Cover not available
Part of
Relationships in Organized Helping: Analyzing interaction in psychotherapy, medical encounters, coaching and in social media
Edited by Claudio Scarvaglieri, Eva-Maria Graf and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 331] 2022
► pp. 221–242

Practices of relationship building in Hungarian primary care

Communicative styles and intergenerational differences

| Eötvös Lorand University Budapest
| Ghent University
Using data from Hungarian primary-care consultations, we present linguistic features of relationship-building, focusing on the role of address forms and metapragmatic reflections. We also investigate intergenerational differences and different styles of managing doctor-patient relationships. Based on a range of evidence (discourse about doctor-patient communication in the public and in academia, participant observation of consultations, interviews with practitioners, analysis of instructional videos, questionnaire surveys), we discuss a change in doctor-patient communication at both macro (socio-cultural) and micro (interactional) levels. Factors influencing this process include general social change, digitisation and the communicative training of healthcare professionals. We conclude that physicians build different types of relationships with language, which hints at an overall shift in Hungarian society and in healthcare communication in general.
Keywords: relationship-building, primary care, metapragmatic reflection, attitude deixis, relationship styles
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Relationship-building in doctor-patient consultation
  • 3.Data and methods
  • 4.Relationship-building in doctor-patient communication: Attitudinal deixis and metapragmatic actions
    • 4.1Attitudinal deixis
    • 4.2Metapragmatic comments and relationship-building
  • 5.Changes in relationship-building
    • 5.1Changes of communicative practice: Intergenerational aspect
    • 5.2Change in style: physician- and patient-centred communicative patterns
  • 6.Conclusions and limitations
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 7 September 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.331.10kun
References (53)
References
Ainsworth-Vaugh, Nancy. 2004. Claiming Power in Doctor-Patient Talk. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bartha, Csilla, and Ágnes Hámori. 2010. “Stílus a szociolingvisztikában, stílus a diskurzusban [Style in sociolinguistics, style in discourse: Linguistic variability and the construction of social meaning in the “third wave” of sociolinguistics].” Magyar Nyelvőr 134 (3): 298–321.Google Scholar
Bálint, Katalin, Tamás Nagy, and Márta Csabai. 2014. “The Effect of Patient-Centeredness and Gender of Professional Role Models on Trainees’ Mentalization Responses. Implication for Film-aided Education.” Patient Education and Counseling 97: 52–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beach, Wayne. 2013. “Introduction.” In Handbook of Patient-Provider Interactions, ed. by Wayne Beach, 1–18. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bigi, Sarah. 2016. Communicating (with) Care. A Linguistic Approach to the Study of Doctor-Patient Interactions. Amsterdam: IOS.Google Scholar
Blommaert, Jan. 2018. Durkheim and the Internet. On Sociolinguistics and the Sociological Imagination. London: Bloomsbury. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Roger, and Albert Gilman. 1960. “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity.” In Style in Language, ed. by Thomas Sebeok, 253–276. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bublitz, Wolfram, and Axel Hübler (eds). 2007. Metapragmatics in Use. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caffi, Claudia. 2016. “Revisiting Metapragmatics: What Are We Talking About?” In Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use, ed. by Keith Allan, Alessandro Capone and Istvan Kecskes, 799–821. Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Csabai, Márta, Ilona Csörsz, and Katalin Szili. 2009. A gyógyító kapcsolat élménye. Kézikönyv és oktatólemez a kapcsolati készségek fejlesztéséhez. [The experience of a healing relationship. Handbook and educational CD-ROM for the development of relationship-oriented skills]. Budapest: Oriold és Társa Kiadó.Google Scholar
Csiszárik, Katalin, and Ágnes Domonkosi. 2018. “A gyógyító-beteg viszonylat megszólítási változatai egy mozgásszervi rehabilitációs osztály gyakorlatközösségében. [Address form variants in healer-patient interactions in the practice community of a mosculoskeletal rehabilitation ward.]” Acta Universitas de Carolo Eszterházy Nominatae XLIV: 109–128.Google Scholar
Domonkosi, Ágnes. 2010. Variability in Hungarian Address Forms. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 57: 29–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Perspective and Attitudinal Deixis in Hungarian. Jezyk, Komunikacja, Informacja / Language, Communication, Information 11: 86–98.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2006. “Communities of Practice.” In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Edited by Keith Brown, 683–85. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaal, Ilona. 2016. “Az internet hatása az orvos–beteg viszonyra.” Orvosi Hetilap 157 (17): 680–684. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
. 1966. Behaviour in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free PressGoogle Scholar
Hall, Judith, Debra Roter, and Cynthia Rand. 1981. “Communication of Affect between Patient and Physician.” Health and Social Behaviour 22 (1): 18–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hambuch, Anikó, Lőrinc Sárkányné, and Rita Kránicz. 2018. “Veränderung der Kommunikationsmodelle im Gesundheitswesen und ihre Widerspiegelung in den Interaktionen mit Klienten [Change of communication models in healtcare and its reflection in interaction with clients].” In Fachbezogener Fremdsprachenunterricht – aktuelle Herausforderungen und zukünftige Chancen, ed. by Brigita Kacjan, 59–71. Ljubljana: The Slovene Association of LSP Teachers.Google Scholar
Harris, Roxy. 2006. New Ethnicities and Language Use. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Havas, Ferenc, Márta Csepregi, Nikolett Gulyás, and Szilvia Németh. 2015. Typological Database of the Ugric Languages. Budapest: ELTE.Google Scholar
Heritage, John, and Douglas Maynard. 2006. “Problems and Prospects in the Study of Physician-Patient Interaction: 30 Years of Research.” Annual Review of Sociology 32 (1): 351–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koerfer, Armin, Thomas Reimer, and Christian Albus. 2018. “Beziehung aufbauen [Constructing relationships]." In Kommunikative Kompetenz in der Medizin: Ein Lehrbuch zur Theorie, Didaktik, Praxis und Evaluation der ärztlichen Gesprächsführung, ed. by Armin Koefer, and Christian Albus, 814–851. Mannheim: Verl. für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar
Kuna, Ágnes. 2016. “Person Deixis and Self-Representation in Medical Discourse. Usage Patterns of First Person Deictic Elements in Communication by Doctors.” Language, Communication, Information 11: 99–121.Google Scholar
Kuna, Ágnes and Ágnes Domonkosi. 2020. “Social Meanings of the Hungarian Politeness Marker tetszik in Doctor-Patient Communication.” Acta Universitatis Sapientiae Philologica? 12 (3): 88–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuna, Ágnes, and Ágnes Domonkosi. 2022. “Társas deixis és a kapcsolatépítés az orvos-beteg interakcióban [Social deixis and relationship building in physician-patient interaction].” In A deixis a magyar nyelvben. [Deixis in Hungarian] ed. by Krisztina Laczkó, and Szilárd Tátrai. Budapest: Eötvös Collegium.Google Scholar
Kuna, Ágnes, and Ágnes Hámori. (forthc.). “Metapragmatics and Reflections in Support of Knowledge Transfer and Common Ground in Doctor-Patient Interaction”. In A Pragmatic Agenda for Healthcare: Fostering Inclusion and Active Participation through Shared Understanding, ed. by Sarah Bigi, and Maria Grazia Rossi. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
. 2019. “’Hallgatom, mi a panasz?’ A metapragmatikai reflexiók szerepei és mintázatai az orvos-beteg interakciókban.” ['I am listening, what is the complaint?' The roles and patterns of metapragmatic reflexions in doctor-patient interactions.]" In Kontextualizáció és metapragmatikai tudatosság, [Contextualization and metapragmatic awareness] ed. by Laczkó Krisztina, and Tátrai Szilárd, 260–83. Eötvös Collegium, Budapest.Google Scholar
Kuna, Ágnes, and Claudio Scarvaglieri. 2019. “Intergenerational Changes of Relationship Management in Primary Care.” Presenation at the IIEMCA, Mannheim (July 2–5, 2019).Google Scholar
Kuna, Ágnes, and Zsuzsa Kaló. 2014. “Az orvos-beteg kommunikáció a családorvosi gyakorlatban.” [Doctor-patient communication in primary care]." In Tudomány, technolektus, terminológia. A tudományok, szakmák nyelve, [Terminology. Language of the sciences, professions], ed. by Ágnes Veszelszki, and Klára Lengyel, 117–130. Budapest.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linke, Angelika, and Juliane Schröter. 2017. “Sprache in Beziehungen – Beziehungen in Sprache: Überlegungen zur Konstitution eines Linguistischen Forschungsfeldes [Language in relationshiops – relationships in language: Reflexions on research domain of linguistics].” In Sprache und Beziehung, ed. by Angelika Linke, and Juliane Schröter, 1–32. Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam, and Richard Watts. 2008. “Relational Work and Impoliteness: Negotiating Norms of Linguistic Behaviour.” In Impoliteness in Language, edited by Miriam A. Locher and Derek Bousfield, 77–100: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lucy, John. 1993. “Reflexive Language and the Human Disciplines.” In Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics, ed. by Lucy, John, 9–33. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Málovics, Éva, Beáta Vajda, and Péter Kuba. 2009. “Paternalizmus vagy közös döntés? Páciensek az orvos–beteg kommunikációról. [Paternalism or shared decision making. Patient about doctor-patient interaction]” In A szolgáltatások világa, [The world of services], ed. by Erzsébet Hetesi, Zoltán Majó, and Miklós Lukovics, 250–264. Szeged: JATEPress.Google Scholar
Marshall, Steve. 2021. “Navigating COVID-19 Linguistic Landscapes in Vancouver’s North Shore: Official Signs, Grassroots Literacy Artefacts, Monolingualism, and Discursive Convergence.” International Journal of Multilingualism, 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mayring, Philipp. 2010. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken [Qualitative content analysis. Basics and technique.]. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
Meskó, Bertalan. 2014. The Guide to the Future of Medicine. Technology and the Human Touch. Budapest: Webicina.Google Scholar
Mundwiler, Vera, Judith Kreuz, Daniel Müller-Feldmeth, Martin Luginbühl, and Stefan Hauser. 2019. “Quantitative und qualitative Zugänge in der Gesprächsforschung: Methodologische Betrachtungen am Beispiel einer Studie zu argumentativen Gruppendiskussionen. [Quantitative and qualitative approaches in conversation research: Methodological observations based on the example of group discussions].” Gesprächsforschung (20): 323–83.Google Scholar
Norrby, Catrin, and Camilla Wide (eds). 2015. Address Practice as Social Action: European Perspectives. Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Pilling, János (ed). 2004. Orvosi kommunikáció [Medical Communication]. Budapest: Medicina Könyvkiadó.Google Scholar
. 2018. Orvosi kommunikáció a gyakorlatban [Medical communication in the praxis]. Budapest: Medicina.Google Scholar
Rounds, Carol. 2001. Hungarian. An Essential Grammar. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sára, Zoltán, Zoltán Csedő, Tamás Tóth, Józses Fejes. and Pörzse Gábor. 2013. “A korszerű információtechnológiai megoldások szerepe az orvos-beteg kommunikáció javításában. [The role of advanced information technology solutions in enhancing doctor-patient communication].” Interdiszciplináris Magyar Egészségügy 12(4): 20–24.Google Scholar
Scarvaglieri, Claudio. 2017. “‘Educational Landscaping’: A Method for Raising Awareness About Language and Communication.” Language Awareness 59 (5): 325–42. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 2003. “Indexical Order and the Dialectics of Sociolinguistic Life.” Language and Communication 23 (3–4): 192–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah, Heidi Ehernberger Hamilton, and Deborah Schiffrin, eds. 2015. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vajda, Beáta, Sarolta Horváth, and Éva Málovics. 2012. “Közös döntéshozatal mint innováció az orvos-beteg kommunikációban [Shared decision making, as an innovation in physician-patient communication]”. In Regionális innovációs képesség, versenyképesség és fenntarthatóság, ed. by Bajmócy, Zoltán., Lengyel, Imre. and Málovics, György. Szeged: JATE PressGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, Jef. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. London: ArnoldGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Notes on the Role of Metapragmatic Awareness in Language Use. Pragmatics 10 (4): 439–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Volosinov, Valentin. 1973. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
Warren, Ed. 2006. B.A.R.D. in the Practice. A Guide for Family Doctors to Consult Efficiently, Effectively and Happily. Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Kabatnik, Susanne
2024. “Because he was disgusting”: transforming relations through positioning in messenger-supported group psychotherapy. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.