Interpersonal Conversation Analysis of Physician Identity Construction Based on Doctor-patient Corpus

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jmhs.202405106

Author(s)

Li Guo1, Nan Zhang2,*

Affiliation(s)

1Foreign Language School, Lin Yi University, Linyi, Shandong, China 2Malaya University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia *Corresponding Author.

Abstract

In recent years, the use of identity construction theory to study institutional conversation has become one of the research hotspots in the field of pragmatics. Based on the real doctor-patient conversation corpus, this study analyzes how doctors construct their identity in the special context of doctor-patient conversation from the perspective of interpersonal pragmatics. This article first summarizes the four main identities that doctors construct in conversation: expert, comforter, educator and equal partner. Then, based on the four identities constructed by doctors, it analyzes whether gender factors affect the construction of different individualized identities of doctors. This research will provide a reference for doctors to choose a suitable conversational identity. It is hoped that this research will help doctors and patients better understand each other’s communicative intentions and play a role in promoting the realization of a harmonious doctor-patient relationship.

Keywords

Identity Construction; Doctor-patient Conversation; Interpersonal Pragmatics; Conversation and Analysis

References

[1] Locher, M.А. Relational work and interpersonal pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 2013, (58): 138-151. [2] Culpeper, J. & M. Haugh. Pragmatics and the English Language. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. [3] Haugh, M. Respect and deference // Locher, M.A. & S.L. Graham. Interpersonal Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2010b.271-288. [4] Haugh, M. Im/politeness, social practice and participation order. Journal of Pragmatics, 2013, (58): 52-72. [5] Haugh, M. Kádár, Z. & S. Mills. Interpersonal pragmatics: Issues and debates. Journal of Pragmatics, 2013, (58): 1-11. [6] Brown, P. & S. Levinson. Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. [7] Li Chengtuan, Ran Yongping. Research on Identity Construction in Debate Conversation from the Perspective of Interpersonal Pragmatics. Foreign Languages, 2017, 40(6): 2-11. [8] O’ Driscoll, J. The role of language in interpersonal pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 2013, (58): 170-181. [9] Li, C.T. & Y. P. Ran. Self-professional identity construction via other-identity deconstruction in Chinese televised debating discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 2016, (94): 47-63. [10] De Fina, A., Schiffrin, D. & M. Bamberg. Introduction// De Fina, A. Schiffrin, D. & M. Bamberg. Discourse and Identity, Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: CUP, 2006.1-23. [11] Joseph, J. Identity work and facework across linguistic and cultural boundaries. Journal of Politeness Research, 2013, 9(1): 61-75. [12] Holmes, J. Workplace narratives, professional identity, and relational practices// De Fina, A., Schiffrin, D. & M. Bamberg. Discourse and Identity. Cambridge: CUP, 2006. 166- 187. [13] Tajfel, H. & J.C. Turner. The social identity theory of inter -group behavior 11 Worchel, S. & L. W. Austin. Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1986.65-80. [14] Guo Li, Li Chengtuan. Corpus-based analysis of discourse characteristics in doctor-patient communication. Electronic Teaching of Foreign Languages, 2018(183).76-87. [15] Wang, Y., & Li, J. (2003). An analysis of discourse paern and rhetorical strategy of comforting acts. Contemporary Rhetoric, 3, 48-49.