We very much appreciate the concerns Dr Maatz raises. Indeed, we raised many of them in our discussion. Here we’ll take the opportunity to elaborate on our decision-making process with regard to the analyses we reported.

As Dr Maatz and we ourselves point out, we did not include a non-psychiatric control group in our analysis. We found it difficult to identify an appropriate control for our particular corpus. Writing about illness in a journal for medical professionals is a rather particular kind of enterprise that commands specific language. We considered the caregiver and family-member accounts in the Schizophrenia Bulletin (which Dr Maatz called ‘second-person accounts’). However, we were concerned about comparing samples with different themes (writing about oneself in the first group, writing about other people in the proposed control group). That would almost certainly change pronoun use. Furthermore, family members can sometimes present with attenuated, subclinical versions of the experiences, behaviours and deficits observed in psychotic illness. ^{Reference Hardie2} We thought these might detract from our original objective, which was to analyse word use by people with schizophrenia compared with that by individuals with another mental illness.

We agree with Dr Maatz that this comparison between two illness groups limits the conclusions we can draw. We felt we were suitably circumspect but we are happy to rehearse the point. We are gathering new data, in which process we ask standard questions of participants (including questions that engage discussion of self, others, and impersonal topics). Furthermore we are gathering those data from participants at various illness phases (prodrome, acute psychosis, chronic illness) in order to examine the hypotheses suggested by our initial study of the Schizophrenia Bulletin corpus.

With respect to context analysis (how words co-occur), we agree that this is an interesting and important issue. We do not think that our word-counting approach is the final word on meaning in computational linguistics (no pun intended). We are eager to analyse larger meaning structures in our corpus using the new computational techniques Dr Maatz suggests, ^{Reference Brown, Snodgrass, Kemper and Herman3} among others. ^{Reference Mota, Vasconcelos, Lemos, Pieretti, Kinouchi and Cecchi4} We look forward to reading more about the analyses of the Schizophrenia Bulletin corpus she mentions in the peer-reviewed literature.

Indeed, we hope that this approach, analysing the writing and speech of patients with mental illness using computational linguistics, becomes another tool employed by those committed to understanding and treating mental illness. We are glad that Dr Maatz is interested in joining us in this venture.