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

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)

Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user discussions to academic definitions

“…From S's perspective, one way to attack and at the same time attempt to evade possible consequences is to use off-record malicious impoliteness. The assessment of the degree of on-or off-recordness may be negotiated and contested by the interactants over a number of turns (Aronson and Rundström 1989), but as on-record as S may make her utterance, this does not mean that her intent is, or ever becomes, retrievable. Rather, increased on-recordness means that fewer, and ultimately only one particular interpretation, can be reasonably attributed to her utterance.…”

Triadic communication in the primary care paediatric consultation: a review of the literature

“…[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] Thirteen papers on the paediatric triadic consultation in settings outside primary care, which met the criteria for inclusion, were found as shown in Table 2. [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] They are diverse in terms of the methodology used to evaluate the consultations, settings, and study designs. Eleven quantitative studies, nine qualitative studies, and one literature review of triadic paediatric consultation were found.…”

“…Aronsson and Rundström 29 Quantitative study of 30 The child has 8% of total discourse space. Although it has been shown that children can be involved in some of the business or instrumental behaviour in the consultation, 24 Tates et al demonstrated that when children are participants in this way, doctor-child exchange is nearly always in the form of the child being an information giver and cooperating with the examination.…”

“…30 They found that triadic paediatric consultations are governed by politeness conventions; which suggests that doctors do not want to offend parents or challenge parental authority. 30 In another analysis, the same authors illustrated how the doctor, who has institutional power, is in a position to invite a participant to speak and to allocate turns in the consultation. 29 The adults, who in this study were the parents, have ultimate authority and executive power over the child.…”

Transactional Analysis as Psychotherapy Method – A Discourse Analytic Study

“…The Linköping group is interested in concepts like discourse space (Aronsson & Rundström 1988, 1989, allocation of discourse space, turn-taking control, direction of conversation, orchestration (Aronsson, 1999), allocation and definition of turns in interaction and preferential right of interpretation (Peyrot 1987;Buttny, 1990;Aronsson & Cederborg, 1996), control of choice, change and summation of topics. These different aspects on what determines communicative exchange affect balance and influence the conversation, for good and bad.…”