Cover not available
Part of
New Perspectives in Interactional Linguistic Research
Edited by Margret Selting and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 36] 2024
► pp. 306–329

Calibrating sensitive actions in palliative care consultations

Physicians’ use of routinized wenn ich ehrlich bin/wenn man ehrlich ist-constructions

| University of Münster

This article explores physicians’ uses of “honestly” wenn (‘if’)-clauses in German palliative care interactions. In “stretching the old linguistics to meet the challenge of talk-in-interaction” (Schegloff 1996: 114), the study aims to further our understanding of how routinized communicative practices are mobilized in response to local interactional needs within institutional interaction. Using methods and concepts of Interactional Linguistics, Social Constructivism, and Linguistic Anthropology, I will illustrate how doctors in German palliative consultations reconfigure traditional conditional wenn (‘if’)-clauses to adjust to local needs. With its focus on the interactional practices participants use in palliative consultations as well as the way in which these practices both conform to and (re)construct the institutional order, the analysis contributes to “New Perspectives in Interactional Linguistic Research” by heightening awareness of the communicative construction of social reality within institutional (i.e., palliative) settings. Furthermore, in applying Interactional Linguistics to palliative interactions, this paper not only aims to shed light on the reflexive relationship between (routinized) interactional practices and the “social field” (Hanks 2007) of palliative communication, but it also contributes insights into the field of applied Interactional Linguistics.

Keywords: palliative consultation(s), “honestly” wenn-clause(s), German, communicative practice(s), (de)personalized, metapragmatic, framing device, projector/projective, delicate (actions), routinized
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and focus of the empirical analysis
  • 3.“Honestly” wenn-constructions in palliative care interactions
    • 3.1Wenn ich ehrlich bin ‘if I am honest’-constructions
      • 3.1.1Pre-positioned wenn ich ehrlich bin ‘if I am honest‘-constructions
      • 3.1.2Post-positioned wenn ich ehrlich bin ‘if I am honest’-constructions
    • 3.2Wenn man ehrlich ist ‘if one is honest’-constructions
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Author queries
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References
Auer, Peter
2000 “Pre- and Post-Positioning of wenn-Clauses in Spoken and Written German.” In Cause, Condition, Concession, Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Bernd Kortmann, 173–204. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 “On-line Syntax: Thoughts on the Temporality of Spoken Language.” Language Sciences 31: 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter, and Stefan Pfänder
(eds.) 2011 Constructions: Emerging and Emergent. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter, and Jan Lindström
2016 “Left/Right Asymmetries and the Grammar of Pre- vs. Post-Positioning in German and Swedish Talk-in-Interaction.” Language Sciences 56: 68–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berger, Peter, and Thomas Luckmann
1966 The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Bergmann, Jörg
1992 “Veiled Morality: Notes on Discretion in Psychiatry.” In Talk at Work, ed. by Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 137–162. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2004 “Conversation Analysis.” In A Companion to Qualitative Research, ed. by Uwe Flick, Ernst von Kardoff, and Ines Steinke, 296–302. Los Angeles/London: Sage.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson
1987 Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Xinren, and Yingzhe Jin
2022 “ ‘Shushihua, …’: Chinese Celebrities’ Metapragmatic Management of Rapport and Impression in an Interview Setting.” Journal of Politeness Research: 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono
2007 “ ‘Incrementing’ in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics 17, 4: 513–552.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting
2018 Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten
2011 “A System for Transcribing Talk-in-Interaction: GAT 2.” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 12: 1–51. [URL]
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Sandra A. Thompson
2020 “Ratschläge in der Alltagskommunikation: Zur Verwendung einer sedimentierten Form im Englischen.” In Verfestigungen in der Interaktion: Konstruktionen, sequenzielle Muster, kommunikative Gattungen, ed. by Beate Weidner, Katharina König, Wolfgang Imo, and Lars Wegner, 295–318. Berlin/Boston: Walter De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf
1999 Gespräche analysieren. Eine Einführung in konversationsanalytische Methoden. Opladen: Leske & Budrich.Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf, and Susanne Günthner
2015 Temporality in Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul
2018 “Epistemics in Social Interaction.” Discourse Studies 20, 1: 163–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Derek, and Alessandra Fasulo
2006 “To be Honest: Sequential Uses of Honesty Phrases in Talk-in-Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 39, 4: 343–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold
1967 “What is Ethnomethodology?” In Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by Harold Garfinkel. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
1996 “Transparent Vision.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 370–404. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Herbert P.
1967 Logic and Conversation. Berkeley: Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J.
1982 Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne
2006 “ ‘Was ihn trieb, war vor allem Wanderlust.’ Pseudocleft-Konstruktionen im Deutschen.” In Konstruktionen in der Interaktion, ed. by Susanne Günthner, and Wolfgang Imo, 59–91. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008a ‘Die Sache ist…’: eine Projektorkonstruktion im gesprochenen Deutsch.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 27, 1: 39–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008b “Projektorkonstruktionen im Gespräch: Pseudoclefts, die Sache ist-Konstruktionen und Extrapositionen mit es.” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 9: 86–114. [URL]
2011a “Between Emergence and Sedimentation: Projecting Constructions in German Interactions.” In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer, and Stefan Pfänder, 156–185. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011b “N-Be-That-Constructions in Everyday German Conversation. A Reanalysis of ‘die Sache ist/das Ding ist’ (‘the thing is’)-Clauses as Projector Phrases.” In Subordination in Conversation, ed. by Ritva Laury, and Ryoko Suzuki 11–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “Sprachliche Verfahren bei der Übermittlung schlechter Nachrichten – sedimentierte Praktiken im Kontext onkologischer Aufklärungsgespräche.” Arbeitspapierreihe Sprache und Interaktion 73. [URL]
2018 “Thomas Luckmanns Einfluss auf die Sprachwissenschaft – Kommunikative Gattungen im Alltagsgebrauch am Beispiel onkologischer Aufklärungsgespräche.” In Lebenswelt und Gesellschaft. Gedenkband für Thomas Luckmann, ed. by Alois Hahn, and Martin Endreß, 358–400. Konstanz: UVK.Google Scholar
2020 “Practices of Clause-Combining. From Complex wenn-Constructions to Insubordinate (‘Stand-Alone’) Conditionals in Everyday Spoken German.” In Emergent Syntax for Conversation. Clausal Patterns and the Organization of Action, ed. by Yael Maschler, Simona Pekarek Doehler, Jan Lindström, and Leelo Keevallik, 185–219. Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne, and Paul Hopper
2010 “Zeitlichkeit & sprachliche Strukturen: Pseudoclefts im Englischen und Deutschen.” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 11: 1–28. [URL]
Günthner, Susanne, Wolfgang Imo, and Jörg Bücker
(eds.) 2014 Grammar and Dialogism. Sequential, Syntactic, and Prosodic Patterns between Emergence and Sedimentation. Berlin/Philadelphia: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanks, William F.
1996 Language and Communicative Practices. Boulder: Routledge.Google Scholar
2007 “Person Reference in Yucatec Maya Conversation.” In Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed. by Nick. N. J. Enfield, and Tanya Stivers, 149–171. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, Christian
1989 “Embarrassment and Interactional Organization.” In Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, ed. by Paul Drew, and Anthony Wootton, 136–160. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Heritage, John
2004 “Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk: Analysing Data.” In Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, ed. by David Silverman, 222–245. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
2006 “Revisiting Authority in Physician-Patient Interactions.” In Diagnosis as Cultural Practice, ed. by Madeline Maxwell, Dana Kovarsky, and Judith F. Duchan, 83–102. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2012 “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45: 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013a “Action Formation and its Epistemic (and Other) Backgrounds.” Discourse Studies 15, 5: 551–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013b “Epistemics in Conversation.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 370–394. Chichester/Blackwell: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Heritage, John, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
1994 “Constituting and Maintaining Activities Across Sequences: And-Prefacing as a Feature of Question Design.” Language in Society 23, 1: 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul
2011 “Emergent Grammar and Temporality in Interactional Linguistics.” In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer, and Stefan Pfänder, 22–45. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul, and Sandra A. Thompson
2008 “Projectability and Clause Combining in Interaction.” In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, ed. by Ritva Laury, 99–124. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imo, Wolfgang
2011 “Cognitions are Not Observable – But Their Consequences Are: Mögliche Aposiopese-Konstruktionen in der gesprochenen Alltagssprache.” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 12: 265–300. [URL]
2012 “Wortart Diskursmarker?” In Nicht-flektierende Wortarten, ed. by Björn Rothstein, 48–88. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiesling, Scott F.
2022 “Stance and Stancetaking.” Annual Review of Linguistics 8: 409–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William, and David Fanshel
1977 Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Luckmann, Thomas
1990 “Social Communication, Dialogue and Conversation.” In The Dynamics of Dialogue, ed. by Ivana Marková, and Klaus Foppa, 45–61. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
2001 On the Methodology of (Oral) Genres. Plenary Talk at the Symposium on Genres. Oslo: University College.
2013 “The Communicative Construction of Reality and Sequential Analysis. A Personal Reminiscence.” Qualitative Sociology Review IX, 2: 40–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael
2009 Metalanguage in Interaction: Hebrew Discourse Markers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Måseide, Per
2006 “The Deep Play of Medicine: Discursive and Collaborative Processing of Evidence in Medical Problem Solving.” Communication & Medicine 3, 1: 43–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W.
2003 Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza
2011 “Conversation Analysis and Institutional Interaction.” [URL]. (Last Access: 15/01/2023).
Mulder, Jean, and Sandra A. Thompson
2008 “The Grammaticalization of But as a Final Particle in English Conversation.” In Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, ed. by Ritva Laury, 179–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona
2011 “Emergent Grammar for All Practical Purposes: The On-line Formatting of Left and Right Dislocations in French Conversation.” In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer, and Stefan Pfänder, 45–87. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peräkylä, Anssi
1998 “Authority and Intersubjectivity: The Delivery of Diagnosis in Primary Health Care.” Social Psychology Quarterly 61: 301–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 “Agency and Authority: Extended Responses to Diagnostic Statements in Primary Care Encounters.” In Research on Language and Social Interaction 35, 2: 219–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polak-Yitzhaki, Hilla
2020 “Emergent Patterns of Predicative Clauses in Spoken Hebrew Discourse: The Ha’emet (Hi) She- ‘The Truth (Is) That’ Construction.” In Emergent Syntax for Conversation – Clausal Patterns and the Organization of Action, ed. by Yael Maschler, Simona Pekarek Doehler, Leelo Keevallik, and Jan Lindström, 127–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
1980 “Telling my Side: ‘Limited Access’ as a ‘Fishing’ Device.” Sociological Inquiry 50: 186–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1984 “On Some Gestures’ Relation to Talk.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 266–298. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1996 “Turn-Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Gene H. Lerner
2009 “Beginning to Respond: Well-Prefaced Responses to Wh-Questions.” In Research on Language and Social Interaction 42, 2: 91–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel, and Harvey Sacks
1973 “Opening Up Closings.” In Semiotica 8: 289–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schulz, Christian, Martin W. Schnell, Mischa Möller, and Susanne Hirsmüller
(2014) “Kommunikation in der Palliativmedizin.” In Basiswissen Palliativmedizin, ed. by Martin W. Schnell, and Christian Schulz, 152–199. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret et al. [Peter Auer, Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Jörg Bergmann, Pia Bergmann, Karin Birkner, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, Arnulf Deppermann, Peter Gilles, Susanne Günthner, Marting Hartung, Friederike Kern, Christine Mertzlufft, Christian Meyer, Miriam Morek, Frank Oberzaucher, Jörg Peters, Uta Quasthoff, Wilfried Schütte, Anja Stukenbrock, and Susanne Uhmann
] 2009 “Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2).” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 10: 353–402. www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de.Google Scholar
Silverman, David
1994 “Describing Sexual Activities in HIV Counselling: The Cooperative Management of the Moral Order.” Text 14, 3: 427–453.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa, and Anssi Peäkylä
2012 “Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45, 3: 297–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya
2008 “Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation during Storytelling: When Nodding is a Token of Affiliation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41, 1: 31–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 “Treatment Decisions: Negotiations between Doctors and Parents in Acute Care Encounters.” In Communication in Medical Care, ed. by John Heritage, and Douglas W. Maynard, 279–311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stoltenburg, Benjamin
2009 “Was wir sagen, wenn wir es ‚ehrlich‘ sagen. Äußerungs-kommentierende Formeln bei Stellungsnahmen am Beispiel von ‚ehrlich gesagt‘.” In Grammatik im Gespräch. Konstruktionen der Selbst- und Fremdpositionierung, ed. by Susanne Günthner, and Jörg Bücker, 249–280. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2020 “English Why Don’t You X as a Formulaic Expression.” In Fixed Expressions: Building Language Structure and Social Action, ed. by Ritva Laury, and Tsuyoshi Ono, 99–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weidner, Beate, Katharina König, Wolfgang Imo, and Lars Wegner
(eds.) 2020 Verfestigungen in der Interaktion: Konstruktionen, sequenzielle Muster, kommunikative Gattungen. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wich-Reif, Claudia
2019 “ ‘Ehrlich gesagt’ und Verwandtes – Emotionen und Routineformeln.” Linguistisches Treffen in Wrocław 16: 191–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar