|
Abstract
|
INTRODUCTION: In the absence of appropriate care, psychotraumatic consequences (revival, hyperarousal, avoidance strategies, dissociation and other clinical forms of post traumatic symptoms) can take control of a large part of the subject's existence (psychological, physical, social) and affect the ability of the victim to regain ground on the intrusions that harass, and to take up new life projects. More objective than the current semiological and psychometric approaches, and in the absence of biomarkers that may be used in clinical practice, psycholinguistics opens up an epistemological renewal of the conception of trauma and its clinical consequences, in particular through the definition of the Psycho Linguistic Traumatic Syndrome (SPLIT). If such conceptions have been developed based on the analysis of traumatic accounts of subjects injured in war and attacks, other forms of psychotraumatic confrontations also deserve to be considered. In this paper, our objective was to better characterize the pronominal forms of agency in the traumatic and non-traumatic narratives produced by women victims of domestic and/or sexual violence.
METHODS: Nineteen women aged 20 to 60 victims of domestic violence and diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview) as well as a matched control group participated in the study. The subjects completed the French versions of Post Traumatic Checklist (PCL-5), Dissociative Experience Scale (DES) and Hospital and Anxiety Depression Scale (HAD). Traumatic and non-traumatic narratives were linguistically coded and scored on the SPLIT-10 scale.
RESULTS: Traumatic narratives contained significantly more first person singular pronouns than the non-traumatic narratives of controls or the non-traumatic narratives of psychically injured people. Traumatic narratives contained significantly more of the direct object pronoun "me" as well as indirect object pronouns. In traumatic narratives, the frequency of use of the subject pronoun "I" tended to correlate negatively with the HAD-A, HAD-D and SPLIT-10, while the frequency of use of the direct object pronoun "me" tended to correlate positively with DES, HAD-A, HAD-D as well as SPLIT-10. Finally, traumatic narratives contained significantly more verbs in the passive voice than non-traumatic narratives.
DISCUSSION: There was a gradient in the use of the first person singular pronoun that was inversely correlated to the degree of traumatic valence of the narratives: the control group used "I" less often than the psychically injured people who appeared to use this pronoun all the more as their narratives had a traumatic valence. In other words, even in the so-called "non-traumatic" narratives produced by subjects suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, the trauma seemed to be inscribed in the discourse, testimony to dissociation, as the seen in the correlation of this pronominal expression dimension of "I" with the SPLIT-10 scale. The use of the direct object complement was correlated with greater psycho-traumatic morbidity (dissociative, depressive and anxious) than the use of the "I", the latter remaining however a pathological mark instead of the use of the pronouns "we" or "one". Saying "I" translated less symptomatology than saying "me", but it was when the subject said "we" or "one" that he appeared to have returned to a normal discourse, no longer suffering from the torments of reliving or pathological dissociation. The identification of linguistic markers deserves to be pursued in order to better objectively describe post-traumatic psychiatric disorders, to better identify them in clinical practice in the field and to monitor the efficiency of the recommended psychotherapies. More generally, we may put forward the hypothesis that the direct modification of the patient's language, thanks to the intervention of the practitioner, from a speech composed of linguistic markers testifying to the trauma towards a normalized speech could help to treat post-traumatic symptoms.
===
Introduction
Davantage objectif que les approches séméiologiques et psychométriques actuelles, la psycholinguistique ouvre un renouveau épistémologique de la conception du trauma.
Méthodes
Un récit traumatique et un récit non traumatique ont fait l'objet d'un codage linguistique et d'une cotation à l'échelle SPLIT-10 chez 19 femmes âgées de 20 à 60 ans ayant souffert de violences conjugales et présentant un trouble de stress post-traumatique à l'entretien structuré.
Résultats
Les récits traumatiques contiennent significativement davantage de pronoms de 1re personne du singulier. Les récits non traumatiques des témoins contiennent significativement moins de pronoms de 1re personne du singulier que les récits non traumatiques des personnes blessées psychiques. Les récits traumatiques contiennent significativement plus de pronoms " me " COD ainsi que de pronoms COI.
Discussion
Il existe un gradient d'utilisation du pronom de 1re personne du singulier inversement corrélé au degré de valence traumatique des récits. Même dans les récits dits " non-traumatiques " élaborés par les sujets souffrant de trouble de stress post-traumatique, le trauma s'inscrit malgré tout, en creux dans leurs discours. Dire " je " traduit une symptomatologie moindre que dire " me ", mais c'est lorsque le sujet dit " nous " ou " on " qu'il apparaît être redevenu à un discours normal, ne souffrant plus des affres des reviviscences ou de la dissociation pathologique. Ainsi, l'identification de linguo-marqueurs mérite d'être poursuivie afin de mieux décrire objectivement les troubles psychiques post-traumatiques, de mieux les repérer en pratique clinique de terrain et d'y suivre l'efficacité des psychothérapies recommandées. Plus généralement, nous pouvons avancer l'hypothèse que la modification directe du langage du patient passant d'un discours marqué de linguo-marqueurs témoignant du trauma vers un discours normalisé, pourrait aider à traiter les symptômes post-traumatiques.
Language: fr |