Friedrich Janette
University of Geneva.
Hist Psychiatry. 2006 Dec;17(68 Pt 4):419-36. doi: 10.1177/0957154X06063064.
This paper presents a comparative analysis of the research on aphasia carried out by the linguist Roman Jakobson and the neuropsychiatrist Kurt Goldstein. The linguistic theory of aphasia advocated by Jakobson in the 1950s and 1960s is based on clinical case studies reported by Goldstein at the beginning of the 1930s. However, Jakobson used Goldstein's clinical observations without taking into account his theoretical work on language pathology. In particular, Jakobson fed the symptoms described by Goldstein into a structuralist model, allowing him to predict different types of aphasia deductively. Goldstein, however, saw the clinical manifestations of aphasia as a particular way of being in the world. By studying the changes associated with the patient's reaction to the disease, Goldstein wanted to reach an understanding of language functioning in the normal subject. He distinguished between an instrumental use and a symbolic use of language, the latter mainly characteristic of language use in the normal subject. Only a symbolic use reveals the essence of language by showing its intimate nature, the psychic link tying the subject to the world.
本文对语言学家罗曼·雅各布森和神经精神病学家库尔特·戈尔茨坦所开展的失语症研究进行了比较分析。雅各布森在20世纪50年代和60年代所倡导的失语症语言学理论，是基于戈尔茨坦在20世纪30年代初报告的临床病例研究。然而，雅各布森利用了戈尔茨坦的临床观察结果，却没有考虑他在语言病理学方面的理论著作。特别是，雅各布森将戈尔茨坦描述的症状纳入一个结构主义模型，从而使他能够演绎地预测不同类型的失语症。然而，戈尔茨坦将失语症的临床表现视为一种特定的在世方式。通过研究与患者对疾病的反应相关的变化，戈尔茨坦希望达成对正常主体语言功能的理解。他区分了语言的工具性使用和象征性使用，后者主要是正常主体语言使用的特征。只有象征性使用通过展现其内在本质，即把主体与世界联系起来的心理纽带，揭示了语言的本质。
