Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:20:02.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cats, dogs, and sweets in the clinical negotiation of reality: On politeness and coherence in pediatric discourse*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Karin Aronsson  and
Bengt Rundström
Karin Aronsson
Affiliation:
Department of Communication Studies, Linköping University, Sweden
Bengt Rundström
Affiliation:
Department of Communication Studies, Linköping University, Sweden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Doctor–parent–child interaction is analyzed in terms of Brown and Levinson's (1978) theory on facework and politeness. The determinism of the Brown and Levinson (B & L) model is discussed in terms of the present data, which show how discourse is a matter of continuous negotiation between participants. For instance, it is shown how the on record/off record distinction is best understood sequentially. When doctors seem to sense that respectful indirectness does not work, they tend to phrase their requests in an increasingly direct fashion. Hence, the full meaning of doctors' directives is revealed only via the outcome of social interaction, regulated by both parties (doctor and patient/spokesperson). This means that utterances must be analyzed sequentially (and not in a mechanistic, static fashion). Moreover, discourse cannot be understood in terms of any unidirectional social determinism. It is also shown here how doctors can talk to parents through children, as it were. Within a joking relationship format with the child, it is possible for a doctor to convey potentially offensive information to the child's parent. Doctors' moves can thus be seen as direct or indirect depending on type of addressee perspective (parent as participant or as side-participant). The pediatric multiparty setting thus highlights the impossibility of a more formalistic application of the B & L model. (Politeness, facework, negotiations, medical discourse, child discourse)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 1989 , pp. 483 - 504
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aronsson, K. (1989). Review of Brown & Levinson (1987). Current Psychological Research and Reviews 8:61–62.Google Scholar
Aronsson, K., Jönsson, L., & Linell, P. (1987). The courtroom hearing as a middle ground: Speech accommodation by lawyers and defendants. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 6:99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronsson, K., & Sätterlund-Larsson, U. (1987). Politeness strategies and doctor-patient communication. On the social choreography of collaborative thinking. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 6:1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13:145–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. N. (ed.), Questions and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 56–289.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Carlson, T. B. (1982). Hearers and speech acts. Language 58:332–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coupland, N., Coupland, J., Giles, H., & Kenwood, K. (1988). Accommodating the elderly: Invoking and extending a theory. Language in Society 17:1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coupland, N., Grainger, K., & Coupland, J. (1988). Politeness in context: Intergenerational issues. Language in Society 17:253–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, R. T., Tracy, K., & Spisak, F. (1986). The discourse of requests: Assessment of a politeness approach. Human Communication Research 12:437–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1975). Frame analysis. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goody, E. N. (1978). Towards a theory of questions. In Goody, E. N. (ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 17–43.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. H. (1986). Discourse: Scope without depth. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 57:49–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Schenkein, J. (ed.) (1978). Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Strong, P. M. (1979). The ceremonial order of the clinic: Parents, doctors, and medical bureaucracies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Tannen, D., & Wallat, C. (1983). Doctor/mother/child communication: Linguistic analysis of pediatric interaction. In Fisher, S. & Todd, A. D. (eds.), The social organization of doctorpatient communication. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Wikran, R., Faleide, A., & Blakar, R. M. (1978). Communication in the family of the asthmatic child. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 57:11–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed