ABSTRACT
Issues involved with the use of essays written by five current and former patients to illustrate aberrant language and its origins in disturbances of early attachment are discussed. These clinical illustrations of the book’s hypothesis about language development and aberration comprise what is known as idiographic data. Such data is systemic and qualitative rather than nomothetic, linear and quantitative. The controversy is reviewed as to whether it constitutes valid exemplification of a hypothesis that aspires toward scientific rigor. The difference between primary and secondary clinical data is discussed. How the author selected the cases and enlisted the cooperation of the patients is reviewed, and the possible effect of hidden biases and transference/countertransference pressures is examined.
