Cover not available
Part of
It's different with you: Contrastive perspectives on address research
Edited by Nicole Baumgarten and Roel Vismans
[Topics in Address Research 5] 2023
► pp. 171–196

Chapter 7
Don’t moan, it won’t make you feel better, granny! – Addressing older patients

A comparative study of German and Bosnian

| University of Sarajevo
The focus of research in this comparative study lies on nominal address practices between doctors and older patients in German and Bosnian medical encounters. In this study we consider and compare the forms of address as well as identify their pragmatic differences by contrasting the Bosnian and German data. My research draws on interactional data consisting of 15 recorded conversations between Bosnian and German doctors and their elderly patients (65 and older). The data were examined and compared by using Conversation Analysis and Ethnographic Discourse Analysis. Our overall analysis shows a variety of differences between the data sets. The German data are marked by the exclusive use of the formal V form and the nominal form “Mrs./Mr. + surname” to address male and female patients. The Bosnian data are characterised by an overall high use of the kinship term “granny” to address the elderly female patients, as well as by a frequent use of the first name. Certain address practices of the doctors go beyond expressing politeness and/or friendliness, by contributing to face threatening actions such as criticism of the patients. The frequency and variety of such pragmatic routines differ and relate to socio-cultural norms of the institutional encounters in Bosnian and German society.
Keywords: address terms, German, Bosnian, conversation analysis, ethnographic discourse analysis, medical encounters, doctor-patient interaction
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Overview of the address systems in German and Bosnian
    • 2.1Pronominal address
    • 2.2Nominal address
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.Data
  • 5.Analysis
    • 5.1Addressing German patients
    • 5.2Addressing Bosnian patients
  • 6.Findings and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 6 September 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tar.5.07dza
References (68)
References
Atkinson, Paul & Christian Heath. 1981. Medical work: Realities and routine. Westmead, Farnborough, Hants: Gower.Google Scholar
Bakšić, Sabina. 2012. Strategije učtivosti u turskom jeziku [Politeness strategies in Turkish]. Sarajevo: Filozofski fakultet.Google Scholar
Beach, Wayne A., David W. Easter, Jeffrey S. Good & Elisa Pigeron. 2005. Disclosing and responding to cancer ‘fears’ during oncology interviews. Social Science & Medicine 60. 893–910. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berger, Tilman. 1998. Äußere Einflüsse und interne Faktoren bei der Herausbildung der slavischen Anredesysteme [External influences and internal factors in the development of the Slavic adddress systems]. Die Welt der Slaven 43. 307–322.Google Scholar
Besch, Werner. 1998. Duzen, Siezen, Titulieren: Zur Anrede im Deutschen heute und gestern [Informal, formal, and title address: Address forms in German in the present and the past]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Betsch, Michael. 2007. Anredeformen in den slavischen Sprachen [Forms of address in the Slavic languages]. In Bernhard Brehmer, Vladislava Ždanova, & Rafal Zimny (eds.), Beiträge der Europäischen Slavistischen Linguistik 10, 11–12, Munich: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Betsch, Michael & Tilman Berger. 2009. 76. Anredesysteme [Address systems]. In Sebastian Kempgen, Peter Kosta, Tilman Berger & Karl Gutschmidt (eds.), Die Slavischen Sprachen – The Slavic languages. Ein internationales Handbuch zu ihrer Struktur, ihrer Geschichte und ihrer Erforschung. An international handbook of their history, their structure and their investigation, 1019–1028. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Braun, Friederike. 1988. Terms of address: Problems of patterns and usage in various languages and cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Roger & Albert Gilman. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in language, 253–276. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger & Marguerite Ford. 1961. Address in American English. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62. 375–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brünner, Gisela & Elisabeth Gülich. 2002. Verfahren der Veranschaulichung in der Experten-Laien-Kommunikation [Methods of explanations in experts-laypeople communication]. In Gisela Brünner & Elisabeth Gülich (eds.), Krankheit verstehen. Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zur Sprache in Krankheitsdarstellungen, 17–94. Bielefeld: Aisthesis-Verlag.Google Scholar
Byrne, Patrick S. & Barrie E. L. Long. 1976. Doctors talking to patients: A study of the verbal behaviour of general practitioners consulting in their surgeries, London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Christensen, Kaare, Gabriele Doblhammer, Roland Rau & James W. Vaupel. 2009. Ageing populations: the challenges ahead. The Lancet 374(9696). 1196–1208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. 2010. Address terms in the service of other actions.: The case of news interview discourse. Discourse and Communication 4. 161–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Address terms in the organization of turns at talk: The case of pivotal turn extensions. Journal of Pragmatics 4. 1853–1867. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clyne, Michael, Catrin Norrby & Jane Warren. 2009. Language and human relations. Address in contemporary language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2000. Ethnographische Gesprächsanalyse: Zu Nutzen und Notwendigkeit von Ethnographie für die Konverstaionsanalyse [Ethnographic discourse analysis: On the use and necessity of ethnography for conversation analysis]. Gesprächsforschung-Online Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 1. 96–124.Google Scholar
De Stefani, Elwys. 2016. Names and discourse. In Carole Hough (ed.), The Oxford handbook of names and meaning, 52–66. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul & John Heritage. 1992. Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (eds.), Talk at work. Interaction in institutional settings, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Džanko, Minka. 2020. Rollengebundene Asymmetrie in Arzt-Patient-Gesprächen. Ein Vergleich im Deutschen und Bosnischen [A role-bound asymmetry in doctor-patient conversations. A comparison in German and Bosnian]. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar
Elias, Norbert. 2005. Studien über die Deutschen. Machtkämpfe und Habitusentwicklung im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Gesammelte Schriften [Studies on the Germans. Power struggles and habitus development in the 19th and 20th centuries. Collected Writings]. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nicholas J. 2012. Reference in conversation. In John Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, 433–54. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, Susan. 1972. Sociolinguistic rules of address. In John B. Pride & Janet Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics, 225–240. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Fierbinţeanu, Hermine. 2010. Einige Höflichkeitsdistinktionen bei Personalpronomina des Deutschen und Rumänischen [Some distinctions of politeness in personal pronouns in German and Romanian]. In Bettina Bock, Ioan Lăzărescu & Rosemarie Lühr (eds.) Wahrheit, Recht, Verantwortung. Normen- und Wertbegriffe im interkulturellen Kontext. GGR-Beiträge zur Germanistik 25, 153–172. Bucharest: Universităţii din Bucureşti.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Gill, Virginia T. & Felicia Roberts. 2013. Conversation analysis in medicine. In Tanya Stivers & John Sidnell (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, 575–92. Chichester, West Sussex, UK, Malden, MA, USA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Glück, Helmut & Kristine Koch. 1998. Du oder Sie. Anredekonventionen in Deutschland und in anderen Ländern [T or V. Address conventions in Germany and other countries]. Der Sprachspiegel 4. 1–9.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1955. On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry 18. 213–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne. 2016. Praktiken erhöhter Dialogizität: onymische Anredeformen als Gesten personifizierter Zuwendung [Practices of increased dialogism: onymic forms of address as gestures of personified attention]. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 44(3). 406–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Namentliche Anreden in onkologischen Aufklärungsgesprächen: eine interaktional ausgerichtete Studie zu Formen und Funktionen onymischer Anreden [Using a name to address a patient in oncological information talks: An interactionally oriented study on the forms and functions of onymic salutation]. Arbeitspapierreihe Sprache und Interaktion 3, [URL] (17 April, 2021).Google Scholar
Hajek, John, Heinz L. Kretzenbacher & Robert Lagerberg. 2013. Towards a linguistic typology of address pronouns in Europe – past and present. In Henderson, J, M-E. Ritz and C. Rodríguez Louro (eds.), Proceedings of the 2012 conference of the Australian Linguistic Society (Perth, 5–7 December 2012) [URL]
Hentschel, Elke. 2012. All men become brothers – The use of kinship terms for non-related persons as a sign of respect or disrespect. Linguistik Online 51. 29–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John & Douglas W. Maynard. 2006. Introduction: Analyzing primary care encounters. In John Heritage & Douglas Maynard (eds.), Communication in medical care: Interactions between primary care physicians and patients, 1–21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 2003. The German address system: Binary and scalar at once. In Irma Taavitsainen & Andreas H. Jucker (eds.), Diachronic perspectives on address term systems, 401–425. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, Ian & Robin Wooffitt. 2008. Conversation analysis. 22nd ed. Cambridge: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kocher, Margaret. 1967. Second person pronouns in Serbo-Croatian. Language 43(3) 725–741. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kretzenbacher, Heinz L. 2010. „Man ordnet ja bestimmte Leute irgendwo ein für sich …“: Anrede und soziale Deixis [One classifies certain people somewhere for themselves…”: Form of address and social deixis]. Deutsche Sprache. Zeitschrift für Theorie, Praxis, Dokumentation 38(1) 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Perceptions of national and regional standards of addressing in Germany and Austria. Pragmatics 21. 69–83.Google Scholar
Kretzenbacher, Heinz L., Michael Clyne & Doris Schüpbach. 2006. Pronominal address in German: Rules, anarchy and embarrassment potential. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 29(2) 17.1–17.18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 2003. Selecting next speaker: The context sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society 32. 177–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinger, Jasna. 1989. Dihotomija u oslovljavanju: Upotreba zamjenica Vi i Ti u sarajevskom region [Dichotomy in addressing: Use of the pronouns V and T in the Sarajevo region]. Knjizevni jezik 18(4) 187–206.Google Scholar
Mishler, Elliot G. 1984. The Discourse of medicine: Dialectics of medical interviews. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Google Scholar
Neises, Mechthild, Susanne Ditz & Thomas Spranz-Fogasy (eds.). 2005. Psychosomatische Gesprächsführung in der Frauenheilkunde. Ein interdisziplinärer Ansatz zur verbalen Intervention [Psychosomatic interviewing in gynecology. An interdisciplinary approach to verbal intervention]. Stuttgart: Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Norrby, Catrin, Camilla Wide, Jan Lindström & Jenny Nilsson. 2015. Interpersonal relationships in medical consultations. Comparing Sweden Swedish and Finland Swedish address practices. Journal of Pragmatics 84. 121–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peck, B. Mitchell. 2011. Age-related differences in doctor-patient interaction and patient satisfaction. Current gerontology and geriatrics research, DOI logo (17 April, 2021).Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1986. Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies 9. 219–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita & John Heritage. 2013. Preference. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.) The handbook of conversation analysis, 210–228. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rathmayr, Renate. 1992. Nominale Anrede im gesprochenen Russischen, Serbokroatischen und Tschechischen [Nominal address in spoken Russian, Serbo-Croatian and Czech]. In Tilmann Reuther (ed.), Slavistische Linguistik, 265–309. München: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Rendle-Short, Johanna. 2007. “Catherine, you’re wasting your time”: Address terms within the Australian political interview. Journal of Pragmatics 39. 1503–1525. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. ‘Mate’ as a term of address in ordinary interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 42. 1201–1218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Rules of conversational sequence. In Harvey Sacks (ed.), Lectures on Conversation Vol. 1, 3–11. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Scheglof & Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language. 696–735.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1968. Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist 70. 1075–1095. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlund, Katrin 2014. Aspects of linguistic politeness in Serbian. A data-based comparison with German. Linguistik Online 69.7. 69–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwitalla, Johannes. 2010. Kommunikative Funktionen von Sprecher- und Adressatennamen in Gesprächen [Communicative functions of speaker and addressee names in conversations]. In Nicolas Pepin & Elwys de Stefani (eds.), Eigennamen in der gesprochenen Sprache, 179–199. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret. 2000. The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society 29(4). 477–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret, Peter Auer, Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Jörg Bergmann, Pia Bergmann, Karin Birkner. 2009. Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2) [A transcription system for conversation analysis 2 (GAT 2)]. Gesprächsforschung – Onlinezeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 10. 353–402.Google Scholar
Simon, Horst J. 2003. Für eine grammatische Kategorie „Respekt“ im Deutschen. Synchronie, Diachronie und Typologie der deutschen Anredepronomina [To a grammatical category "respect" in German. Synchrony, diachrony and typology of the German address pronouns]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, Anssi Peräkylä & Kari Eskola. 2001. Keskustelu lääkärin vastaanotolla [Conversation in doctor’s encounters]. Tampere: Vastapaino.Google Scholar
Spranz-Fogasy, Thomas. 1987. Alternativen der Gesprächseröffnung im ärztlichen Gespräch [Alternatives to start a conversation in medical interaction]. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 3. 293–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Kommunikatives Handeln in ärztlichen Gesprächen [A communicative action in medical interaction]. In Mechthild Neises, Susanne Ditz & Thomas Spranz-Fogasy (eds.), Psychosomatische Gesprächsführung in der Frauenheilkunde. Ein interdisziplinärer Ansatz zur verbalen Intervention, 17–47. Stuttgart: Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
. 2010. Verstehensdokumentation in der medizinischen Kommunikation: Fragen und Antworten im Arzt-Patient-Gespräch [Documentation of understanding in medical communication: Questions and answers in doctor-patient interaction]. In Arnulf Deppermann, Ulrich Reitemeier, Reinhold Schmitt & Thomas Spranz-Fogasy (eds.), Verstehen in professionellen Handlungsfeldern, 27–116. Tübingen: Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
. 2014. Die allmähliche Verfertigung der Diagnose im Reden. Prädiagnostische Mitteilungen im Gespräch zwischen Arzt und Patient [The gradual establishment of the diagnosis in talk. Pre-diagnostic statements in the conversation between doctor and patient]. Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya & Jeffrey D. Robinson. 2006. A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society 35. 367–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Enfield Nicholas J. & Stephen Levinson. 2007. Person reference in interaction. In Nicholas J. Enfield & Tanya Stivers (eds.), Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural, and social Perspectives, 1–21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, Sonja. 2012. Position matters?! Nominal address in Serbian staged interaction. Beiträge der Europäischen Slavistischen Linguistik (POLYSLAV) 15. 265–271.Google Scholar
World Health Organization. 2012. Good health adds life to years: Global brief for World Health Day. Ageing and life- course, [URL] (17 April, 2021).Google Scholar