of non-literal language.…”

“…Any deficit in the processing of such pragmatic aspects of language could play an important role in the social isolation and other symptoms experienced by schizophrenic patients. Many studies show that although schizophrenics are able to understand literal language, they have problems understanding non-literal language (see Champagne-Lavau & Stip, 2010). On the other hand, some authors propose that basic structural components of language (Martin & McDonald, 2003) and basic language comprehension (Cutting, 1985;Frith & Allen, 1988) are rather intact in this disorder, suggesting that only high level language processing is affected in schizophrenia.…”

The Tepribaskog Assessment Model to the Violations of Maxim of Quality in Bahasa Indonesia: A Case of Residural Type of Schizophrenia with Alogia Symptoms

“…[7] Can not understand the function of speech context, formal or informal situation. He also said that the patient is always treated late already in a chronic condition, so the handling is very long.…”

The processing of humour by individuals suffering from schizophrenia

“…Recently, a number of studies have focused on the pragmatic competence of schizophrenic patients in several dimensions of non-literal language processing, such as metaphor (Langdon et al 2002a;Langdon et al 2002b;Brüne & Bodenstein 2005;Mo et al 2008;Gavilán & García-Albea 2011;Champagne-Lavau & Stip 2010;Varga et al 2014), irony (Langdon et al 2002a;Langdon et al 2002b;Herold et al 2002;Mo et al 2008;Gavilán & García-Albea 2011;Colle et al 2013;Varga et al 2013;Varga et al 2014), conversational implicatures (Corcoran & Frith 1996;Abu-Akel 1999;Tényi et al 2002;Mazza et al 2008;Colle et al 2013;Varga et al 2014) and humour (Corcoran et al 1997;Polimeni & Reiss 2006;Tsoi et al 2008;Marjoram et al 2005;Polimeni et al 2010;Ivanova et al 2014). The conversational implicatures are deliberate violations of the Gricean maxims (Grice 1968;Grice 1975), which are widely used in normal, everyday verbal interactions in order to point at a hidden, implicitly coded opinion by the speaker (for examples see the Appendix section).…”

“…Since non-literal and indirect utterances are widely used in everyday verbal communication, such deficits in the smooth handling of discourse phenomena can lead to social isolation (Champagne-Lavau & Stip 2010). According to Sperber and Wilson (Sperber & Wilson 1986;Sperber 2000), it is widely accepted that successful communication depends on the successful inference of beliefs and intentions of the speaker in conversation, and they also highlight the role of ToM ability in understanding utterances that involve non-literal meaning.…”