1887
Volume 15, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Previous research has investigated aspects of deontics, epistemics, and resistance in medical settings. However, few have focused on deontics and how resistance shapes the responses of deontic authority (Stivers and Timmermans 2020), especially in online medical counseling. Utilizing the data collected from online medical consultation and adopting a discursive approach, this study investigates how doctors deploy deontic authority to resolve caregivers’ deontic right-based resistance. It is found that caregivers’ deontic right-based resistance comprises two major categories: strong deontic right-based resistance and weak deontic right-based resistance. Accordingly, doctors tend to use strong deontic authority to resolve caregivers’ strong deontic right-based resistance and mitigated deontic authority to resolve weak one. Because doctors’ deontic authority is particularly vulnerable in online contexts, it is proposed that doctors value their deontic authority in the decision-making of a treatment plan, which they manifest by protecting their deontic authority when their deontic territory is invaded.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.21033.wei
2023-05-30
2024-06-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Drew, Paul
    1991 “Asymmetries of Knowledge in Conversational Interactions.” InAsymmetries in Dialogue, ed. byIvana Marková, and Klaus Foppa, 21–48. Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ekberg, Katie, and Amanda LeCouteur
    2015 “Clients’ Resistance to Therapists’ Proposals: Managing Epistemic and Deontic Status.” Journal of Pragmatics901: 12–25. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  3. Goffman, Erving
    1955 “On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction.” Psychiatry18 (3): 213–231. 10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008 [Google Scholar]
  4. Haugh, Michael
    2013 “Speaker Meaning and Accountability in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics48 (1): 41–56. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.009 [Google Scholar]
  5. Heritage, John
    2018 “The Expression of Authority in US Primary Care: Offering Diagnoses and Recommending Treatment.” InGeorgetown University Round Table 2018: Approaches to Discourse. Washington D.C., 9–11 March. Georgetown University.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Heritage, John, and Sue Sefi
    1992 “Dilemmas of Advice: Aspects of the Delivery and Reception of Advice in Interactions between Health Visitors and First-Time Mothers.” InTalk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. byPaul Drew, and John Heritage, 359–417. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Izadi, Ahmad
    2018 “The Epistemic Grounds of Face in Institutional Argumentative Talk-in-Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics1341: 45–56. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.06.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.06.012 [Google Scholar]
  8. Jager, Margot, and Wyke Stommel
    2017 “The Risk of Metacommunication to Manage Interactional Trouble in Online Chat Counseling.” Linguistik online87 (8): 191–212. 10.13092/lo.87.4179
    https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.87.4179 [Google Scholar]
  9. Kinnell, Ann Marie K., and Douglas W. Maynard
    1996 “The Delivery and Receipt of Safer Sex Advice in Pretest Counseling Sessions for HIV and AIDS.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography24 (4): 405–437. 10.1177/089124196024004002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/089124196024004002 [Google Scholar]
  10. Koenig, Christopher J.
    2011 “Patient Resistance as Agency in Treatment Decisions.” Social Science & Medicine721: 1105–1114. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.010 [Google Scholar]
  11. Landmark, Anne Marie Dalby, Pål Gulbrandsen, and Jan Svennevig
    2015 “Whose Decision? Negotiating Epistemic and Deontic Rights in Medical Treatment Decisions.” Journal of Pragmatics781: 54–69. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.007 [Google Scholar]
  12. Lehtinen, Esa
    2007 “Merging Doctor and Client Knowledge: On Doctors’ Ways of Dealing with Clients’ Potentially Discrepant Information in Genetic Counseling.” Journal of Pragmatics391: 389–427. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.05.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  13. Lehtinen, Esa, and Helena Kääriäinen
    2005 “Doctor’s Expertise and Managing Discrepant Information from Other Sources in Genetic Counseling: A Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Journal of Genetic Counseling14 (6): 435–451. 10.1007/s10897‑005‑6453‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-005-6453-9 [Google Scholar]
  14. Locher, Miriam A., and Franziska Thurnherr
    2017 “Typing Yourself Healthy: Introduction to the Special Issue on Language and Health Online.” Linguistik online87 (8): 3–24. 10.13092/lo.87.4170
    https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.87.4170 [Google Scholar]
  15. Lukes, Steven
    1978 “Power and Authority.” InA History of Sociological Analysis, ed. byTom Bottomore, and Robert Nisbet, 633–676. London: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Muntigl, Peter
    2013 “Resistance in Couples Counselling: Sequences of Talk that Disrupt Progressivity and Promote Disaffiliation.” Journal of Pragmatics491: 18–37. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  17. Muntigl, Peter, and Kwok Tim Choi
    2010 “Not Remembering as a Practical Epistemic Resource in Couples Therapy.” Discourse Studies12 (3): 331–356. 10.1177/1461445609358516
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609358516 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ran, Yongping, and Xu Huang
    2019 “Deontic Authority in Intervention Discourse: Insights from Bystander Intervention.” Discourse Studies21 (5): 540–560. 10.1177/1461445619846705
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445619846705 [Google Scholar]
  19. Silverman, David
    1997Discourses of Counselling: HIV Counselling as Social Interaction. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Stevanovic, Melisa
    2013 “Deontic Rights in Interaction: A Conversation Analytic Study on Authority and Cooperation.” PhD diss., University of Helsinki.
  21. 2018 “Social Deontics: A Nano-Level Approach to Human Power Play.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour481: 369–389. 10.1111/jtsb.12175
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12175 [Google Scholar]
  22. Stevanovic, Melisa, and Anssi Peräkylä
    2012 “Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (3): 297–321. 10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2014 “Three Orders in the Organization of Human Action: On the Interface between Knowledge, Power, and Emotion in Interaction and Social Relations.” Language in Society43 (2): 185–207. 10.1017/S0047404514000037
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404514000037 [Google Scholar]
  24. Stevanovic, Melisa, and Jan Svennevig
    2015 “Introduction: Epistemics and Deontics in Conversational Directives.” Journal of Pragmatics781: 1–6. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.008 [Google Scholar]
  25. Stivers, Tanya
    2005 “Parent Resistance to Physicians’ Treatment Recommendations: One Resource for Initiating a Negotiation of the Treatment Decision.” Health Communication18 (1): 41–74. 10.1207/s15327027hc1801_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327027hc1801_3 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2006 “Treatment Decisions: Negotiations between Doctors and Parents in Acute Care Encounters.” InCommunication in Medical Care: Interaction between Primary Care Physicians and Patients, ed. byJohn Heritage, and Douglas W. Maynard, 279–312. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511607172.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607172.012 [Google Scholar]
  27. Stivers, Tanya, and Rebecca K. Barnes
    2018 “Treatment Recommendation Actions, Contingencies, and Responses: An introduction.” Health Communication33 (11): 1331–1334. 10.1080/10410236.2017.1350914
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1350914 [Google Scholar]
  28. Stivers, Tanya, and Stefan Timmermans
    2020 “Medical Authority under Siege: How Clinicians Transform Patient Resistance into Acceptance.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior61 (1): 60–78. 10.1177/0022146520902740
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146520902740 [Google Scholar]
  29. Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig
    2011a “Knowledge, Morality and Affiliation in Social Interaction.” InThe Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. byTanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 3–24. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002 [Google Scholar]
  30. (eds) 2011bThe Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674 [Google Scholar]
  31. Yao, Xue-Li, and Wen Ma
    2017 “Question Resistance and Its Management in Chinese Psychotherapy.” Discourse Studies19 (2): 216–233. 10.1177/1461445617695700
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617695700 [Google Scholar]
  32. Zhang, Yu
    2021 “How Doctors Do Things with Empathy in Online Medical Consultations in China: A Discourse-Analytic Approach.” Health Communication36 (7): 816–825. 10.1080/10410236.2020.1712527
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1712527 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.21033.wei
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.21033.wei
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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