Purpose: The RLI assesses how a speaker linguistically constructs persons in their life—whether they refer to others through enduring relational categories (mother, brother, husband, boss) or through neutral, detached, or purely functional descriptors (“that individual,” “the person I live with,” “the man”). The instrument is designed to reveal whether relationality is treated as a settled ontological fact about a person or as a conditional label that can be withdrawn.
Administration: The instrument is scored from a speech sample of approximately 500–1,500 words, drawn from either a semi-structured interview covering neutral, positive, and conflict-laden topics, or from naturalistic writing samples (journals, letters, transcripts). A minimum of three topical domains is required for reliable context-sensitivity scoring.
Component A — Frequency Measures
This component counts how the speaker refers to specific persons across the full sample.
A1. Relational Reference Rate (RRR) Percentage of third-person references using relational terms: mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter, husband, wife, aunt, uncle, grandparent, pastor, neighbor, colleague, boss, friend.
Calculation: (Relational references ÷ Total references to that person) × 100
A2. Neutral/Impersonal Reference Rate (NIRR) Percentage of third-person references using impersonal or distancing descriptors: that person, the guy, this individual, the woman, he, she (when used persistently in place of a relational term already established), a certain man, someone I know.
Calculation: (Impersonal references ÷ Total references to that person) × 100
A3. Proper-Name Substitution Rate (PNSR) Percentage of references using only a proper name in contexts where a relational term would be expected (e.g., “Robert said” when referring to one’s own father).
Scoring note: Each target person should be scored separately, then averaged. A speaker may show a high RRR for one person (e.g., a sibling) and a very low RRR for another (e.g., a parent). These per-person discrepancies are retained in the final profile.
Component B — Context Sensitivity
This component tests whether relational language remains stable across emotional contexts or shifts predictably under pressure.
B1. Neutral-Context Baseline RRR measured during descriptive, non-evaluative speech (e.g., recounting a routine event, describing appearance, explaining logistics).
B2. Stress/Conflict RRR RRR measured during episodes of recalled conflict, grievance, frustration, or describing moral failure on the part of the referent.
B3. Differential Score (ΔRRR) B1 minus B2. A large positive value indicates that relational terms drop when the speaker is under emotional pressure; a value near zero indicates stable relationality across contexts; a persistently low value across both contexts indicates general de-relationalization independent of stress.
Interpretation Bands:
- ΔRRR ≤ 10 points: stable across contexts
- ΔRRR 11–30 points: moderate context sensitivity
- ΔRRR 31–60 points: strong conflict-triggered shift
- ΔRRR > 60 points: near-total collapse of relational language under stress
- RRR below 20 in all contexts: pervasive de-relationalization (context-independent)
Component C — Role Stability Score
This component assesses whether the speaker treats roles as enduring ontological realities or as conditional labels contingent on performance.
C1. Enduring-Role Markers Phrases treating the role as a settled fact regardless of conduct:
- “My father, even though he failed me…”
- “He is still my brother.”
- “She was my mother; that doesn’t change.”
- Grammatical retention of the relational term while describing wrongdoing.
C2. Conditional-Role Markers Phrases treating the role as withdrawable based on behavior:
- “He was never really a father to me.”
- “She stopped being my mother the day…”
- “I don’t consider him family anymore.”
- “That man—I don’t call him my father.”
- Replacement of a relational term with a name or impersonal descriptor following a described failure.
C3. Role Stability Score (RSS) Count enduring-role markers and conditional-role markers across the sample. Score on a 5-point scale:
- 5 — Roles consistently treated as enduring; relational terms retained even while describing serious wrongdoing.
- 4 — Mostly enduring; occasional conditional framing on peripheral relationships.
- 3 — Mixed; roles treated as enduring for some persons, conditional for others.
- 2 — Mostly conditional; enduring framing appears only for relationships currently functioning well.
- 1 — Roles uniformly treated as conditional; withdrawal of relational language follows any perceived failure.
Component D — Narrative Framing
This component examines how failure episodes are grammatically structured.
D1. Role-Constitutive Failure Framing (“failed as X”) Stories frame wrongdoing as a failure within the role, leaving the role intact:
- “He failed as my father.”
- “She wasn’t the mother I needed her to be, but she was my mother.”
- “My boss made a wrong call.”
The role term survives the failure description.
D2. Act-Focused Framing (“this person did wrong”) Stories frame wrongdoing as isolated acts, with the role term sometimes absent altogether:
- “This person did something terrible.”
- “The individual I lived with during that time mistreated me.”
- “He hit me.” (with no role designation ever attached)
D3. Role-Dissolving Framing Stories frame the wrongdoing as having nullified the role:
- “That’s when he stopped being my father.”
- “After that, she was just a stranger who happened to have raised me.”
Scoring: Classify each failure narrative (minimum three per sample when available) into D1, D2, or D3. Record the distribution as percentages.
Composite Scoring and Output Profiles
Combine scores across A–D to place the speaker in one of four profiles.
Profile 1 — High Relational Integration
- RRR consistently ≥ 70 across contexts
- ΔRRR ≤ 10
- RSS of 4 or 5
- Narrative framing predominantly D1
The speaker treats relational roles as settled features of reality. Failure within a relationship is described without dissolving the relational bond linguistically. Relational language is stable regardless of emotional tone.
Profile 2 — Situational Relationality
- RRR moderate (40–70), variable by topic
- ΔRRR 11–30
- RSS of 3
- Narrative framing mixed D1/D2
The speaker uses relational terms but with a degree of flexibility. Roles remain intact for functioning relationships but may be softened or modified when describing strain. This is the most common pattern in general populations.
Profile 3 — Detached-Agent Dominant
- RRR consistently low (below 30) across all contexts, including neutral ones
- ΔRRR near zero (because baseline is already low)
- RSS of 1 or 2
- Narrative framing predominantly D2
The speaker habitually refers to people as agents or individuals rather than as role-bearers. This pattern is context-independent; relational language is absent even in neutral description. The speaker’s linguistic world is populated by discrete persons rather than by a network of relational categories.
Profile 4 — Conflict-Triggered De-Relationalization
- RRR moderate-to-high in neutral contexts (50+)
- ΔRRR > 30, often severe (> 60)
- RSS of 1 or 2
- Narrative framing shifts sharply toward D3 under conflict
The speaker uses relational language freely in calm or positive contexts but withdraws it under stress, grievance, or moral disappointment. The role is treated as contingent on the referent’s behavior; failure triggers linguistic dissolution of the relationship. This profile is distinct from Profile 3 in that relational capacity is present but selectively suspended.
Interpretive Notes
- The RLI measures linguistic patterns, not moral judgments about the persons being described. A speaker describing genuine abuse may legitimately avoid certain relational terms; the instrument identifies the pattern without prescribing it.
- Per-person scoring is essential. A single composite score obscures the fact that a speaker may relate stably to some persons and unstably to others. The pattern of which relationships produce de-relationalization is often more diagnostic than the overall score.
- Cultural and linguistic conventions vary. The instrument should be calibrated to the speech community being studied; some languages and subcultures use proper names or impersonal descriptors more freely without implying relational withdrawal.
- Longitudinal administration reveals whether a profile is stable or situational. Grief, recent conflict, or ongoing estrangement may temporarily shift a speaker into Profile 4 without reflecting a durable pattern.
- The instrument is diagnostic, not evaluative. Profiles 3 and 4 are not pathological by definition; they describe how the speaker is currently constructing the persons in their life through speech.
