1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Argumentation in Context
  4. Volume 9, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 9, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Dialogue moves are a pragmatic instrument that captures the most important categories of “dialogical intentions.” This paper adapts this tool to the conversational setting of chronic care communication, characterized by the general goal of making reasoned decisions concerning patients’ conditions, shared by the latter. Seven mutually exclusive and comprehensive categories were identified, whose reliability was tested on an Italian corpus of provider-patient encounters in diabetes care. The application of this method was illustrated through explorative analyses identifying possible correlations between the dialogical structure of medical interviews and one of the indicators of personalized decision-making, namely the specificity of the recommendations given by the provider (“customization”). The statistical analyses show a significant correlation between the exchange of personal information and very specific and customized recommendations for change. It suggests how the creation of common ground, exceeding the boundaries of the paternalistic or patient-centered models, can lead to highly effective communication.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.18044.mac
2020-10-28
2024-09-09

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jaic.18044.mac
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allan, Keith
    2013 What is common ground?InPerspectives in pragmatics, philosophy & psychology, volume 2, ed.Alessandro Capone, Franco Lo Piparo, and Marco Carapezza, 285–310. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Arora, Neeraj, and Colleen McHorney
    2000 Patient preferences for medical decision making: who really wants to participate?Medical Care38: 335–341. doi:  10.1097/00005650‑200003000‑00010
     https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200003000-00010 [Google Scholar]
  3. Artstein, Ron, and Massimo Poesio
    2008 Inter-coder agreement for computational linguistics. Computational Linguistics34: 555–596. 10.1162/coli.07‑034‑R2
     https://doi.org/10.1162/coli.07-034-R2 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2009 Bias decreases in proportion to the number of annotators. InProceedings of FG-MoL 2005: The 10th conference on Formal Grammar, ed.Gerhard Jaeger, Paola Monachesi, Gerald Penn, James Rogers, and Shuly Wintner, 139:141–150. Edinburgh, UK: CSLI publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Asterhan, Christa, and Baruch Schwarz
    2009 Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialog. Cognitive Science33: 374–400. doi:  10.1111/j.1551‑6709.2009.01017.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01017.x [Google Scholar]
  6. Baca-Motes, Katie, Amber Brown, Ayelet Gneezy, Elizabeth A. Keenan, and Leif D. Nelson
    2013 Commitment and behavior change: Evidence from the field. Journal of Consumer Research39: 1070–1084. doi:  10.1086/667226
     https://doi.org/10.1086/667226 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bigi, Sarah
    2014 Healthy reasoning: The role of effective argumentation for enhancing elderly patients’ self-management abilities in chronic care. InActive ageing and healthy living: A human centered approach in research and innovation as source of quality of life, ed.Giovanni Riva, Paolo Ajmone Marsan, and Claudio Grassi, 193–203. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 2016 Communicating (with) care: a linguistic approach to doctor-patient interactions. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bigi, Sarah, and Nanon Labrie
    2016 Criteria for the reconstruction and analysis of doctors’ argumentation in the context of chronic care. InArgumentation and reasoned action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon, 2015, ed.Marcin Lewiński and Dima Mohammed, 251–265. London, UK: College Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Braddock, Clarence H., Kelly A. Edwards, Nicole M. Hasenberg, Tracy L. Laidley, and Wendy Levinson
    1999 Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMA282: 2313–2320. doi:  10.1001/jama.282.24.2313
     https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.282.24.2313 [Google Scholar]
  11. Brennan, Patricia, and Indiana Strombom
    1998 Improving health care by understanding patient preferences: the role of computer technology. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMA5: 257–62. doi:  10.1136/jamia.1998.0050257
     https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.1998.0050257 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cavicchio, Federica, and Massimo Poesio
    2009 Multimodal corpora annotation: Validation methods to assess coding scheme reliability. InMultimodal corpora, ed.Michael Kipp, Jean-Claude Martin, Patrizia Paggio, and Dirk Heylen, 109–121. Berlin, Germany: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑04793‑0_7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04793-0_7 [Google Scholar]
  13. Charles, Cathy, Amiram Gafni, and Tim Whelan
    1997 Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (Or it takes, at least two to tango). Social Science and Medicine44: 681–692. doi:  10.1016/S0277‑9536(96)00221‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00221-3 [Google Scholar]
  14. Chewning, Betty, Carma Bylund, Bupendra Shah, Neeraj Arora, Jennifer Gueguen, and Gregory Makoul
    2012 Patient preferences for shared decisions: A systematic review. Patient Education and Counseling86: 9–18. doi:  10.1016/j.pec.2011.02.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2011.02.004 [Google Scholar]
  15. Clayton, Margaret F., Seth Latimer, Todd W. Dunn, and Leonard Haas
    2011 Assessing patient-centered communication in a family practice setting: How do we measure it, and whose opinion matters?Patient Education and Counseling84: 294–302. doi:  10.1016/j.pec.2011.05.027
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2011.05.027 [Google Scholar]
  16. Cvengros, Jamie, Christensen, Alan, Cunningham, Cassie, Hillis, Steven, & Kaboli, Peter
    2009 Patient preference for and reports of provider behavior: Impact of symmetry on patient outcomes. Health Psychology, 28(6), 660–667. doi:  10.1037/a0016087
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016087 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dascal, Marcelo
    1992 On the pragmatic structure of conversation. In(On) Searle on conversation, ed.Herman Parret and Jef Verschueren, 35–57. Amsterdam, Netherlands-Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/pbns.21.04das
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.21.04das [Google Scholar]
  18. Dunin-Keplicz, Barbara, and Rineke Verbrugge
    2001 The role of dialogue in cooperative problem solving. InProceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning, ed.Ernest Davis, John McCarthy, Leora Morgenstern, and Raymond Reiter, 89–104. New York, NY: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Durand, Marie Anne, Odette Wegwarth, Jacky Boivin, and Glyn Elwyn
    2012 Design and usability of heuristic-based deliberation tools for women facing amniocentesis. Health Expectations15: 32–48. doi:  10.1111/j.1369‑7625.2010.00651.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00651.x [Google Scholar]
  20. van Eemeren, Frans
    2010 Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma- dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam, Netherlands-Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/aic.2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2011 In Context: Giving contextualization its rightful place in the study of argumentation. Argumentation25: 141–161. doi:  10.1007/s10503‑011‑9211‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9211-1 [Google Scholar]
  22. van Eemeren, Frans, and Peter Houtlosser
    2005 Theoretical construction and argumentative reality: An analytic model of critical discussion and conventionalised types of argumentative activity. InThe uses of argument. Proceedings of a conference at McMaster University, 18–21 May 2005, ed.David Hitchcock and Daniel Farr, 75–84. Hamlilton, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Elwyn, Glyn, Adrian Edwards, Paul Kinnersley, and Richard Grol
    2000 Shared decision making and the concept of equipoise: The competences of involving patients in healthcare choices. British Journal of General Practice50: 892–899. doi:  10.1007/BF02602306
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02602306 [Google Scholar]
  24. Elwyn, Glyn, Dominick Frosch, Richard Thomson, Natalie Joseph-Williams, Amy Lloyd, Paul Kinnersley, Emma Cording,
    2012 Shared decision making: A model for clinical practice. Journal of General Internal Medicine27: 1361–1367. doi:  10.1007/s11606‑012‑2077‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2077-6 [Google Scholar]
  25. Elwyn, Glyn, and Talya Miron-Shatz
    2010 Deliberation before determination: The definition and evaluation of good decision making. Health Expectations13: 139–147. doi:  10.1111/j.1369‑7625.2009.00572.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00572.x [Google Scholar]
  26. Emmons, Karen, and Stephen Rollnick
    2001 Motivational interviewing in health care settings. Opportunities and limitations. American Journal of Preventive Medicine20: 68–74. doi:  10.1016/S0749‑3797(00)00254‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00254-3 [Google Scholar]
  27. Entwistle, Vikki A., Ian S. Watt, Ken Gilhooly, Carol Bugge, Neva Haites, and Anne E. Walker
    2004 Assessing patients’ participation and quality of decision-making: Insights from a study of routine practice in diverse settings. Patient Education and Counseling55: 105–113. doi:  10.1016/j.pec.2003.08.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2003.08.005 [Google Scholar]
  28. Epstein, Ronald, and Robert Gramling
    2012 What is shared in shared decision making? Complex decisions when the evidence is unclear. Medical Care Research and Review70: 94–112. doi:  10.1177/1077558712459216
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558712459216 [Google Scholar]
  29. Epstein, Ronald, and Richard Street
    2011 Shared mind: Communication, decision making, and autonomy in serious illness. Annals of Family Medicine9: 454–461. doi:  10.1370/afm.1301
     https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1301 [Google Scholar]
  30. Ervin-Tripp, Susan
    1964 An analysis of the interaction of language, topic, and listener. American Anthropologist66: 86–102. 10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00050
     https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00050 [Google Scholar]
  31. Geis, Michael
    1995 Speech acts and conversational interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511554452
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554452 [Google Scholar]
  32. Grice, Paul
    1975 Logic and conversation. InSyntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, ed.Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan, 41–58. New York, NY: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Haugh, Michael, and Kasia Jaszczolt
    2012 Speaker intentions and intentionality. InThe Cambridge handbook of pragmatics, ed.Keith Allan and Kasia M. Jaszczolt, 87–112. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139022453.006
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453.006 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hayes, Andrew, and Klaus Krippendorff
    2007 Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures1: 77–89. 10.1080/19312450709336664
     https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450709336664 [Google Scholar]
  35. Heisler, Michele, Reynard Bouknight, Rodney Hayward, Dylan Smith, and Eve Kerr
    2002 The relative importance of physician communication, participatory decision making, and patient understanding in diabetes self-management. Journal of General Internal Medicine17: 243–252. doi:  10.1046/j.1525‑1497.2002.10905.x
     https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10905.x [Google Scholar]
  36. Heisler, Michele, Sandeep Vijan, Robert M. Anderson, Peter A. Ubel, Steven J. Bernstein, and Timothy P. Hofer
    2003 When do patients and their physicians agree on diabetes treatment goals and strategies, and what difference does it make?Journal of General Internal Medicine18: 893–902. doi:  10.1046/j.1525‑1497.2003.21132.x
     https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.21132.x [Google Scholar]
  37. Hymes, Dell
    1964 Introduction: Toward ethnographies of communication. American Anthropologist66: 1–34. 10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00010
     https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00010 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kádár, Dániel, and Michael Haugh
    2013 Understanding politeness. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139382717
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139382717 [Google Scholar]
  39. Kaldjian, Lauris
    2017 Concepts of health, ethics, and communication in shared decision making. Communication & Medicine14: 83–95. doi:  10.1558/cam.32845
     https://doi.org/10.1558/cam.32845 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kecskes, Istvan
    2010 Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics42: 2889–2897. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.008 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kecskes, Istvan, and Fenghui Zhang
    2009 Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition17: 331–355. doi:  10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec [Google Scholar]
  42. Kissine, Mikhail
    2012 Sentences, utterances, and speech acts. InCambridge handbook of pragmatics, ed.Keith Allan and Kasia Jaszczolt, 169–190. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139022453.010
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453.010 [Google Scholar]
  43. Konstantinidou, Aikaterini, and Fabrizio Macagno
    2013 Understanding students’ reasoning: argumentation schemes as an interpretation method in science education. Science & Education22: 1069–1087. doi:  10.1007/s11191‑012‑9564‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9564-3 [Google Scholar]
  44. Krabbe, Erik
    1999 Profiles of dialogue. InJFAK: Essays dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the occasion of his 50th birthday, ed.Jelly Gerbrandy, Maarten Marx, Maarten de Rijke, and Yde Venema, 3:25–36. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Krippendorff, Klaus
    2004 Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Labrie, Nanon, and Peter J. Schulz
    2014 Does argumentation matter? A systematic literature review on the role of argumentation in doctor–patient communication. Health Communication29: 996–1008. doi:  10.1080/10410236.2013.829018
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2013.829018 [Google Scholar]
  47. Lamiani, Giulia, Sarah Bigi, Maria Elisa Mancuso, Antonio Coppola, and Elena Vegni
    2017 Applying a deliberation model to the analysis of consultations in haemophilia: Implications for doctor-patient communication. Patient Education and Counseling100: 690–695. doi:  10.1016/j.pec.2016.11.021
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.11.021 [Google Scholar]
  48. LaNoue, Marianna D., and Debra L. Roter
    2018 Exploring patient-centeredness: The relationship between self-reported empathy and patient-centered communication in medical trainees. Patient Education and Counseling101: 1143–1146. doi:  10.1016/j.pec.2018.01.016
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2018.01.016 [Google Scholar]
  49. Levinson, Stephen
    1992 Activity types and language. InTalk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, ed.Paul Drew and John Heritage, 66–100. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. 2012 Action formation and ascription. InThe handbook of conversation analysis, ed.Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 101–130. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 10.1002/9781118325001.ch6
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch6 [Google Scholar]
  51. Locke, Edwin A., and Gary P. Latham
    2002 Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. A 35-year odyssey. The American Psychologist57: 705–717. doi:  10.1037/0003‑066X.57.9.705
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705 [Google Scholar]
  52. Macagno, Fabrizio
    2008 Dialectical relevance and dialogical context in Walton’s pragmatic theory. Informal Logic28: 102–128. doi:  10.22329/il.v28i2.542
     https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v28i2.542 [Google Scholar]
  53. 2018 Assessing relevance. Lingua210–211: 42–64. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2018.04.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.04.007 [Google Scholar]
  54. Macagno, Fabrizio, and Sarah Bigi
    2017 Analyzing the pragmatic structure of dialogues. Discourse Studies19: 148–168. doi:  10.1177/1461445617691702
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617691702 [Google Scholar]
  55. 2018 Types of dialogue and pragmatic ambiguity. InArgumentation and language, ed.Steve Oswald, Jérôme Jacquin, and Thierry Herman, 191–218. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas Walton
    2017 Interpreting straw man argumentation. The pragmatics of quotation and reporting. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑62545‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62545-4 [Google Scholar]
  57. Makoul, G., P. Arntson, and T. Schofield
    1995 Health promotion in primary care: physician-patient communication and decision making about prescription medications. Social Science and Medicine41: 1241–1254. doi:  10.1016/0277‑9536(95)00061‑B
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00061-B [Google Scholar]
  58. Mann, William
    1988 Dialogue games: Conventions of human interaction. Argumentation2: 511–532. doi:  10.1007/BF00128990
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00128990 [Google Scholar]
  59. Mayweg-Paus, Elisabeth, Fabrizio Macagno, and Deanna Kuhn
    2016 Developing argumentation strategies in electronic dialogs: Is modeling effective?Discourse Processes53: 280–297. doi:  10.1080/0163853X.2015.1040323
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1040323 [Google Scholar]
  60. McBurney, Peter, and Simon Parsons
    2009 Dialogue games for agent argumentation. InArgumentation in artificial intelligence, ed.Guillermo Simari and Iyad Rahwan, 261–280. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑98197‑0_13
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_13 [Google Scholar]
  61. Mey, Jacob
    2001 Pragmatics. An introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. 2016 Why we need the pragmeme, or: Speech acting and its peripeties. InPragmemes and theories of language use, ed.Keith Allan, ‎Alessandro Capone, and ‎Istvan Kecskes, 133–140. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑43491‑9_7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43491-9_7 [Google Scholar]
  63. Politi, Mary C., and Richard Street
    2011 The importance of communication in collaborative decision making: Facilitating shared mind and the management of uncertainty. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice17: 579–584. doi:  10.1111/j.1365‑2753.2010.01549.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01549.x [Google Scholar]
  64. Al Qassas, Malik, Daniela Fogli, Massimiliano Giacomin, and Giovanni Guida
    2015 Analysis of clinical discussions based on argumentation schemes. Procedia Computer Science64: 282–289. 10.1016/j.procs.2015.08.491
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.08.491 [Google Scholar]
  65. Rapanta, Chrysi, Merce Garcia-Mila, and Sandra Gilabert
    2013 What is meant by argumentative competence? An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education. Review of Educational Research83: 483–520. doi:  10.3102/0034654313487606
     https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313487606 [Google Scholar]
  66. Ratliff, Amanda, Marcia Angell, Richard Dow, Miriam Kupperman, Robert Nease, Roger Fisher, Elliott Fisher,
    1999 What is a good decision?Effective Clinical Practice2: 185–197.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Reed, Christopher, Douglas Walton, and Fabrizio Macagno
    2007 Argument diagramming in logic, law and artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, and Law22: 87–109. doi:  10.1017/S0269888907001051
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888907001051 [Google Scholar]
  68. Rimer, Barbara K., and Matthew W. Kreuter
    2006 Advancing tailored health communication: A persuasion and message effects perspective. Journal of Communication56: 184–201. doi:  10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2006.00289.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00289.x [Google Scholar]
  69. Roter, Debra, and Susan Larson
    2002 The Roter interaction analysis system (RIAS): utility and flexibility for analysis of medical interactions. Patient Education and Counseling46: 243–251. doi:  10.1016/S0738‑3991(02)00012‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-3991(02)00012-5 [Google Scholar]
  70. Rubinelli, Sara, and Claudia Zanini
    2012 Teaching argumentation theory to doctors: Why and what. Journal of Argumentation in Context1: 66–80. 10.1075/jaic.1.1.06rub
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.1.1.06rub [Google Scholar]
  71. Ruhi, Şükriye
    2007 Higher-order intentions and self-politeness in evaluations of (im)politeness: The relevance of compliment responses. Australian Journal of Linguistics27: 107–145. doi:  10.1080/07268600701522756
     https://doi.org/10.1080/07268600701522756 [Google Scholar]
  72. Sacchi, Lucia, Giordano Lanzola, Natalia Viani, and Silvana Quaglini
    2015 Personalization and patient involvement in decision support systems: current trends. Yearbook of Medical Informatics24: 106–118. 10.15265/IY‑2015‑015
     https://doi.org/10.15265/IY-2015-015 [Google Scholar]
  73. Sanders, Robert
    1987 Cognitive foundations of calculated speech: Controlling understandings in conversation and persuasion. Albany, NY: Suny Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Schank, Roger, Gregg Collins, Ernest Davis, Peter Johnson, Steve Lytinen, and Brian Reiser
    1982 What’s the point?Cognitive Science6: 255–275. doi:  10.1207/s15516709cog0603_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0603_2 [Google Scholar]
  75. Schulz, Peter J., and Bert Meuffels
    2012 “It is about our body, our own body!”: On the difficulty of telling dutch women under 50 that mammography is not for them. Journal of Argumentation in Context1: 130–142. 10.1075/jaic.1.1.10sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.1.1.10sch [Google Scholar]
  76. Searle, John
    1969 Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  77. 2002 Consciousness and language. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511606366
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606366 [Google Scholar]
  78. Searle, John, and Daniel Vanderveken
    1985 Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Seuren, Pieter
    2009 Language in cognition: Language from within. Vol.1. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199559473.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199559473.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  80. Smith, David, and Loyd Pettegrew
    1986 Mutual persuasion as a model for doctor-patient communication. Theoretical Medicine7: 127–146. 10.1007/BF00489226
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00489226 [Google Scholar]
  81. Stevenson, Fiona, Christine Barry, Nicky Britten, Nick Barber, and Colin Bradley
    2000 Doctor-patient communication about drugs: The evidence for shared decision making. Social Science and Medicine50: 829–840. doi:  10.1016/S0277‑9536(99)00376‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00376-7 [Google Scholar]
  82. Stewart, Moira
    1995 Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: A review. CMAJ152: 1423–1433.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Streeck, Jürgen
    1980 Speech acts in interaction: A critique of Searle. Discourse Processes3: 133–153. doi:  10.1080/01638538009544483
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538009544483 [Google Scholar]
  84. Street, Richard
    2013 How clinician-patient communication contributes to health improvement: Modeling pathways from talk to outcome. Patient Education and Counseling92: 286–291. doi:  10.1016/j.pec.2013.05.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  85. Street, Richard, Glyn Elwyn, and Ronald Epstein
    2012 Patient preferences and healthcare outcomes: an ecological perspective. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research12: 167–180. doi:  10.1586/erp.12.3
     https://doi.org/10.1586/erp.12.3 [Google Scholar]
  86. Street, Richard, and Paul Haidet
    2011 How well do doctors know their patients? Factors affecting physician understanding of patients’ health beliefs. Journal of General Internal Medicine26: 21–27. doi:  10.1007/s11606‑010‑1453‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1453-3 [Google Scholar]
  87. Street, Richard, Gregory Makoul, Neeraj Arora, Ronald Epstein, Richard Street Jr, Gregory Makoul, Neeraj Arora, and Ronald Epstein
    2009 How does communication heal? Pathways linking clinician–patient communication to health outcomes. Patient Education and Counseling74: 295–301. doi:  10.1016/j.pec.2008.11.015
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2008.11.015 [Google Scholar]
  88. Taylor, Keith
    2009 Paternalism, participation and partnership-The evolution of patient centeredness in the consultation. Patient Education and Counseling74: 150–155. doi:  10.1016/j.pec.2008.08.017
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2008.08.017 [Google Scholar]
  89. Walton, Douglas
    1989a Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation3: 169–184. doi:  10.1007/BF00128147
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00128147 [Google Scholar]
  90. 1989b Informal logic. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. 1990 What is reasoning? What is an argument?Journal of Philosophy87: 399–419. doi:  10.2307/2026735
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2026735 [Google Scholar]
  92. 1992 Types of dialogue, dialectical shifts and fallacies. InArgumentation illuminated, ed.Frans Van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, Anthony Blair, and Charles Willard, 133–147. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Sic Sat.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. 1998 The New Dialectic. Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. 10.3138/9781442681859
     https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442681859 [Google Scholar]
  94. 1999 Profiles of dialogue for evaluating arguments from ignorance. Argumentation13: 53–71. doi:  10.1023/A:1007738812877
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007738812877 [Google Scholar]
  95. 2010 Types of Dialogue and Burdens of Proof. InComputational Models of Argument (COMMA), ed.Pietro Baroni, Federico Cerutti, Massimiliano Giacomin, and Guillermo Simari, 13–24. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press. doi:  10.3233/978‑1‑60750‑619‑5‑13
     https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-619-5-13 [Google Scholar]
  96. Walton, Douglas, and Erik Krabbe
    1995 Commitment in dialogue. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Walton, Douglas, Alice Toniolo, and Tim Norman
    2014 Missing phases of deliberation dialogue for real applications. InProceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, ed.Wiebe van der Hoek, Lin Padgham, Vincent Conitzer, and Michael Winikoff, 1–20. Richland: International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Wolpert, Howard, and Barbara Anderson
    2001 Management of diabetes: Are doctors framing the benefits from the wrong perspective?BMJ: British Medical Journal323: 994–996. doi:  10.1136/bmj.323.7319.994
     https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7319.994 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.18044.mac
Loading
Analyzing dialogue moves in chronic care communication
Journal of Argumentation in Context 9, 167 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18044.mac
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.18044.mac
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.18044.mac
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): argumentation; chronic care; decision making; dialogue; dialogue moves; discourse analysis; health communication; pragmatics

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error