Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 9:2 (2020) ► pp.167–198

Analyzing dialogue moves in chronic care communication

Dialogical intentions and customization of recommendations for the assessment of medical deliberation

| Universidade Nova de Lisboa
| Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
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.
Keywords: argumentation, chronic care, decision making, dialogue, dialogue moves, discourse analysis, health communication, pragmatics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Contextual background: Deliberation in clinical encounters
  • 3.Dialogue types and dialogue moves
    • 3.1Deliberation sequences in clinical encounters
    • 3.2Dialogue moves
      • 3.2.1Describing dialogue moves in clinical encounters’ deliberation sequences
      • 3.2.2Reliability of the categories for the analysis
      • 3.2.3Results of the analysis
  • 4.Describing customization of recommendations in clinical encounters
    • 4.1Exploring correlations between dialogue moves and customization
  • 5.Discussion and conclusions
    • 5.1Limitations
    • 5.2Practice implications
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18044.mac
References (98)
References
Allan, Keith. 2013. What is common ground? In Perspectives in pragmatics, philosophy & psychology, volume 2, ed. Alessandro Capone, Franco Lo Piparo, and Marco Carapezza, 285–310. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Arora, Neeraj, and Colleen McHorney. 2000. Patient preferences for medical decision making: who really wants to participate? Medical Care 381: 335–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Artstein, Ron, and Massimo Poesio. 2008. Inter-coder agreement for computational linguistics. Computational Linguistics 341: 555–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Bias decreases in proportion to the number of annotators. In Proceedings of FG-MoL 2005: The 10th conference on Formal Grammar, ed. Gerhard Jaeger, Paola Monachesi, Gerald Penn, James Rogers, and Shuly Wintner, 1391:141–150. Edinburgh, UK: CSLI publications.Google Scholar
Asterhan, Christa, and Baruch Schwarz. 2009. Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialog. Cognitive Science 331: 374–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Research 391: 1070–1084. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bigi, Sarah. 2014. Healthy reasoning: The role of effective argumentation for enhancing elderly patients’ self-management abilities in chronic care. In Active 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
. 2016. Communicating (with) care: a linguistic approach to doctor-patient interactions. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Bigi, Sarah, and Nanon Labrie. 2016. Criteria for the reconstruction and analysis of doctors’ argumentation in the context of chronic care. In Argumentation 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
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: JAMA 2821: 2313–2320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 : JAMA 51: 257–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cavicchio, Federica, and Massimo Poesio. 2009. Multimodal corpora annotation: Validation methods to assess coding scheme reliability. In Multimodal corpora, ed. Michael Kipp, Jean-Claude Martin, Patrizia Paggio, and Dirk Heylen, 109–121. Berlin, Germany: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Medicine 441: 681–692. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Counseling 861: 9–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Counseling 841: 294–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunin-Keplicz, Barbara, and Rineke Verbrugge. 2001. The role of dialogue in cooperative problem solving. In Proceedings 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
Durand, Marie Anne, Odette Wegwarth, Jacky Boivin, and Glyn Elwyn. 2012. Design and usability of heuristic-based deliberation tools for women facing amniocentesis. Health Expectations 151: 32–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma- dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam, Netherlands-Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. In Context: Giving contextualization its rightful place in the study of argumentation. Argumentation 251: 141–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans, and Peter Houtlosser. 2005. Theoretical construction and argumentative reality: An analytic model of critical discussion and conventionalised types of argumentative activity. In The 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
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 Practice 501: 892–899. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elwyn, Glyn, Dominick Frosch, Richard Thomson, Natalie Joseph-Williams, Amy Lloyd, Paul Kinnersley, Emma Cording, et al. 2012. Shared decision making: A model for clinical practice. Journal of General Internal Medicine 271: 1361–1367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elwyn, Glyn, and Talya Miron-Shatz. 2010. Deliberation before determination: The definition and evaluation of good decision making. Health Expectations 131: 139–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emmons, Karen, and Stephen Rollnick. 2001. Motivational interviewing in health care settings. Opportunities and limitations. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 201: 68–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Counseling 551: 105–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Ronald, and Robert Gramling. 2012. What is shared in shared decision making? Complex decisions when the evidence is unclear. Medical Care Research and Review 701: 94–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Ronald, and Richard Street. 2011. Shared mind: Communication, decision making, and autonomy in serious illness. Annals of Family Medicine 91: 454–461. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, Susan. 1964. An analysis of the interaction of language, topic, and listener. American Anthropologist 661: 86–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geis, Michael. 1995. Speech acts and conversational interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, ed. Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan, 41–58. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael, and Kasia Jaszczolt. 2012. Speaker intentions and intentionality. In The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics, ed. Keith Allan and Kasia M. Jaszczolt, 87–112. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Andrew, and Klaus Krippendorff. 2007. Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures 11: 77–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Medicine 171: 243–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Medicine 181: 893–902. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hymes, Dell. 1964. Introduction: Toward ethnographies of communication. American Anthropologist 661: 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kádár, Dániel, and Michael Haugh. 2013. Understanding politeness. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaldjian, Lauris. 2017. Concepts of health, ethics, and communication in shared decision making. Communication & Medicine 141: 83–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2010. Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics 421: 2889–2897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan, and Fenghui Zhang. 2009. Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition 171: 331–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kissine, Mikhail. 2012. Sentences, utterances, and speech acts. In Cambridge handbook of pragmatics, ed. Keith Allan and Kasia Jaszczolt, 169–190. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Konstantinidou, Aikaterini, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2013. Understanding students’ reasoning: argumentation schemes as an interpretation method in science education. Science & Education 221: 1069–1087. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krabbe, Erik. 1999. Profiles of dialogue. In JFAK: Essays dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the occasion of his 50th birthday, ed. Jelly Gerbrandy, Maarten Marx, Maarten de Rijke, and Yde Venema, 31:25–36. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Krippendorff, Klaus. 2004. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Labrie, Nanon, and Peter J. Schulz. 2014. Does argumentation matter? A systematic literature review on the role of argumentation in doctor–patient communication. Health Communication 291: 996–1008. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Counseling 1001: 690–695. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Counseling 1011: 1143–1146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 1992. Activity types and language. In Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, ed. Paul Drew and John Heritage, 66–100. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. Action formation and ascription. In The handbook of conversation analysis, ed. Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 101–130. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Psychologist 571: 705–717. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio. 2008. Dialectical relevance and dialogical context in Walton’s pragmatic theory. Informal Logic 281: 102–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Assessing relevance. Lingua 210–2111: 42–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Sarah Bigi. 2017. Analyzing the pragmatic structure of dialogues. Discourse Studies 191: 148–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Types of dialogue and pragmatic ambiguity. In Argumentation and language, ed. Steve Oswald, Jérôme Jacquin, and Thierry Herman, 191–218. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas Walton. 2017. Interpreting straw man argumentation. The pragmatics of quotation and reporting. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Medicine 411: 1241–1254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mann, William. 1988. Dialogue games: Conventions of human interaction. Argumentation 21: 511–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mayweg-Paus, Elisabeth, Fabrizio Macagno, and Deanna Kuhn. 2016. Developing argumentation strategies in electronic dialogs: Is modeling effective? Discourse Processes 531: 280–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McBurney, Peter, and Simon Parsons. 2009. Dialogue games for agent argumentation. In Argumentation in artificial intelligence, ed. Guillermo Simari and Iyad Rahwan, 261–280. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mey, Jacob. 2001. Pragmatics. An introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2016. Why we need the pragmeme, or: Speech acting and its peripeties. In Pragmemes and theories of language use, ed. Keith Allan, ‎Alessandro Capone, and ‎Istvan Kecskes, 133–140. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Practice 171: 579–584. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Al Qassas, Malik, Daniela Fogli, Massimiliano Giacomin, and Giovanni Guida. 2015. Analysis of clinical discussions based on argumentation schemes. Procedia Computer Science 641: 282–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Research 831: 483–520. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ratliff, Amanda, Marcia Angell, Richard Dow, Miriam Kupperman, Robert Nease, Roger Fisher, Elliott Fisher, et al. 1999. What is a good decision? Effective Clinical Practice 21: 185–197.Google Scholar
Reed, Christopher, Douglas Walton, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2007. Argument diagramming in logic, law and artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, and Law 221: 87–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rimer, Barbara K., and Matthew W. Kreuter. 2006. Advancing tailored health communication: A persuasion and message effects perspective. Journal of Communication 561: 184–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roter, Debra, and Susan Larson. 2002. The Roter interaction analysis system (RIAS): utility and flexibility for analysis of medical interactions. Patient Education and Counseling 461: 243–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rubinelli, Sara, and Claudia Zanini. 2012. Teaching argumentation theory to doctors: Why and what. Journal of Argumentation in Context 11: 66–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruhi, Şükriye. 2007. Higher-order intentions and self-politeness in evaluations of (im)politeness: The relevance of compliment responses. Australian Journal of Linguistics 271: 107–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacchi, Lucia, Giordano Lanzola, Natalia Viani, and Silvana Quaglini. 2015. Personalization and patient involvement in decision support systems: current trends. Yearbook of Medical Informatics 241: 106–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Robert. 1987. Cognitive foundations of calculated speech: Controlling understandings in conversation and persuasion. Albany, NY: Suny Press.Google Scholar
Schank, Roger, Gregg Collins, Ernest Davis, Peter Johnson, Steve Lytinen, and Brian Reiser. 1982. What’s the point? Cognitive Science 61: 255–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Context 11: 130–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Consciousness and language. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John, and Daniel Vanderveken. 1985. Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seuren, Pieter. 2009. Language in cognition: Language from within. Vol. 11. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, David, and Loyd Pettegrew. 1986. Mutual persuasion as a model for doctor-patient communication. Theoretical Medicine 71: 127–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Medicine 501: 829–840. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stewart, Moira. 1995. Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: A review. CMAJ 1521: 1423–1433.Google Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen. 1980. Speech acts in interaction: A critique of Searle. Discourse Processes 31: 133–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Street, Richard. 2013. How clinician-patient communication contributes to health improvement: Modeling pathways from talk to outcome. Patient Education and Counseling 921: 286–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Street, Richard, Glyn Elwyn, and Ronald Epstein. 2012. Patient preferences and healthcare outcomes: an ecological perspective. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 121: 167–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Medicine 261: 21–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Counseling 741: 295–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Keith. 2009. Paternalism, participation and partnership-The evolution of patient centeredness in the consultation. Patient Education and Counseling 741: 150–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1989a. Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation 31: 169–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989b. Informal logic. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1990. What is reasoning? What is an argument? Journal of Philosophy 871: 399–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. Types of dialogue, dialectical shifts and fallacies. In Argumentation illuminated, ed. Frans Van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, Anthony Blair, and Charles Willard, 133–147. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
. 1998. The New Dialectic. Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Profiles of dialogue for evaluating arguments from ignorance. Argumentation 131: 53–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Types of Dialogue and Burdens of Proof. In Computational Models of Argument (COMMA), ed. Pietro Baroni, Federico Cerutti, Massimiliano Giacomin, and Guillermo Simari, 13–24. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas, and Erik Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, Alice Toniolo, and Tim Norman. 2014. Missing phases of deliberation dialogue for real applications. In Proceedings 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
Wolpert, Howard, and Barbara Anderson. 2001. Management of diabetes: Are doctors framing the benefits from the wrong perspective? BMJ: British Medical Journal 3231: 994–996. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (13)

Cited by 13 other publications

Di Bratto, Martina, Antonio Origlia, Maria Di Maro & Sabrina Mennella
2024. Linguistics-based dialogue simulations to evaluate argumentative conversational recommender systems. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction DOI logo
Macagno, Fabrizio & Roberto Graci
2024. When cancellation becomes unreasonable. Intercultural Pragmatics 21:3 ► pp. 403 ff. DOI logo
Macagno, Fabrizio & Ana Carolina Trevisan
2024. Chapter 8. Strategic communication in the Covid-19 pandemic. In Manufacturing Dissent [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 339], ► pp. 240 ff. DOI logo
Ukoha, Chukwuma & Andrew Stranieri
2024. Proceedings of the 2024 Australasian Computer Science Week, ► pp. 47 ff. DOI logo
Rapanta, Chrysi & Fabrizio Macagno
2023. Authentic questions as prompts for productive and constructive sequences: A pragmatic approach to classroom dialogue and argumentation. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal 11:3 ► pp. A65 ff. DOI logo
Martins, Marina & Fabrizio Macagno
2022. An analytical instrument for coding and assessing argumentative dialogues in science teaching contexts. Science Education 106:3 ► pp. 573 ff. DOI logo
Rossi, Maria Grazia, Fabrizio Macagno & Sarah Bigi
2022. Dialogical functions of metaphors in medical interactions. Text & Talk 42:1 ► pp. 77 ff. DOI logo
Macagno, Fabrizio & Sarah Bigi
2021. The Role of Evidence in Chronic Care Decision-Making. Topoi 40:2 ► pp. 343 ff. DOI logo
Macagno, Fabrizio & Rosalice Botelho Wakim Souza Pinto
2021. Reconstructing Multimodal Arguments in Advertisements: Combining Pragmatics and Argumentation Theory. Argumentation 35:1 ► pp. 141 ff. DOI logo
Rossi, Maria Grazia & Fabrizio Macagno
2021. The Communicative Functions of Metaphors Between Explanation and Persuasion. In Inquiries in Philosophical Pragmatics [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 27], ► pp. 171 ff. DOI logo
Macagno, Fabrizio
2020. How can metaphors communicate arguments?. Intercultural Pragmatics 17:3 ► pp. 335 ff. DOI logo
Macagno, Fabrizio
2023. Practical (un)cancellability. Journal of Pragmatics 215 ► pp. 84 ff. DOI logo
Macagno, Fabrizio
2023. Questions as Dialogue Games. The Pragmatic Dimensions of “Authentic” Questions. Studies in Philosophy and Education 42:5 ► pp. 519 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.